IU golf course

[Hoops Cat]

Hoops Cat

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of selling the land to IU Health and using the proceeds to build a brand new golf course somewhere else in town. That would in fact be a brilliant move -- as long as a new course were built. But I have my fears that it would get stopped by the tree huggers. I know a location a few miles West of there on 10th street toward Lake Lemon that would be perfect, and no more than 5 or 6 minutes from the current course.

I'm not one to condemn tree huggers; I consider myself one.

The reality is that, going forward, the environmental sustainability of a golf course is only going to become more important. Runoff of herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides into watersheds, water use restrictions (not really an issue in the midwest so much, at least yet, but in other parts of the country this is a huge deal), and other issues.

I love golf; been working in the industry for the better part of 25 years, but I recognize that there are challenges to using 150-200 acres for a leisure pursuit that only attracts 20-25,000 rounds per year.

 

[mikewoodson2]

What is Bloomington Country Club like? Would seem reasonable that IU could work out an arrangement for the golf teams to use their facilities to at least some extent if necessary.

The Country Club is a solid old-school course with very small, fast, sloping greens. Overton lived there for about 3-4 years when he first started on tour, and it was good enough for him to keep in tour shape. But it's a short course and is not challenging enough to be considered an adequate Big Ten course by any means.

 

[Daydreamer]

you're making a fool of yourself. (in every post you've made here).

not that it's that big a deal, but i'm the one who first brought up IU Health here.

and i've addressed your "politics" BS in previous posts.

there are always "anti golf" people everywhere.

there isn't a golf course in the country someone didn't fight, and have people still fighting.

as for Griffy, it hasn't been a water source for Btown for decades.

and yes, as i said before, you'll always have some environmentalists/tree hugger element that's opposed to every course ever built, and every housing addition ever built, and every other development ever done.

but you're beyond naive to think that's what this is about.

The politics mean everything and there are many parts of it, including the reaction of the faculty, the new IU Health campus, and environmental concerns. The golf course isn't going away because IU Health wants the land. IU Health is in the equation, but only a part of it.
Griffy is an official city water source but also a sensitive ecosystem, a protected natural area, and an extremely complex hot button topic at the moment. I've written academic papers on Griffy so I'm pretty sure I know more about it than you. It isn't about "tree huggers" and I never said it was. The golf course is by far the biggest single polluter to Griffy and any renovation plan would have to include mitigation that would push the cost well above what anyone would want to spend.
I realize that you think about everything from the standpoint of conspiracy and reducing this to "IU Health" fits your world view but it's a much more complex issue than you seem to understand.

 

[Daydreamer]

This is one of the whitest threads the AOTF has ever seen, and that's saying something.

Good to know that that's been my most significant contribution to the AOTF.

 

[twenty02]

Hoops knows about golf courses...a lot of this tread is just pure gibberish with people that don't know shit about golf courses.

Let's be clear...a REAL golf course renovation would handle any worries about runoff from the golf course. It's been done all over the world with water reengineering and retention. In a LOT more environmentally sensitive areas than this. A proper renovation would put less, not more, runoff into Griffy.

This is all about IU giving a fauk about golf or not. And not just for the golf team, but for all the 40k+ students, residents, and visitors.

IU has a world class piece of land, with playing corridors established.

Purdue did not 1, but 2, elite golf course.

If they can make 2 work, IU can make 1 work. And likely a lot better..because Bloomington is a hell of a lot better weekend golf getaway than W. Lafayette.

 

[mikewoodson2]

The politics mean everything and there are many parts of it, including the reaction of the faculty, the new IU Health campus, and environmental concerns. The golf course isn't going away because IU Health wants the land. IU Health is in the equation, but only a part of it.
Griffy is an official city water source but also a sensitive ecosystem, a protected natural area, and an extremely complex hot button topic at the moment. I've written academic papers on Griffy so I'm pretty sure I know more about it than you. It isn't about "tree huggers" and I never said it was. The golf course is by far the biggest single polluter to Griffy and any renovation plan would have to include mitigation that would push the cost well above what anyone would want to spend.
I realize that you think about everything from the standpoint of conspiracy and reducing this to "IU Health" fits your world view but it's a much more complex issue than you seem to understand.

In 1980 we bought a house right across from Griffey on Dunn Street. We still live here. My boys grew up on the lake and in the woods. These days I walk there every morning for an hour with my 2 dogs. I know a lot about Griffey. And you know what, there are too many friggin' deer. And they come across Dunn Street in packs of 7 or 8 to feed in our massive front yard because there are so many deer that there is not enough vegetation left for them in the woods. Last year, by my side-of-the road count, there were more than 50 deer struck and killed by cars on Dunn Street across from Griffey.

It's a SERIOUS problem in just a 1/2 mile stretch of road..

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The reason that the men's or women's teams don't play at home is because the IU course sucks. It's a dog in terms of B1G courses. I've been to the courses at Purdue, MSU, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa (to a lesser degree), that all blow the IU course out of the water. Not in the B1G, but Notre Dame also has a great golf course.

