It seemed that the same faces and same clubs were showing up in the winner’s circle year after year and that winning net scores were becoming more and more preposterous. Our member clubs were hot, they were letting us hear it and they were demanding action.

In response, the most ambitious program of its kind was launched in 2004, the NCGA Net Score Database.

The program has seen many changes since its inception, mostly the result of trial and error. At its core, however, the program remains remarkably simple, unbiased and wrapped in sound handicapping fundamentals. Here is how it works.

Every round recorded by every NCGA member in an NCGA event played with handicap is logged. And I mean every round by every NCGA member beginning at the regional qualifying stage. NCGA gross events and club events are excluded from review. The current database, consisting of scores from the three most recent seasons, includes 17,000+ players and 76,000+ scores.

Each individual round within the database is posed a question. Did the golfer play to or better than their handicap that day? If “yes,” how far below their handicap?

The first law of handicapping holds that a golfer will only play to their handicap once every five rounds or so. Many golfers refuse to believe this statistic, but proof is just a couple of keystrokes away. At any point in time, look up your current Handicap Index and inspect the 20 rounds that went into the calculation. Count the number of differentials among the 20 that are lower than the Index you were issued for the month. At all handicap levels you will typically only find four rounds that qualify.

Another indisputable truth of handicapping is that golfers, on average, actually score about three strokes above their handicap. Due to the rarity of scoring well below one’s handicap, stage two of our review consists of applying USGA-established odds to every round that scored a “yes” in step one. The lower the score, the higher the odds.

The third step in the process consists of looking at the entire body of NCGA net scores for a given individual. We count the number of “yes” versus “no” rounds and weigh this with the odds for the good scores. If our final tally exceeds certain thresholds, we take action in the form of assigning a “number” that the golfer will be required to play to in all NCGA handicap events that season (our number, or their current Handicap Index, whichever is lower). This number in no way, shape or form is to be confused with a Handicap Index nor does it impact the Handicap Index issued to the golfer each month. The club that the golfer is a member of is the one and only authority that can adjust a Handicap Index.

How many golfers are impacted by our action? Less than 1.5% of 17,000+ golfers in 2009.

There are some obvious drawbacks to our program.

One, the system is reactive. Our action can only take place after the low net scores have been recorded. A philosophy of “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” is the best we can hope to achieve.

Two, our analysis is only as good as the accuracy of the scores credited to the golfer. Accuracy is not in dispute in stroke-play events where an attested scorecard is involved, but it is a factor in Team Match.

Match play creates a number of unique scoring situations, most notably those involving concessions and unplayed holes when a match ends prior to the 18th hole.

You would be amazed at the number of people who seem to think that if you are conceded a 25-foot putt, you post the score for handicapping purposes as if you would have made the putt. How much sense would that make? No, you post the score you most likely would have made had the  hole been completed.

Many also dispute the concept of posting par plus any handicap strokes they are entitled to for unplayed holes. No matter how well they are playing up to that point, many seem convinced that they would have scored worse than net pars had they played in. This is a difficult argument to make.

Then there are the frontal assault appeals.

“Of course I play better in tournaments, I practice a lot more for them.” Just once I would like someone to explain to me why the non-tournament round the day before and the day after didn’t likewise benefit from all this practice.
 
And last but not least, “of course I play better in tournaments, I concentrate more.” This one irritates me the most since it implies that the golfer just kind of goes through the motions for most rounds only to kick it into higher gear for important tournaments. They see nothing wrong with having their handicap based upon those rounds where they did not give it their best and then outperforming this handicap with ease and great regularity when the moment is right. It should go without saying that no golfer is entitled to such an advantage.

I have a simple philosophy when it comes to handicaps. Show me a golfer who can raise the level of their game at will in big tournaments, and I will show you a golfer with too high a handicap.  Our Net Score Database program identifies and neutralizes such golfers.

If you would like to have your say, please post a comment below.

It seems that the scoring records of some very high-profile CEOs were examined by reporters to reveal round after round posted while their companies were in the throes of financial ruin.

It is not my place to decide whether such play was right or wrong. It is my place to explain the dynamics of handicapping and the perceived conflict between an individual’s right to privacy versus the “peer review” requirements of the USGA Handicap System. It is also my place to explain peer review as it relates to the NCGA.

