Notre Dame – tons of history in football and a decent basketball reputation. High dollar impact from TV contract possibly. Football has been down recently, but with new coach could sky rocket. Has flirted with the Big Ten for decades on membership.

Pitt – great football history and long storied basketball program. Similar to Notre Dame with current football situation but further along in rebuilding. Basketball has been steady but underachieving on the national level, but a solid Big East contender for years. Also have a strong history in other sports programs. Was rumored as a possible team to replace Chicago when they left.

Rutgers – football has had a recent rise in the weak Big East, but many doubt it would maintain that in the Big Ten. Basketball is a joke. Thought of Rutgers in the Big 10 makes me cringe.

West Virginia – Recent run of solid football, but against the weak Big East. But not the same level of doubt that surrounds Rutgers. Basketball is more than adequate with recent resurgence and has some history as well.

Iowa State – Football is mediocre at best. Basketball has had spotty success. Off of the field might be the best fit for the conference. On the field, would just be a consolation prize.

Nebraska – Unquestioned football tradition. Back on the rise with new coach, Bo Pelini. Could be on the verge of being a yearly national contender. Basketball is weak at best. Decent baseball program that is probably only behind Texas in this group.

Missouri – Very much like West Virginia in this group. Solid football and basketball with some history. Not a bad fit, but probably not the best.

Texas – Texas is clearly the class of this field. They have a national power in football, basketball and several other sports. Loads of tradition in football especially. Probably the best choice if they could do it.

Based on this I say that Iowa State and Rutgers have to go. If I had to rate the rest at this point I would say this is the order.

1. Texas (perhaps the longest of long shots though)
2. Nebraska by a slight margin because of national football power only
3. Pittsburgh
4. Missouri
5. West Virginia
6. Notre Dame (but this is the Big Ten’s ultimate prize)

Big East
Notre Dame (Independent in football)
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Rutgers
West Virginia

SEC
Kentucky

Big 12
Kansas
Iowa State
Nebraska
Missouri
Texas

The only two schools that fall into the public ivy category are Rutgers and Texas. Ironically, these are the two that are the farthest from the center of the conference geographically. Pittsburgh has also been occasionally mentioned at this same level of academic standing, so we can probably lump them in this group for now.

Four of the schools are also land grant institutions; Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa State, and Kentucky.

The three with private affiliations are Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh became publicly affiliated in 1966 but prior to that it was a private institution.

One of the things that the Big Ten publics have is that all of them are part of a system of universities throughout their state. All of the public schools on this list meet that criteria. When you factor in all of these qualifications with the AAU item from the first essay the following schools have the most similarities to the current Big Ten model:

Rutgers – AAU, Public Ivy, system school
Texas – AAU, Public Ivy, system school
Iowa State – AAU, system school, land grant
Nebraska – AAU, system school, land grant
Missouri – AAU, system school, land grant
Pittsburgh – AAU, Public Ivy

After that we are just reaching. So we need to look at the others and see which ones realistically are going to be interested in leaving their current situation and coming to the Big Ten. Otherwise they are a waste of our time.

Notre Dame is the golden ticket according to the upper people at the Big Ten. If they can get them, they will. So they stay on the list.

Syracuse is a private institution and doesn’t fit the model at all. Plus when other schools left the Big East recently they publicly vilified the “offenders” and even sued them. I don’t think they are leaving the Big East, but it wouldn’t be the first time that dollars trumped loyalty in athletics. I’m going to take them off the list.

Kansas and Kentucky are very similar. Basketball schools in football conferences. They get a boatload of cash from their conference for the exploits of other teams and then dominate a very thin conference on the hardwood. Presumably they would get fairly equal dollars from football in the Big Ten, but their basketball teams would not be nearly as dominant and have much greater competition. Doesn’t sound like a great idea to me either. They’re both gone.

West Virginia is a wildcard in my mind. I could easily see them leaving the Big East because they just don’t have the ties to the conference that a lot of the other schools have. It was rumored they might leave for the ACC a few years back. But if they leave surely their football team would not have nearly the success, but they would have a larger dollar pool to draw from with the Big Ten. I could see it either way with them, so they stay for now.

Then there were 8.

The Big Ten Conference made big news for something that occurred off of the field of play recently. They announced that they would be looking to expand once again from their current eleven members to twelve. Immediately the question that comes to mind is who will be the new member?