In terms of recruiting, having no quality home course for the golfers is a death knell for the golf program; kiss it goodbye. Others have said it, but why would any recruit come to IU for golf, when IU wouldn't have a course to play within an hour of campus? Having a place to practice is one thing, but I would even wager that the IU practice facility is nowhere near the quality of the ranges at Wisconsin, Purdue, or MSU. Those practice facilities are awesome - state of the art.

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that, assuming that the land the current course is sited on is desirable for a new hospital, then that land is worth a shit ton. I'm guessing its highest and best use isn't as a golf course; its on (I'm guessing again) some of the most valuable ground in Bloomington - 150-200 acres on 45 across from campus? With that, if IU sells the ground at market value for commercial land for a hospital, that land transfer would more than pay for a new golf course, including land purchase, in a less commercially-viable, and less environmentally-sensitive, location.

Of course, its also possible that the fix is in, and the land will be transferred from left hand to right hand, and all the time, the university will bemoan the fact that there was no money for a golf course, but it was ok to transfer the land to a profit-making enterprise like IU Health.

other schools' courses might be in better condition, but IU's base layout is up there with any of them, and better than most.

i get it, you like new courses, the Pete Dye formula, not old school wooded hilly courses.

i feel just the opposite.

that said, a zillion courses like you like have been built in the last 30 yrs, and imo they all look just alike, as they all were cut from the same template.

and more go up with every new housing development.

and it's not just Dye, every current golf architect has now figured out that formula.

no one is building them like IU, or Augusta, or other old school courses that have trees and hills as an integral element, and don't rely on just water, sand, and building in undulation, to compensate for the wooded element they generally lack.


as for money, if you put half, heck, a third, the money into the current course that it would take to build even a half decent new course, IU would have an elite level course that takes a back seat to no course in the conference or the state.

and it would be on campus. something you seem to discount, but are totally incorrect to do so.

all that said, if you did nothing but give proper maintenance to the current course, you still have a great layout with greater potential, that's on campus.

if it's not on or adjacent to campus, it's not an IU course other than in name.

the IU course isn't only used by a few golf fanatics and the team.

that's hardly the case.

as for impact on the area, "The Cades" is not even in the same league as IU, not equipped to handle the overflow if IU were closed, (let alone from closing the champ and the par 3, as the par three got lots of play).

and the guys at The Pointe can point out that people don't want to drive a long way to play even a nice course.

any new course in the boonies would get much less play than IU now does, so you'd have a huge yearly revenue deficit to deal with.

all that said, all this is nothing but a diversion.

as i've stated from the start, this isn't about IU's current course, it's about the 10,000 pound gorilla that's going to take whatever it wants, and besides the range and the par 3, it wants enough of the land the champ course is on to close the course.

 

[twenty02]

other schools' courses might be in better condition, but IU's base layout is up there with any of them, and better than most.

i get it, you like new courses, the Pete Dye formula, not old school wooded hilly courses.

i feel just the opposite.

that said, a zillion courses like you like have been built in the last 30 yrs, and imo they all look just alike, as they all were cut from the same template.

and more go up with every new housing development.

and it's not just Dye, every current golf architect has now figured out that formula.

no one is building them like IU, or Augusta, or other old school courses that have trees and hills as an integral element, and don't rely on just water, sand, and building in undulation, to compensate for the wooded element they generally lack.


as for money, if you put half, heck, a third, the money into the current course that it would take to build even a half decent new course, IU would have an elite level course that takes a back seat to no course in the conference or the state.

and it would be on campus. something you seem to discount, but are totally incorrect to do so.

all that said, if you did nothing but give proper maintenance to the current course, you still have a great layout with greater potential, that's on campus.

if it's not on or adjacent to campus, it's not an IU course other than in name.

the IU course isn't only used by a few golf fanatics and the team.

that's hardly the case.

as for impact on the area, "The Cades" is not even in the same league as IU, not equipped to handle the overflow if IU were closed, (let alone from closing the champ and the par 3, as the par three got lots of play).

and the guys at The Pointe can point out that people don't want to drive a long way to play even a nice course.

any new course in the boonies would get much less play than IU now does, so you'd have a huge yearly revenue deficit to deal with.

all that said, all this is nothing but a diversion.

as i've stated from the start, this isn't about IU's current course, it's about the 10,000 pound gorilla that's going to take whatever it wants, and besides the range and the par 3, it wants enough of the land the champ course is on to close the course.

Your knowledge of golf course construction is on par with your knowledge of sentence/paragraph construction.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

i can't type or write worth a sht.

never claimed i could.

don't underestimate my knowledge of things golf, just because i don't agree with you on everything.

 

[twenty02]

i can't type or write worth a sht.

never claimed i could.

don't underestimate my knowledge of things golf, just because i don't agree with you on everything.

I'm gonna say this ONE MORE TIME. And then I'm done trying to tell you.

You can't make the current golf course a good layout without triple row irrigation. That's the basis of every high quality golf course in this country.

The current greens are NOT quality, in either turf, slope or scale. They have to be re-done.