In its simplest form, peer review is the ultimate check and balance within the system that truly gives handicapping a backbone and integrity. A portion of peer review includes the unalienable right that we all possess to review the scoring records and handicaps of those we play with to ensure that all is in order.

The reporters who wrote the exposés took advantage of some of the tools of peer review to perform their dirty work. They likely visited an NCGA-like website and performed a last-name look-up to discover the scores.

Were these reporters exercising their peer review rights?

Of course not. The accuracy of the Handicap Index and posted scores was the last thing on their minds.

Should the scope of peer review somehow be reined in due to the abuse of a few reporters?

An even more resounding “NO.” Take away peer review and you take away the heart and soul of handicapping.

Legal opinion puts any debate to rest. If you want a Handicap Index, you must expose your scoring record to the review of others. If you are not willing to expose your scores to the review of others, you cannot have a Handicap Index. The choice is simple.

So how does peer review work at the NCGA?

Fellow club members and officials of tournaments you participated in are entitled to complete access, as is anyone who can supply your NCGA/GHIN number during the handicap look-up process on the NCGA website.

New for 2008, those that do not have your NCGA/GHIN number and must resort to last-name look-up will receive an abbreviated view of your record (full access minus the day of the month of each round and golf course name).

As long as there is a Handicap System, peer review is here to stay.
2008 Update

As most Handicap Chairmen are aware, updates to the USGA Handicap System occur every four years — 2008 is such a year.

Typically the changes are minor and represent little more than refinements of long-established policies.

All-in-all, the changes for 2008 are not earth-shattering; the slight change in the details of scoring records displayed under peer review as stated above, a better way to combine nine-hole scores, a more palatable way to determine the stroke holes on a course, etc.

There is one clarification that I am very partial to.

Language has been added to make it clear that clubs have the power and responsibility to suspend score posting when course or weather conditions dictate.

Let’s face it, some courses play to their ratings year-round, others do not. Those that don’t should stop score posting until suitable conditions return. To continue posting would only distort handicaps, probably to unreasonably high levels.

And what goes up must come down. Most golfers whose handicaps go way up in the winter, come way down in the summer, meaning that they enjoy a stretch of time where they outperform their handicap with great regularity and at great profit.  No golfer is entitled to such an advantage (as confirmed by a new 2008 handicap decision addressing unwarranted seasonal fluctuations in handicaps).

Other highlights for 2008 include the following:

• A new NCGA Handicap Manual covering 2008-2011 is currently in production and will be distributed to all clubs in early 2008.
• A web-based NCGA Handicap Certification Seminar alternative is in the works. All clubs will be required to complete an NCGA Handicap Certification Seminar in person (or complete the online alternative) between 2008 and 2011. Complete details will be forwarded to all clubs.
• All clubs are required to complete a USGA Handicap License Agreement between 2008 and 2011. A web-based means of completing such a license agreement is in development.

It all depends.

Much of the rest of the country subscribes to the same handicap service that we do (GHIN). When playing in such a state, you simply activate the Guest Score Posting feature appearing on the score posting screen and then enter your NCGA/GHIN number when prompted. The only difference in your GHIN posting experience outside Northern California is that here the computer will recognize your number and display your name and current Handicap Index. This is because you are a member of the NCGA and we want this information displayed to confirm that you are entering a score into the correct scoring record.

Outside the NCGA, the screen will not recognize your number and will not display your name. Instead, you will need to type in your last name as a form of verification. When the score makes its way back to GHIN, it will be accepted or rejected based upon a perfect match between your number and last name as registered with GHIN. Once these formalities are out of the way, you record your score, confirm the correct tees and date, etc.

How about score posting in areas that subscribe to a different handicapping service such as Southern California or Arizona?

Many inquirers are surprised to learn that the process of posting scores from these areas is nearly as simple.

Though the screen shots and terminology may appear different, all such programs will include a reference to Guest, or Visitor or Non-Member posting. Activate such a feature and look for a reference to IGN identified by the following logo:

IGN (International Golf Network) allows for the exchange of scores between golf associations that subscribe to different handicapping services. It was brought about by the desire to allow for the quick and convenient posting of scores immediately following play at the course regardless of handicapping service or location.

