"So, now that the fertile fields of home have been scorched, we're headed abroad to see if we can fool 'em into making the same mistakes. Shame on us."

Steve Elling considers Tim Finchem's "grow the game" argument for making the push to get golf in the Olympics and writes:

Costs for players skied as daily fee courses commanded triple-digit payouts. Courses became too hard to play in under five hours. The cost of a new driver, needed to handle the 7,000-yard tracks being built, rose to $400. A legion of folks was priced out of the game because of time and money. For every new customer, another one quit.

The number of rounds played each year in the U.S. stagnated. Now, alarmingly, it has begun to drop in some parts of the country. Worse, more courses have closed over the past three years than have opened. People bought homes in golf communities in good faith, only to see the developer-owner of the courses bolt when the land was sold.

The economic model of the game in the States pulled a hammy chasing after money. Now that some cities are cracking down on water usage, which will affect course conditions and desirability, it's likely going to get even worse. Crude prices have driven up fertilizer costs markedly.

So, now that the fertile fields of home have been scorched, we're headed abroad to see if we can fool 'em into making the same mistakes. Shame on us. Granted, it's a slight leap of faith to hold the PGA of America or USGA responsible for the general direction of the game and current economic climate, but in golf, most of the parts are somehow linked.

And of course, regarding the format, which in a sport full of potentially emotion-rich team formats is 72-holes of individual stroke play...

Besides, is there really a great appetite for golf in the Games among the public, especially if it results in yet another four-day stroke-play event? I'm not feeling the love.