You talk about Augusta. Which are some of the best greens in the entire world. They aren't comparable. They aren't even in the same discussion. They aren't even on the same planet of discussion. And it shows how ridiculous your comments really are, and how little you seem to understand golf.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

you can claim you're the last word on everything.

i say you're not.

yes, Augusta has big greens, that's not the comparison between IU and A N that i was making, and you know it.

there are other great old school courses that don't have huge greens.

as for the condition of IU's greens today, i know not, because i haven't played it in yrs.

that said, i have played it many times when the greens were very nice, and more than good enough for a B10 course.

your comment on slope is nothing but your personal opinion.

all that said, a golf course is something you can spend an unlimited amount of money on.

give someone a blank check, and they'll say they need every cent in your account.

with greens or traps or irrigation or grading and everything else, there is the base cost of doing it well if someone knows what they are doing, and the cost if you want to pull out all the stops, and money is no object.

you could spend 8,000 - 10,000 redoing a kitchen, and have gorgeous new cabinets, granite counters and island, great backsplash, gorgeous tile or hardwood flooring, upscale fixtures, nice lighting, ect.

but that doesn't mean you can't spend $60,000 - $75,000 just redoing the same kitchen.

thing is, that $60,000 - $75,000 kitchen is only going to be marginally nicer than the $8,000 to $10,000 redo.

same concept with a golf course, and most anything you build or renovate.

past a certain point, you start having to spend a whole lot more for very incremental gain.


i suggested adding 50 - 60 more traps, (around 3 per hole on average), and condition, because that's where the biggest bang for the buck is, and just doing that would make IU one of the nicest courses in the state.

to be elite, IU NEEDS the traps and condition, both for competitive playability and ascetics.

i asked for one water feature, for the front of 9 green. (old # 8).

that's the spot a water feature will add the most, it's the signature hole, would help keep it a more defendable par 5, and since it's a very low spot with all sides slopping into it, i thought it might provide some other benefits as well.

nothing will upgrade the look and framing of the course like the traps will. (fairway and greenside).

i don't know the current infrastructure of the irrigation, but doing irrigation on the current course won't cost any more, and most likely far less, than doing the same on a new course.

and traps and irrigation are just like that kitchen remodel. you can do a great job for x amount, or spend way more for incremental gain.

as for greens, you can rebuild every green, and that again will vary a lot in cost varying on size, how much undulation you want to build in, how carried away you want to get with drainage.

there is a huge variance of cost per green you could get into, depending on just how carried away you want to get with each green, and how much you want to get into that "huge more cost for incremental gain" thing.

but redoing greens gets very risky, besides just the expense, and can drag on forever.

remember also, the bigger the green, the more maintenance and water needed.

personally, never thought huge greens added all that much to a course.

they need to be big enough, (which imo IU's easily already are, as they are hardly small greens), anything over that is overkill.

but the greens are not where i'd start, and probably the last thing i'd look at, other than getting them in nice condition if they aren't now.

all that said, i never entered into this discussion to see how much i could spend on making IU the Taj Mahal of golf courses.

my whole point was that you could make an already elite piece of land and layout, way better for not a that much relative expense.

and that even as is, it's a nice course, infinitely better than no course at all, or moving the course to the boonies.

but hey, if you want spend a fortune redoing everything, and redoing everything at a "money is no object" level, go for it.

good luck with that.

on a side note, please keep things to the point students and the public can still afford to play it.

upgrading it from affordable for students and most townspeople, to affordable for only a very few, won't win you my approval, no matter how nice you make it.

 

[Hoops Cat]

other schools' courses might be in better condition, but IU's base layout is up there with any of them, and better than most.

i get it, you like new courses, the Pete Dye formula, not old school wooded hilly courses.

i feel just the opposite.

that said, a zillion courses like you like have been built in the last 30 yrs, and imo they all look just alike, as they all were cut from the same template.

and more go up with every new housing development.

and it's not just Dye, every current golf architect has now figured out that formula.

no one is building them like IU, or Augusta, or other old school courses that have trees and hills as an integral element, and don't rely on just water, sand, and building in undulation, to compensate for the wooded element they generally lack.


as for money, if you put half, heck, a third, the money into the current course that it would take to build even a half decent new course, IU would have an elite level course that takes a back seat to no course in the conference or the state.

and it would be on campus. something you seem to discount, but are totally incorrect to do so.

all that said, if you did nothing but give proper maintenance to the current course, you still have a great layout with greater potential, that's on campus.

if it's not on or adjacent to campus, it's not an IU course other than in name.

the IU course isn't only used by a few golf fanatics and the team.

that's hardly the case.

as for impact on the area, "The Cades" is not even in the same league as IU, not equipped to handle the overflow if IU were closed, (let alone from closing the champ and the par 3, as the par three got lots of play).

and the guys at The Pointe can point out that people don't want to drive a long way to play even a nice course.

any new course in the boonies would get much less play than IU now does, so you'd have a huge yearly revenue deficit to deal with.

all that said, all this is nothing but a diversion.

as i've stated from the start, this isn't about IU's current course, it's about the 10,000 pound gorilla that's going to take whatever it wants, and besides the range and the par 3, it wants enough of the land the champ course is on to close the course.

I've not once posted what my preference is, and I don't like modern template courses over older tracks, per se. My point is that yes, you are correct - there is already the bones for a great golf course at IU, and there's a solid layout already there.