When posting on unfamiliar screens, again, activate some sort of Guest/Visitor or IGN feature. When prompted, identify yourself as a member of the NCGA, enter your NCGA/GHIN number and last name and then input the scoring details. Due to transmission schedules that vary by state, it may take a little longer for the score to make it to your home club, but the score will arrive.

But IGN doesn’t stop there.

If you are a snowbird and reside in Southern California or Arizona for much of the winter, contact the NCGA with your southern handicap identification number and we will cross-register it with your NCGA/GHIN record. We will likewise contact your southern association and provide them with your number here. Once fully cross-registered, a single score posting to either of your records will result in the score being routed both north and south.

If you find the unfamiliar screens too daunting and your club permits Internet Score Posting (all but a handful do), you always have the option of logging onto the NCGA website to post your scores.

Besides Northern California, all or parts of the following states or regions subscribe to GHIN.

The easiest method is to register your e-mail address to receive a monthly eRevision. Imagine the convenience of your current Index, scoring record, recent Index history and latest NCGA news being sent to the e-mail address of your choice on the 1st of each month. If you are not one of the more than 91,000 NCGA members receiving this update, register your e-mail address via the NCGA website. And don’t worry; the NCGA will keep your e-mail address safe. We do not distribute our lists to outside parties.

Speaking of the NCGA website, the handicap look-up feature continues to rank as one of the most popular features drawing nearly 4,000 hits per week. From almost anywhere in the world you are just a couple of “clicks” away from your handicap and scoring information.

Suppose you are on the road the morning of the 1st without access to e-mail or the Internet, how can you find out what your new Index is? The NCGA has you covered.

Each posting computer at every Northern California golf course includes a Handicap look-up feature that displays the current Handicap Index of every NCGA member. And as most NCGA golf courses communicate with our handicap service (GHIN) in the early morning hours (ideally 5:00 – 7:00 a.m.), this information is typically available before the first golfers of the day begin their rounds.

Simply activate the “Guest CRS HCP Lookup” feature appearing on the score posting screen (third big green button down) and then select the “HDCP Lookup” button in the lower left.

At this point you can either enter your NCGA/GHIN number to discover your Index or perform a last name search to pinpoint your record. As an added bonus, once your current Handicap Index is displayed, a simple click on the “Crs HCP” button will compute your Course Handicap from each of the sets of tees at that golf course.

Your Handicap Index . . . you can leave home without it!

Guest CRS HCP Lookup

HDCP Lookup

I mean, suppose you turn up at a golf course that you have never played before. Do you automatically head to the white tees? The blue tees? How do you decide?

I’m often contacted by NCGA members asking which set of tees they should play at xyz golf course based upon their handicap. It’s almost comical because to me the answer couldn’t be any more obvious; play from the set of tees you think you will enjoy the golf course from the most.

I say “almost comical” because for years I didn’t heed the advice that rolls off my lips so easily now. Tragically, my mindset was that I wanted to play from the back tees, period. Sometimes it wasn’t pretty.

After years of getting beat up, it finally dawned on me that some of those tees were just too much and that they were built for far better and much longer players. Hitting mid-irons into greens designed for short irons and long irons or even woods into greens designed for mid-irons just wasn’t much fun. Now when I set foot on an unfamiliar course, I first check out the scorecard.

The first thing you should do when dissecting a scorecard is look at the yardage of the course from each set of tees. After all, yardage is the most difficult obstacle on the course to overcome. Find your comfort zone. All things being equal, for me it’s around 6,800 yards. More often than not I am able to hit every club in the bag from such tees and, hopefully, have a few reasonable opportunities for birdies.

Next, I consult the Course and Slope Ratings to tell me a little something about the character of the layout and hazards each tee presents. Especially high or low values might cause me to move up or down a set of tees.

In very broad terms, the combination of ratings can be summed up by the following table.

The good news is that no matter what tees you select, the Handicap System will adjust accordingly, even if you decide to play a different set of tees than others.

Speaking of maximizing your enjoyment, two fairly recent trends seem to be sweeping the region.

More and more courses are requesting men’s ratings from their forward tees and/or installing shorter tees specifically for men (primarily seniors).

More and more golf courses are developing “combo” tees — a mixture or combination of some white tees and some blue tees to offer a different look or add a little spice to your round.

In both instances the NCGA is happy to oblige and will issue men’s ratings from any and all tees that a club wishes (likewise, the two women’s associations will issue women’s ratings from additional tees upon request).