What I am going to do is go through a series of essays to look at the possible candidates and what they bring to the table for membership into the Big Ten and see if we can come up with a real answer for them. Though we don’t really know what schools the conference is looking at we can probably compile a pretty good list of schools based on prior flirtations and what schools are in the same geographic area. I will break them down based on what conference the schools are currently affiliated with.

Big East
Notre Dame (Independent in football)
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Rutgers
Cincinnati
Louisville
West Virginia

SEC
Kentucky

Big 12
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Nebraska
Missouri
Texas

Others
Memphis
A MAC School

Several of these schools have been rumored or confirmed as having interest in joining the Big Ten in the past. The list may actually be smaller or even larger. There may also be some on here that catch your eye and make you say, “No way!” Well, we will explore all of these in some fashion. But let’s see if we can thin the herd a little first.

The Big Ten is going to want someone that has already shown some level of aptitude at the top level of athletic competition. I believe that will automatically eliminate any school from the MAC. I have seen some float out the idea that the Big Ten could pick a school and groom it into competition, but I think that would be a waste of their time and would not be seen as a legitimate move on their part.

Memphis, I think, can also be eliminated. The school is actively trying to get into a big six conference. But the Big Ten is not the place. Their football program is abysmal and aside from basketball how would they compete with the Big Ten. Also they are under a lot of heat right now with the NCAA for the Calipari years. I doubt the Big Ten wants to bring that into the league. Another factor against Memphis is that it is not located in a state that currently has a Big Ten team or in an adjoining state.

You may look at that last comment and notice that Texas is on the list. Last time I checked Texas was not located anywhere near a state with a Big Ten team. But bear with me on this. Texas was very open about pursuing an affiliation with the Big Ten or the Pac Ten when the Southwest Conference broke up. They were persuaded to join into the Big 12 though. But that may be something to look at. And if the Big Ten were to get them, that would be a wake up call to the rest of college athletics. If nothing else for the WOW factor, let’s leave them on the list.

The next area to look at is the academic arena. You and I both know that athletics is behind this and nothing else, but there are certain things the Big Ten seems to at least pay lip service to, one of which is that their members are part of the American Association of Universities. The AAU is a group of universities that are large research centers. All of the current members are part of this organization. And other than Notre Dame I don’t think there is anyway a school gets into the Big Ten without being a part of this organization. With that being said, we can now tell Cincinnati, Louisville and Kansas State good bye. As with the previous round there is an exception here as well. I think we should keep West Virginia on the list because they are a well-thought of research university that isn’t a part of the AAU. Also, Kentucky is not part of the AAU, but something tells me that if the Big Ten could swipe away a school from the rival SEC, they would love nothing better. So those two stay on the list for now and we are left with 11 possible options. In our next post we will look at the university structures themselves and see which ones fit with the current Big Ten model.

I think I might have to start arranging more of these signings in the future at small town book stores. It can be more focused on my product. That was the one thing about the Historical Society event last week that I didn’t care for, it didn’t give the lesser known authors a chance to show off their product.

So kudos the Wild and to Miss Jane. If you ever need a children’s book this is the place to go, but they also do a great job of promoting local talent.  Or visit their website at www.gotothewild.com.

Next week I’ll do another course review.

Because most people have never heard of the place here is a little background. The course was designed by Alister Mackenzie and Perry Maxwell. The duo met there in 1928 and laid out the front nine and Maxwell began construction. Over the next three years Maxwell would live in Frankfort for six months at a time and eventually get the course done, including the back nine.

The front nine holes run over a rumpled piece of ground with the pro shop and clubhouse sitting on elevated locations that allow views of the entire side of the course. From the first tee, Crystal Lake is visible to the south and on a clear day, Lake Michigan can be seen in the distance over the tree tops. From the elevated first tee all of the front nine is in view. Below is what I consider the best opening hole I have ever played. The terrain runs from left to right and rolls to a valley below. The green is a mid-iron away and runs steeply from back to with three distinct levels to the putting surface. A challenge on the opening hole is harder to come by while also being representative of the course that follows.