Yet you make it sound soooooooo easy to upgrade it to tournament level by just adding 50-60 bunkers, adding a water feature, and improving the fairway grass and the greens. That excludes a re-rerouting of the finishing hole, oh, and a new clubhouse, which you want too. That's going to cost almost as much as a new course might cost. That's all I've been trying to impress on you.

Oh, and you want the course to be affordable, yet you add 50-60 bunkers to the maintenance burden. You want to have your cake and eat it, too, seems to me.

 

[Daydreamer]

Let's be clear...a REAL golf course renovation would handle any worries about runoff from the golf course. It's been done all over the world with water reengineering and retention. In a LOT more environmentally sensitive areas than this. A proper renovation would put less, not more, runoff into Griffy.

I never said it couldn't be done. I said it would probably cost more that anyone is willing to spend given all the other pressures that would bear on any decision about the course. I don't even think its about money. I'm sure we have plenty of money to renovate. Its about money plus public pressure plus environmental concerns with IU Health being the final straw. Negotiations and lawsuits would drag it out for years and make it much more expensive than the actual renovation. I just don't see that happening.
Not really sure why you're angry with me since we mostly agree. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, the political will doesn't exist to renovate the current course. My personal view is that we should sell the commercially viable part, protect the rest, and take the money and build a new course. You don't have to be a golf course architect to figure out why that's probably the best option.

 

[Daydreamer]

In 1980 we bought a house right across from Griffey on Dunn Street. We still live here. My boys grew up on the lake and in the woods. These days I walk there every morning for an hour with my 2 dogs. I know a lot about Griffey. And you know what, there are too many friggin' deer. And they come across Dunn Street in packs of 7 or 8 to feed in our massive front yard because there are so many deer that there is not enough vegetation left for them in the woods. Last year, by my side-of-the road count, there were more than 50 deer struck and killed by cars on Dunn Street across from Griffey.

It's a SERIOUS problem in just a 1/2 mile stretch of road..

The deer problem is part of the equation, if for no other reason than it's brought enormous public attention to Griffy. People used to think about Griffy as a lake and some trails but the spotlight is now on ecosystem management. Any proposed golf course renovation would shift attention there but looking through that new lens.
As a grad student, the Griffy watershed is a pretty interesting place from a management perspective. It would take far to long to go into all the issues than is practical here.

 

[twenty02]

I never said it couldn't be done. I said it would probably cost more that anyone is willing to spend given all the other pressures that would bear on any decision about the course. I don't even think its about money. I'm sure we have plenty of money to renovate. Its about money plus public pressure plus environmental concerns with IU Health being the final straw. Negotiations and lawsuits would drag it out for years and make it much more expensive than the actual renovation. I just don't see that happening.
Not really sure why you're angry with me since we mostly agree. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, the political will doesn't exist to renovate the current course. My personal view is that we should sell the commercially viable part, protect the rest, and take the money and build a new course. You don't have to be a golf course architect to figure out why that's probably the best option.

Not angry, didn't intend to come out as such. Posting after getting hammered isn't always the best outcome.

 

[Daydreamer]

Not angry, didn't intend to come out as such. Posting after getting hammered isn't always the best outcome.

I guess we've all learned that at one time or another. No sweat.

 

[IUHDog]

I assume most of the trees on the IU golf course are hardwoods. Why can't they sell off the rights to harvest a bunch of the hardwood trees to raise money for the renovation? There are way too many trees anyway. The woods could use some thinning out.

The land on which the IU course sits reminds me of a course in Alpharetta, Georgia called White Columns. A great golf course starts with the land. They have what is needed to make the IU course special.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I assume most of the trees on the IU golf course are hardwoods. Why can't they sell off the rights to harvest a bunch of the hardwood trees to raise money for the renovation? There are way too many trees anyway. The woods could use some thinning out.

The land on which the IU course sits reminds me of a course in Alpharetta, Georgia called White Columns. A great golf course starts with the land. They have what is needed to make the IU course special.

sounds like the words of a "sprayer". bwg

if you don't like trees, or hit it all over the place, don't play IU, (or Augusta National or Muirfield Village), if you're playing for score rather than just to enjoy a different type course for a change.

there are a zillion far more open courses you can play if you wish, and new ones all the time.

very few heavily wooded ones, and they aren't making um any more.

that's why preserving IU is important, and why it has such a high ceiling.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I've not once posted what my preference is, and I don't like modern template courses over older tracks, per se. My point is that yes, you are correct - there is already the bones for a great golf course at IU, and there's a solid layout already there.

Yet you make it sound soooooooo easy to upgrade it to tournament level by just adding 50-60 bunkers, adding a water feature, and improving the fairway grass and the greens. That excludes a re-rerouting of the finishing hole, oh, and a new clubhouse, which you want too. That's going to cost almost as much as a new course might cost. That's all I've been trying to impress on you.

Oh, and you want the course to be affordable, yet you add 50-60 bunkers to the maintenance burden. You want to have your cake and eat it, too, seems to me.