As I’ve learned the hard way, golf should be about having fun. It should not be punishment. Let your ego take a back seat to common sense.

The following represents a breakdown by handicap range for both NCGA men and women. In order to see where you fall, simply locate the range containing your current Handicap Index. The first number to the right indicates the current percentage of NCGA members whose Handicap Index falls in the same range. The cumulative figure indicates the overall percentile into which you fall.

What is most striking about these numbers is that they are not striking at all.

The numbers are quite similar to those from 2000 and include median handicaps near the national averages (NCGA medians of 15.5 and 27.0).

But what about the distance explosion that has taken place in the past few years with longer golf balls and high-tech drivers? Surely this has translated into lower handicaps.

Not really. Despite all the talk about launch angles and all the power displays we observe on television each week, the number of strokes that the average “Joe” and “Josephine” are taking has not declined in any great measure. Longer tee shots are not necessarily translating into lower scores. I guess hitting the ball farther can also mean farther left and right of target.

The one area where I do observe some movement is in the lowest handicap ranges. More NCGA members now enjoy low handicaps than they did in 2000. This is consistent with the prevailing view that the better the golfer, the greater the impact of recent technology breakthroughs.

The grim reality for most golfers is that “buying” a better golf game does not appear to be an option anytime soon.

MYTH: Playing to one’s handicap is common and expected.

Many golfers are amazed to learn they only play to their handicap around once every five rounds or so. This amazement quickly turns to downright disbelief when informed that, on average, golfers actually play two to three strokes above their handicap.

How can this be, they ask? Doesn’t a handicap pretty much represent a golfer’s average or normal play?

Of course it doesn’t. How can it when your worst 10 of your 20 most recent rounds are completely thrown out in the calculation process?

Think about it . . . we know you could not have played to your handicap in your worst 10 of 20 rounds. And even among your 10 best, at least half will normally be above your Index. This will leave you with about four scores in 20 (due, in part, to the .96 multiplier factor used in the calculations) where you played to or better than the Handicap Index you are being issued.

Despite this indisputable logic, nothing short of a score-by-score review of their current scoring record will convince some golfers of this truth.

(If you are one of the disbelievers, print-out a copy of your October scoring record. Note your current Handicap Index and count the number of differentials equal to or lower than this Index. You will probably find four, maybe five, such rounds among the 20.)

Once the reality of this situation sets in, the next question most people have is “why in the world is the system set up this way?”

Simple. A Handicap Index has always been intended to represent a golfer’s potential ability, not their actual ability. It has never been a number a golfer was expected to play to on a regular basis.

So if just playing to one’s handicap on any given day is not probable, what about those very low net scores that show up in big tournaments all too often?

The USGA has developed the following table which estimates the odds of golfers of different handicap ranges outperforming their handicap by a designated number of strokes. The numbers can be pretty grim.

Odds Table

The Handicap System relies on the premise that golfers will post all acceptable scores. Unfortunately, some golfers take liberties with what they feel “acceptable” means.

Myth: Match play and better-ball scores are NOT to be posted.

Wrong!

Though it is true that from time to time a golfer may approach a particular hole or shot from a slightly different perspective in a match than they would in individual stroke play (i.e., more or less aggressive depending on the state of the match or position of the opponent), the system still requires that such scores be posted.

And why not? It’s still golf and the individual is playing his own ball from tee to green. The score can and should be included in the scoring record. Or, to put it another way, handicaps are used in such matches. So why wouldn’t scores from such matches contribute to the handicap calculation?

The same is true with better-ball scores. Even though a golfer may “charge” a birdie putt a little more forcefully with the knowledge that his partner has a par in hand, the score needs to be posted.

But what about those times when a putt is conceded, or the ball is picked up on a hole due to a partner’s play, or a golfer walks in when a match is concluded on the 16th hole? How do you post a score?

Simple, the Handicap System has it covered.

Whenever you start but fail to complete a hole, the system requires you to post the score you most likely would have made had you completed the hole. A golfer must use his best judgment and insert the score that he would expect to make from that position 51% of the time.

For unplayed holes the system calls for inserting a score of “par plus any handicap strokes the golfer is entitled to on the hole.”

Thanks to these two common sense solutions, a golfer can “fill in the blanks” and still post the score.

Now that a score is in hand, how can one gauge how they played in relationship to their handicap?

