Tim Price's article on Golf 2.0 shows the failure built into the plan. Cost of rounds in $$ and time are huge factors - especially for people who see golf as recreational entertainment more than active sport. Price's analysis has the usual good points and a few different ones. But like most others I have read, no one mentions the evolution of golf to riding entertainment as a cause of the LOSS of participants.

1. Increased cost: It is hard to find a course that does not "include" the cart in the green fee, so many who walk are automatically paying a penalty. And carts may add income by increasing the "total fee," but I'd like to see the real cost of carts on maintenance and design of courses.

2. Increased populations of non-golfers: Carts bring more people in, but they eventually drive away from the sport. My guess is the "drop-out" rate for riders is much higher than for walkers. Lots of people came into the game to ride and swing and live the "golf life-style" but never became golfers, so they quit when they realized golf was harder than they thought - and golf made them more tired than they thought. How many courses in residential developments are in financial trouble because people started and quit? Golf 2.0 ad campaigns will not make them golfers. You can love a sport, but you can't stay committed to entertainment. A business model built on selling the idea of golf will not build a sport base that comes back.  Developments are sold for lots beside the course to people who want to watch the view more than play the course.

3. Increased length of rounds: Courses are much longer than they used to be - because they are built to sell houses, and it takes a while to get from green to the next tee (in San Antonio where I live more than 1/4 mile on some holes). More land - more maintenance - more expense - more fees. And more time: USGA stats are showing that riding slows the pace of play in real-life surveys.

The cart is out of the barn, and clubs and developments are too invested in the entertainment business model to return to the model of land-efficient golf course that is lower cost and lower impact when golf is sport. Regardless, $60 and 6 hours house-and-back every week is not a formula for anyone who works for a living. $25 and 5 hours really is a big difference to many golfers who love the sport. They will come back, and pace of play will improve when the entertainment crowd sits in front of the big screen TV with their beer instead of stopping the cute cart-girl every 4 holes.