50-60 more bunkers, 1 water feature, upgrading fairways, a new clubhouse, while expensive, (expensive is a relative term), it's not even remotely close to the cost of a new championship course, which would cost several times more. (and a new course would likely have AT LEAST 50-60 bunkers, (we're talking only 3 per hole), would require more irrigation and new grass than IU ever would, and would require a new club house, as well as lots of other costs i've notated earlier.

you wish to sound informed, then lose all credibility in even suggesting a new course wouldn't be several times more expensive than my renovation.

to even suggest such a thing, does call in question your real motive imo, as i don't believe even you really believe that. (if you do, you have no idea what you're talking about).

all that said, 50-60 more bunkers was going all out. (and probably overkill).

i could do a lot with far less though.

using the current progression of holes,

4 fairway/rough bunkers on 5. (originally hole #4), 2 over the ravine on the left to discourage cutting the corner, 2 on the right. (would really frame the hole, and add to the "visuals")

2 fairway/rough on 6

2 more in front of 13 green. (more for the visual from the tee and fairway than anything).

1 water feature in front of 9 green. (for reasons discussed earlier).

3 large high back bunkers in back of 9. (yes, i'm going for a 13 at Augusta thing with those 3).

that's 11 bunkers, and one water feature.

i consider those 11 traps and 1 water feature, as what i'd do with less.

any amount between 11 and 50 - 60, is just a function of how far do you want to take this. (but i think those 11 plus 1 water feature would add a lot). (and while another 50-60 was a little over the top, it's not that one couldn't find a place for those, and still be far far less in cost than a new course).

let's face it, many bunkers are as much for the visual, as any play hazard.



as for the clubhouse, i only need a new clubhouse because i need to move it back to it's original location.

that's where the course was designed to play from.

the current clubhouse location makes the course virtually unwalkable for anything less than 18.

a beyond horrible characteristic for any course, but especially a campus course played a lot by students.

playing from the original layout and clubhouse location brings you back to the clubhouse after 9, 11, and 18, holes, and is very walker and viewer friendly. (also allows for starting on 1, 10, or 12).

also makes for a much better finishing hole. (though that's much less important than the walkability thing, or the added starting, stopping, and viewing, options).

fwiw, i was very strongly against the move, when they decided to move the clubhouse location in the first place.


all that said, my whole point in my initial post, was that Glass saying the course was "outdated", (a term never used to describe a golf course), was imo total and complete BS, and i highly question that even Glass really believes that.

what "outdated" is though, is what the "powers that be" start tagging something as, once they have their sights set on it.

again, i don't believe for a second this is really about the course, it's about IU Health or IU, wanting that land.

that entire complex, the range, par 3, and champ course, are a huge asset to IU and the community, and the loss of parts of or all is a huge loss.

and don't forget, they already have a great hospital already built, with surrounding medical campus and room to grow. (the city of Bloomington is VERY unhappy about IU Health buying the Bloomington Hospital, then deciding to move it across town).

and on a side note, once the hospital complex is moved to the golf complex location on the bypass, if you live in Bloomington or south central Indiana, i highly suggest not having that heart episode, or stroke, or your wife's or daughter's or granddaughter's pregnancy "deciding it's time", or a car wreck, or any type of medical emergency, occurring on a football Saturday.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

 

[IUHDog]

sounds like the words of a "sprayer". bwg

if you don't like trees, or hit it all over the place, don't play IU, (or Augusta National or Muirfield Village), if you're playing for score rather than just to enjoy a different type course for a change.

there are a zillion far more open courses you can play if you wish, and new ones all the time.

very few heavily wooded ones, and they aren't making um any more.

that's why preserving IU is important, and why it has such a high ceiling.

Did not say I did not like trees on a golf course - quite the opposite. And I hit it quite straight (most of the time). Just proposing an "out of the box" solution to raising funds that when done correctly will not have much of an impact at all. And no, the clear cutting was not what I meant to imply.

Golf courses that have trees but still allow slight openings to escape are much more fun to play than ball gobbling, lost-ball penalty ones.

 

[Hoops Cat]

50-60 more bunkers, 1 water feature, upgrading fairways, a new clubhouse, while expensive, (expensive is a relative term), it's not even remotely close to the cost of a new championship course, which would cost several times more. (and a new course would likely have AT LEAST 50-60 bunkers, (we're talking only 3 per hole), would require more irrigation and new grass than IU ever would, and would require a new club house, as well as lots of other costs i've notated earlier.

you wish to sound informed, then lose all credibility in even suggesting a new course wouldn't be several times more expensive than my renovation.

to even suggest such a thing, does call in question your real motive imo, as i don't believe even you really believe that. (if you do, you have no idea what you're talking about).

all that said, 50-60 more bunkers was going all out. (and probably overkill).

i could do a lot with far less though.

using the current progression of holes,

4 fairway/rough bunkers on 5. (originally hole #4), 2 over the ravine on the left to discourage cutting the corner, 2 on the right. (would really frame the hole, and add to the "visuals")

2 fairway/rough on 6

2 more in front of 13 green. (more for the visual from the tee and fairway than anything).

1 water feature in front of 9 green. (for reasons discussed earlier).