The best known stretch of holes at Crystal runs from the fifth through the eighth. Some consider each hole world class. The fifth features a wide driving area on a dogleg hole with the challenge deriving from the amount of courage the player has on the tee. The further left one goes, the farther they must hit it off the tee and deal with the Three Sisters, a trio of bunkers on the left side of the hole. The green is perhaps the one aspect that was the most difficult to deal with on that blustery day as the pin was on the high left side and nothing would stay on that part of the green. The sixth is another narrow dogleg with the famous Scabs bunker protecting the fairway. Again, almost unplayable in the gale we faced. But the green was a Maxwell masterpiece as it featured the large putting surface on the course and two large humps within the edges of the green. One of the five best greens I have ever seen. The seventh is a drive and pitch to a green from a plateau, but the unique part of the hole is famous Boomerang shaped green. This stretch is capped by the par five that many consider one of Mackenzie’s finest. The holes goes up and down along edges of hills and provides very little hope a level lie. The small green is among the most steeply sloped on the course. If one can get through this stretch without pulling their hair out, you are better than I.

The back nine then runs mostly along the Lake Michigan lakeshore. Hole thirteen was a personal favorite. It is perhaps the toughest hole on the course. The green features a section that runs off to the right. The entire hole runs from left to right off of a ridge with the green ultimately set into an amphitheater. This was my favorite hole on the course. The fourteenth is the shortest par three and has the Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes in the distance. It is a very gorgeous little hole and tests the short iron play of anyone. Accuracy and distance are both at a premium. Anything less than good leaves an impossible up and down.

After two flattish holes, another striking hole is presented. The seventeenth is the most controversial hole on the course. At only 300 yards, you can play anything off the tee, but the best bet is to try and clear the depression below or you will be left with a difficult at best uphill approach. Beyond the green is a great view but death as the drop-off is dramatic. The final hole doglegs around a group of birch trees with some beautiful bunkering leading up to the green.

I could sit here and write about every hole in great detail, but even on a course like Crystal Downs that would be come tedious. The raw beauty of the course, along with the wonderful routing and excellent greens make this easily among the top two courses I have ever played. Whenever anyone asks me to name my favorite Maxwell courses this is at the top of the list followed closely by Prairie Dunes.

My placement was near a local celebrity. There were a lot of times that his crowd was blocking some of the other authors at the table. At first I thought it would be a great advantage to be near him, but it turned out to be the opposite. And no offense to the author, but why do so many people want to read stories about a dog???

Anyway, I hope to get back on track this week with the blog with a fine course review of one of the best courses I have ever seen.

1) Golf has given me the chance to hang out with my dad much more than I would otherwise.

2) It has led to a fulfilling writing career.

3) It has opened my life to many people that I would otherwise not have met.

4) I have developed a great friendship with the Maxwell family and the people at Dornick Hills.

5) I have seen some wonderful golf courses like Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes and Southern Hills.

6) The opportunity to learn about the history of the great game.

7) It is just so fun.

8) The opportunity to see something different every time you play somewhere new.

9) It is something I can do just as well when I’m old as I can now.

10) That 76 I shot one day at Sahm Park.

Published by Sleeping Bear Press, 1999

It has been 10 years since the publication of this beautiful book by Shackelford. Shackelford sets the tone for his work in the first sentence by saying, “At some point in their life every adult longs for the good old days.” Obviously Geoff does as well. His focus of this book is golf course architecture from 1911 through 1937. Personally, I think his end date might have been a little short as he probably could have extended it to 1941 and the entry of the Untied States into World War II. But that is just nit picking.

The basic premise of the book is to spotlight the dominant individuals and courses from this era of golf course design in America. To do this he has split the entries in the book into distinct “schools”. A “school” would be a group of designers or courses that share various traits and is distinctive from the other schools presented.

The major categories are the National School, the Philadelphia School, The Ross School, the MacKenzie School, the Monterey School, and a catch all of others in the other school section. But what happened prior to 1910 is not forgotten. Shackelford also tries to pay homage to those that were prominent prior to this day and identifies them as the Early Influences. I would have loved to have seen a section devoted to the “Heathland School” that formalized the profession of golf architect and some of those early courses from that era.