3 large high back bunkers in back of 9. (yes, i'm going for a 13 at Augusta thing with those 3).

that's 11 bunkers, and one water feature.

i consider those 11 traps and 1 water feature, as what i'd do with less.

any amount between 11 and 50 - 60, is just a function of how far do you want to take this. (but i think those 11 plus 1 water feature would add a lot). (and while another 50-60 was a little over the top, it's not that one couldn't find a place for those, and still be far far less in cost than a new course).

let's face it, many bunkers are as much for the visual, as any play hazard.



as for the clubhouse, i only need a new clubhouse because i need to move it back to it's original location.

that's where the course was designed to play from.

the current clubhouse location makes the course virtually unwalkable for anything less than 18.

a beyond horrible characteristic for any course, but especially a campus course played a lot by students.

playing from the original layout and clubhouse location brings you back to the clubhouse after 9, 11, and 18, holes, and is very walker and viewer friendly. (also allows for starting on 1, 10, or 12).

also makes for a much better finishing hole. (though that's much less important than the walkability thing, or the added starting, stopping, and viewing, options).

fwiw, i was very strongly against the move, when they decided to move the clubhouse location in the first place.


all that said, my whole point in my initial post, was that Glass saying the course was "outdated", (a term never used to describe a golf course), was imo total and complete BS, and i highly question that even Glass really believes that.

what "outdated" is though, is what the "powers that be" start tagging something as, once they have their sights set on it.

again, i don't believe for a second this is really about the course, it's about IU Health or IU, wanting that land.

that entire complex, the range, par 3, and champ course, are a huge asset to IU and the community, and the loss of parts of or all is a huge loss.

and don't forget, they already have a great hospital already built, with surrounding medical campus and room to grow. (the city of Bloomington is VERY unhappy about IU Health buying the Bloomington Hospital, then deciding to move it across town).

and on a side note, once the hospital complex is moved to the golf complex location on the bypass, if you live in Bloomington or south central Indiana, i highly suggest not having that heart episode, or stroke, or your wife's or daughter's or granddaughter's pregnancy "deciding it's time", or a car wreck, or any type of medical emergency, occurring on a football Saturday.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

I don't sound informed, I am informed. I worked in the golf course finance industry for decades - I know what it costs to build a course. I fear its you who has no clue about cost - that's been my only point. I'll cede the rest of your argument, just admit you don't the first thing about golf course construction or operating costs, and I'll let it drop.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I don't sound informed, I am informed. I worked in the golf course finance industry for decades - I know what it costs to build a course. I fear its you who has no clue about cost - that's been my only point. I'll cede the rest of your argument, just admit you don't the first thing about golf course construction or operating costs, and I'll let it drop.

i know adding some traps, upgrading irrigation or parts of it, reseeding fairways and tees, and a new clubhouse, is never going to cost nearly as much as starting from scratch and building new at a different site.

starting from scratch will entail all the things my modest reno will, plus a thousand other things my reno won't.

such as hire architects, design the course, grade/contour and landscape the entire area, bring in dirt, deal with water/drainage issues besides just the traps and greens, design and build every green, including practice/putting greens, from scratch, all tees from scratch, bring in utilities to clubhouse, (most likely from a good distance away), build every cart path, build access road to clubhouse, parking lots, build utility and service buildings, roads and lots to utility and service buildings, bring utilities to utility and service buildings, permits for everything, dealing with zoning, environmental and political issues, and on and on.


sorry, but it isn't exactly rocket science to know that my VERY LIMITED reno, won't cost nearly as much as starting and doing everything from scratch, especially when you consider that any new course will entail doing anything and everything my modest reno will, plus a zillion other expenses, many of which are very high ticket items.

i find it somewhat strange that you would even try to suggest it would, absent some alternative agenda.


on a side note, the original clubhouse is still there.

you could just add on to it for any needed additional locker, food, banquet/meeting space, (there's more land right there),

build new on the same plot, and use current clubhouse till complete.

 

[burnthemallralphie]

I love contributing to threads.

 

[Daydreamer]

I don't sound informed, I am informed. I worked in the golf course finance industry for decades - I know what it costs to build a course. I fear its you who has no clue about cost - that's been my only point. I'll cede the rest of your argument, just admit you don't the first thing about golf course construction or operating costs, and I'll let it drop.

There are two things ivegotwinners will NEVER do..."admit" and "let it drop". You are clearly with the rest of us as part of the conspiracy.

 

[burnthemallralphie]

Another contribution:

 

[IUHDog]

Witnessing an argument about whose driver is bigger is boring.

 

[burnthemallralphie]

 

[Hoops Cat]

i know adding some traps, upgrading irrigation or parts of it, reseeding fairways and tees, and a new clubhouse, is never going to cost nearly as much as starting from scratch and building new at a different site.

starting from scratch will entail all the things my modest reno will, plus a thousand other things my reno won't.

such as hire architects, design the course, grade/contour and landscape the entire area, bring in dirt, deal with water/drainage issues besides just the traps and greens, design and build every green, including practice/putting greens, from scratch, all tees from scratch, bring in utilities to clubhouse, (most likely from a good distance away), build every cart path, build access road to clubhouse, parking lots, build utility and service buildings, roads and lots to utility and service buildings, bring utilities to utility and service buildings, permits for everything, dealing with zoning, environmental and political issues, and on and on.


sorry, but it isn't exactly rocket science to know that my VERY LIMITED reno, won't cost nearly as much as starting and doing everything from scratch, especially when you consider that any new course will entail doing anything and everything my modest reno will, plus a zillion other expenses, many of which are very high ticket items.

i find it somewhat strange that you would even try to suggest it would, absent some alternative agenda.


on a side note, the original clubhouse is still there.

you could just add on to it for any needed additional locker, food, banquet/meeting space, (there's more land right there),

build new on the same plot, and use current clubhouse till complete.

You're clueless, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Who was it who called this the early favorite for next year's "Worst Thread" Andy?

I think they were spot on.

 

[twenty02]

i know adding some traps, upgrading irrigation or parts of it, reseeding fairways and tees, and a new clubhouse, is never going to cost nearly as much as starting from scratch and building new at a different site.

starting from scratch will entail all the things my modest reno will, plus a thousand other things my reno won't.

such as hire architects, design the course, grade/contour and landscape the entire area, bring in dirt, deal with water/drainage issues besides just the traps and greens, design and build every green, including practice/putting greens, from scratch, all tees from scratch, bring in utilities to clubhouse, (most likely from a good distance away), build every cart path, build access road to clubhouse, parking lots, build utility and service buildings, roads and lots to utility and service buildings, bring utilities to utility and service buildings, permits for everything, dealing with zoning, environmental and political issues, and on and on.


sorry, but it isn't exactly rocket science to know that my VERY LIMITED reno, won't cost nearly as much as starting and doing everything from scratch, especially when you consider that any new course will entail doing anything and everything my modest reno will, plus a zillion other expenses, many of which are very high ticket items.

i find it somewhat strange that you would even try to suggest it would, absent some alternative agenda.


on a side note, the original clubhouse is still there.

you could just add on to it for any needed additional locker, food, banquet/meeting space, (there's more land right there),

build new on the same plot, and use current clubhouse till complete.

YOU ARE SO DUMB

 

[twenty02]

Who was it who called this the early favorite for next year's "Worst Thread" Andy?

I think they were spot on.

I thought it was just going to be a discussion about the damn future of the golf course, which is somewhat of a legit topic going on within the university. There has been some good info from people who rarely post...I don't live in town, so had no clue about the hospital, for example.

But it got hijacked by one dumbass who thinks he's the lovechild of Donald Ross and Alastair Mackenzie

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

i cant believe I read this thread

The UofL course is about a 30 mile drive from campus.
The UK course is about 15 miles from campus.
A college team has to play every day to be worth a crap.
(Freddie Couples had to turn in a scorecard to keep his Houston schollie),
They also need a huge practice area..

Anybody who doesnt play 3 rounds a week will suck
MOST people who play 3 rounds a week suck anyway.

 

[Hoops Cat]

i cant believe I read this thread

The UofL course is about a 30 mile drive from campus.
The UK course is about 15 miles from campus.
A college team has to play every day to be worth a crap.
(Freddie Couples had to turn in a scorecard to keep his Houston schollie),
They also need a huge practice area..

Anybody who doesnt play 3 rounds a week will suck
MOST people who play 3 rounds a week suck anyway.

So what are you saying?

 

[twenty02]

i cant believe I read this thread

The UofL course is about a 30 mile drive from campus.
The UK course is about 15 miles from campus.
A college team has to play every day to be worth a crap.
(Freddie Couples had to turn in a scorecard to keep his Houston schollie),
They also need a huge practice area..

Anybody who doesnt play 3 rounds a week will suck
MOST people who play 3 rounds a week suck anyway.

Thanks for a worthless addition to this thread.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I thought it was just going to be a discussion about the damn future of the golf course, which is somewhat of a legit topic going on within the university. There has been some good info from people who rarely post...I don't live in town, so had no clue about the hospital, for example.

But it got hijacked by one dumbass who thinks he's the lovechild of Donald Ross and Alastair Mackenzie

it's a very legit topic.

as is the topic of IU Health taking over the entire golf complex, just to move an existing hospital across town.

and btw, iirc, IU Health had already bought up a huge plot of real estate, (i think around where Hwy 37 intersects Hwy 46 to Ellettsville on the west side), as a possible new site.

i don't know why they want to move an already existing great hospital, or why they shifted gears after acquiring a bunch of land on the west side as a site.

i have heard that sometimes the reason for such moves, is to control the real estate surrounding the hospital, and become the landlord for all the satellite doctors/medical offices that sprout up surrounding the main hospital.

someone in the know, is welcome to inform us as to IU Health's side of the story.

on a side note, IU Health bought Bloomington Hospital, which has been there forever, not that long ago. then said they were moving it, which the city of Bloomington fought hard against.

they also recently purchased Martinsville Hospital, just so they could close it down. (if i'm wrong on that, anyone is welcome to correct me).

it had already been made public that IU Health was taking over the range and par 3 land, but when Glass recently made comments a couple times in the media about the champ course being "outdated", my guess was that was step one in dropping the news that they are taking over the champ course land as well.