The structure of the book is easy enough to follow and the sheer abundance of vintage photos and course drawings are brilliantly showcased. Some of the aerial photos of the original course layouts of Pine Valley and other courses could be a book unto themselves. The information that Shackelford does provide is gorgeously presented and is still an example of how well produced book can look. Mike Miller’s stunning paintings that are showcased on the cover and throughout the book also fit in perfectly with the motif. The one thing about what existed in the book that I would complain about would be the background used on the bio pages. It was distracting when a plain sepia background would have more than sufficed.

But there are some things that I have found that I wish would have been done differently with this book. The first thing I am not sure about is why the Monterey and MacKenzie schools were listed separately. I can understand highlighting the importance of MacKenzie, but one course is all the Monterey school really has going for it and even the Good Doctor worked on Pebble Beach.

The next thing I would like to point out is that I am grateful for Donald Ross, or no one would think that golf courses were created anywhere except the upper East Coast or California. If Shackelford intended this to be an almost all encompassing catalogue of the era then he falls short in that regard. Yes, a large number of excellent courses were built in these areas of the country by CB Macdonald, AW Tillinghast, William Flynn, Seth Raynor and MacKenzie, but they were not the only ones that were doing this during the era of the Golden Age. This is my primary beef with the book in total. It seems that Shackelford was obviously playing favorites as he devotes 17 of the 204 pages to George Thomas, a man with less than 20 designs to his credit (Shackelford also wrote a biography on Thomas). I have no problem with that much space being devoted to the man, but I would think it would be in proportion to his impact on the era. By comparison, three men are listed in the other school section (William Langford, Stanley Thompson and Perry Maxwell) that have much larger portfolios and were just as influential, if not more so, but have a scant 8 pages between them all.

Perhaps the greatest error was not including anything at all about the “Chicago School” that built so many courses in the Chicago area and much of the Midwest. If anything it may be just as influential today as many of the people practicing in the business still use some of the same concepts and design ideas today in their courses around the country and trace their design roots back to individuals like Langford and Charles Maddox.

Overall, the book is well worth the money just to see the photos of the courses from their beginnings. At first blush it appears to be a complete tome to the topic. I would recommend the book to anyone, but after further review I just wish it was a little bit more. After doing this review it has prompted me to consider doing a blog about each of the “schools” presented in the book. Hmmm…

The course at Salt Creek is part of a small golf resort.  The area features some of the most beautiful pieces of the Hoosier National Forest.  On site are some condo-style quarters that can be rented for your stay.  A restaurant and bar on site help complete the package.  Nashville is also centrally located between Columbus and Bloomington, both with some attractions that may draw the attention of the traveler.

Salt Creek Golf Course is an interesting little place to play.  Though not long from the tips it does have its moments.  The front nine is fairly flat with some trees that seem to crowd the holes a little.  There are a couple of interesting holes, with the best on this side being the fourth.  The hole is a dogleg from right to left around a small pond.   The longer player can attempt to carry the corner and have a better angle into the green.  But even if the player lays back they will have a short iron approach at the target.

After the turn the course becomes much more interesting.  I would even say that the stretch of holes 10 through 16 might be some of the most fun I’ve had in a while on a course.  The only problem is that the holes are all pretty short par fours, with the exception of the 12th.  The 10th runs along the backside of the bungalows and uphill.  The semi-blind drive clears the hill and runs back down hill and to the right, the perfect hole for my faded drive.  The approach is a lob wedge down to the green unless you run through the fairway and have an awkward lie.

The 11th has a drive over a deep ravine to another elevated fairway and an approach to a green guarded short by a small water hazard.  The par three 12th is a nice par three with an excellent green that is also the largest on the course.  A faded mid to short iron will be the best friend of the golfer on this hole.  It will take the slope of the green and also, if hit the right distance, avoid the bunker protecting the front right portion of the green.

Holes 14 through 16 are also exquisite.  The 14th hole tilts from right to left and almost every drive is going to run to the left side of the landing zone.  The trick is trying to stay to the right because coming into the green from the left is treacherous.  And anything that runs through the green has a steep falloff behind.  The 15th has a gorgeous downhill tee shot to a tight fairway with sand on one side and water on the other.   I errored to the right and made and excellent shot from the bunker that sneaked through the narrow green entrance and saved my par.  The sixteenth then runs back up the hill to an elevated green that runs slightly from right to left with the hill that it is benched into.