as for my comments on renovating the course, while it's a great layout now, and infinitely better than no course at all, i was just putting in my 2 cents on how little it would take imo to make it one of the elite courses in the state.

i suggested adding traps, upgrading fairway grass, any improvements needed to the irrigation to maintain the fairways, and moving the clubhouse location back to the original site.

the only reason they moved it to the current site, was because that's where the range and par 3 are.

but if the range and par are going anyway, no reason not to move the clubhouse back to original location.

moving the clubhouse was a horrible move in the first place, as it made the course virtually unwalkable for anything less than 18 holes, a ridiculous situation for any course, but especially a college course that would normally see an unusually high rate of walkers, due to student play.


moving the clubhouse back to the original location could be done by moving back into the original pro shop, (small, but usable), or building a new clubhouse at that site.


then others chimed in that you could build new off site as cheap as you could add some traps, replant fairways, and make any irrigation upgrades.

i merely pointed out the absurdity in saying you could build new as cheap as make the modest reno i suggested.

i then pointed out to assert such a thing, one would have to be horribly ignorant on the subject, or deliberately be misinforming, most likely due to an alternate agenda.

if the poster is informed, i'll assume the alternate agenda is his motive.

building new would incur literally every expense the modest reno would, plus incur another couple hundred additional huge expenses on high ticket items, ie designing and grading the entire thing, greens, roads, parking lots, service and out buildings, utilities, environmental and political, with virtually zero scale or logistics benefits to come even close to offsetting the many additional expenses a new course would entail.


all that said, while claiming building new isn't many times more expensive than my modest reno is beyond absurd, and likely agenda driven, (and i got caught up by the thread hijack/troll), it still is just a diversion from the real issue of IU Health taking over a huge chunk of campus, and nixing a great golf complex that has been there for over a 60 yrs, and serves the community as well as the university.

or the fact that it would have huge repercussions on any IU golf team.



sorry the real issue of the thread got hijacked by a ridiculous side debate, that didn't even remotely make sense.

the total loss of the golf complex and an already great champ course layout, (even losing the range and par 3 are huge), moving the current hospital, are huge issues, and i'm surprise more haven't chimed in on this.

 

[Tony Warwick]

Some interesting comments by Glass, regarding the golf course.

Basically saying the time has come to either do a major renovation bringing it up to conference standards, or just close it down entirely. Says the status quo is untenable.

Hopefully they can come up with a plan to renovate. It's on a great piece of land and could be a great course. But likely looking at several million $ minimum.

http://www.news-sentinel.com/sports/iu/Fred-Glass-and-the-State-of-IU-Athletics----Facilities

I stopped by the course on Saturday. The old guy working in the pro shop confirmed that they are building IU Health where the driving range is and then taking out the par 3 for the new range. He also claimed that they will be putting a ton of money into the course, but that project is at least a year away from starting. He also said there will be a new clubhouse. I wish I brought my sticks, it was pretty nice out and the course looked to be in good shape.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Did the old guy have all white hair? May have been my bro-in-law.

This from the announcement of the "For All Bicentennial Campaign" capital campaign:
Link

"A renovation of the IU golf course will establish a destination, championship 18-hole golf course and renovated clubhouse worthy of the IU brand. This renovation will not only enable our intercollegiate golf teams to compete at the highest levels but will provide a quality of life and economic development amenity for the entire University and Bloomington communities. This renovation's estimated cost is $11 million, and its completion date is dependent on securing a lead gift."

 

[Tony Warwick]

Did the old guy have all white hair? May have been my bro-in-law.

This from the announcement of the "For All Bicentennial Campaign" capital campaign:
Link

"A renovation of the IU golf course will establish a destination, championship 18-hole golf course and renovated clubhouse worthy of the IU brand. This renovation will not only enable our intercollegiate golf teams to compete at the highest levels but will provide a quality of life and economic development amenity for the entire University and Bloomington communities. This renovation's estimated cost is $11 million, and its completion date is dependent on securing a lead gift."

Yeah, he did. I was in there for about 30 minutes speaking with him and checking out the gear. He was a former umpire at IU Baseball games and retired from that in '95. Nice guy.

By the way, they make candystriped golf pants and shorts, I was tempted, but decided to pass.

 

[Daydreamer]

"A renovation of the IU golf course will establish a destination, championship 18-hole golf course and renovated clubhouse worthy of the IU brand. This renovation will not only enable our intercollegiate golf teams to compete at the highest levels but will provide a quality of life and economic development amenity for the entire University and Bloomington communities. This renovation's estimated cost is $11 million, and its completion date is dependent on securing a lead gift."

Uh oh...another ivegotwinners conspiracy theory down the tubes. Someone tell him to dismantle the letter bombs.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Yeah, he did. I was in there for about 30 minutes speaking with him and checking out the gear. He was a former umpire at IU Baseball games and retired from that in '95. Nice guy.

By the way, they make candystriped golf pants and shorts, I was tempted, but decided to pass.

Nope not him. He usually doesn't work in there anyway, he's usually out on a cart on the course but thought he might have been that day.

Yeah they have some cool stuff in there.