The final two holes are on the same piece of property as the front nine and feature the same characteristics.  Quite a disappointing finish after the sporty set of short par fours on the back side.  I think that Salt Creek might have one of the best collections of short par fours I have seen in Indiana.  Unfortunately there wasn’t much more to the course.

The conditioning of the course was perhaps a little too wet for my taste, but I did play after three straight days of rain.  So they get the benefit of the doubt on that.  The greens were fairly straightforward with only a little bit more than subtle contouring being shown during the good stretch of holes on the back.  I would probably rate it similar to Old Capital in Corydon and Stony Creek in Noblesville as they seem to have very similar layouts and styles of holes.

If I was in the area, I might play Salt Creek again as it isn’t a terrible course and not a bad value, especially if you can get a discount of some sort.  But when stuck between Columbus and Bloomington it should be better.  With courses like Otter Creek, which is much better but more expensive, Indiana University and Timbergate within in easy driving distance it needs to become more competitive.

When many people look at the course from a presentation perspective they often look for a course that is green from wall to wall. This is often referred to as the Augusta Syndrome due to the insistence by the members to have their course “look” like the home of the Masters each day of the year. I often just look to make sure they are no unsightly areas in the range of play that look like they are not being maintained suitably to be played. That means that the fairway can be slightly brown at times and that the rough need not be green all over the course. Having a course look like Augusta all year round is expensive and may not be the healthiest thing for the course.

I often get weird looks from people when I talk about how a course plays. I don’t expect all courses to play the same way, but I do expect the maintenance to allow the design aspects of the course to shine through. A prime example is the notion that greens should be extremely fast but still receptive to every shot, just like the pros see on the weekend. Once again this is not the best thing for a course, but it also hides the best elements of the course. Another example is a bunker that guards the shorter route from the on a dogleg hole. If beyond the bunker is one foot of rough instead of fairway then there is no advantage to playing towards the hazard. There is no thrill to the game if there is no reward for taking on the risk. One course in the state designed by Pete Dye refuses to understand that they are not a US Open course, but they continue soak the course in water so that drives don’t roll in the fairway and balls stop on the green from any approach. Oh, and don’t forget the foot of rough directly off the narrow fairways. However if they applied a saner maintenance meld to the course they could highlight some of the stellar design that exists on the course but is currently being choked out by the green grass present.

The last thing I look at is how the course is marked. Are water hazards marked correctly? Is there out of bounds and is it in appropriate areas? Is ground under repair marked correctly? And if there are yardage markers, are they accurate? All of these things lead into the playability of the course so that a player can play and apply the rules of golf correctly.

After reviewing the routing, the holes and the maintenance of the facility I look at the other areas. Truthfully this accounts for about 5% of my total rating but it does make a difference. I often look at the practice facilities. Do they have a short game area or just a simple driving range? Another item I always look at is if the course is walkable and if they allow walking. If they do, are there parts of the course that are not easily walked? I enjoy a good walk, but if it puts the player in a possibly dangerous situation on the cart parths then the course should not allow this. I have only seen that occur once at a course that had such poorly maintained paths that it could have been easy for a walker to hurt themselves on the path.
Relating to playability again, I always look at the course for a “fun factor” and also if it is adequately difficult. There are courses that can be great fun, or sporty, but not be great. There are also several that are extremely difficult that are not fun in the least. The Trophy Club in Lebanon, Indiana is a prime example of a course that has an excellent balance. To me a walkable course with fun and challenge is about the perfect setup.

The last thing I look at is the experience the player can have at the course. Let’s face it, no matter where I play I don’t want to be treated like I am impinging on the time of the staff at the course. Even worse is when they let you know that is the case. I appreciate respect and good attitudes of the staff members. They don’t have to treat me like a king, but just being pleasant. Buck Point Golf Course in Liberty, Indiana actually is out of the way but the girls that were in the pro shop the day I played there were some of the most hospitable people I have ever encountered at a course. It goes a long way. Something else to factor into the experience of the golfer is what kind of value do they put on the round. Was it worth the money? If you can go on a great course for $100 or an equally great course for $25, which will you choose? More often than not, it will be the cheaper of the two. That is where value comes into play. Is it worth your money to come back to that course?

Well, that sums up my philosophy when I am evaluating a golf course. I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from in the future when you read a course write-up on my blog. I hope you enjoyed it and felt it presented some ideas you had not thought of before.