Myth: Comparing a net score to par will tell a golfer how that round stacked up against their handicap. A net score of even par indicates a golfer played exactly to his handicap.

Right idea, wrong standard of measure.

Net scores needs to be compared with the course rating, not par, to assess performance. A net score below the course rating indicates a golfer outperformed his handicap. A net score above the rating means the golf course outperformed the golfer. A net score equal to the rating means that the golfer played exactly to his handicap.

Par does not carry a lot of weight within the Course Rating or Handicap Systems. Golfers see evidence of this all the time. Courses of vastly different difficulty often carry the same par, so wouldn’t it make sense that a net score of par at some courses is better than others?

You need look no further than our very own Poppy Hills for the answer.

Net par from the blue tees at Poppy Hills is certainly a strong score as it rates more than two strokes under the course rating (74.2). Such a net score would indicate the golfer played about two strokes better than his handicap that day.

Net par from the gold (forward) tees at Poppy Hills, however, is nothing to write home about as it represents a score both four and one-half strokes above the men’s rating (67.5) and above the golfer’s handicap.

Moral of the story ¾ the lower the course rating, the lower the net scores the system would expect a golfer to record.

Now that this relationship is clear, it brings to light a provision within the system designed to make golf more fun.

Consider a tournament in which two men compete against each other, one playing the blue tees at Poppy Hills, the other the gold. Suppose both golfers play perfectly to their handicap that day. Who wins?

On the surface it would appear that the gold tee player wins in a landslide as a net score of 67 crushes a 74. If the tournament officials performed their homework though, it awarded the blue-tee golfer seven additional strokes to compensate for the 6.7 stroke difference in ratings and the golfers would tie (blue-tee golfer’s net score becomes a 67).

By awarding extra strokes equal to the difference in course ratings to the golfer playing the higher rated tees, the playing field is leveled in both same gender and mixed competitions.

What this really means is that each individual can enjoy the freedom to select whatever set of tees they wish to play from (preferably the set most suited to their game that will maximize their enjoyment of the course) without sacrificing any fairness. And isn’t that what it’s all about?

Due to many favorable responses, I’ll tackle several myths regarding scores and handicaps in the next issue.

Let’s start out with one of the biggies.

“The higher the Slope, the tougher the course” or, worse yet, “the higher the Slope, the better the course.”

Unless you work for a marketing firm or are a sadist, the second statement can easily be dismissed. Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The first statement has taken on a life of its own, however.

For some strange reason, people have latched on to the Slope Rating as the sexier, “tell-all” number when it comes to determining course difficulty. In reality, it is the Course Rating that carries greater clout.

A Course Rating and Slope working in concert are designed to predict the scores that golfers of different handicaps will fire from a particular set of tees. The Course Rating serves as the anchor by setting the standard for the scratch golfer.

All Slope indicates is proportionately how much more difficult the set of tees play for a higher handicapper versus the scratch. Or, to put it another way, how much of the trouble on the course tends to “gang up” on the higher handicapper. Without the Course Rating as a base, a Slope Rating alone doesn’t tell the full story.

For pure difficulty, a high Course Rating/low Slope combination beats a low Course Rating/high Slope every time (72.8/114 is tougher than 67.8/127 at every handicap level). To illustrate how much sway the Course Rating holds, it takes more than 22 units of Slope to have the same impact as a single stroke of Course Rating for a 5-handicapper. For a 20-handicapper, it takes almost 6 units of Slope to equal a stroke of Course Rating.

Another common myth is the old “the #1 stroke hole is the most difficult hole on the course.”

Maybe “yes,” maybe “no.”

Most golfers are surprised to learn that the ranking of the holes is actually designed for match play, not stroke play. This helps explain why one nine is issued the odd-numbered allocations (typically the front) and the other the even . . . to evenly distribute strokes in a match.

The goal of stroke allocation is NOT to rank the holes most difficult in relationship to par, but rather, to identify the holes where a high-handicapper most needs a stroke in order to secure a “half” in a match with a low-handicapper. Coincidentally, they can be the most difficult holes, but not always.

Consider, for example, a 230-yard, par three that even the best of golfers find difficult to par.

How does the hole play for the high-handicapper?

Though the high-handicapper cannot reach the green in regulation, it might just require a simple pitch and two putts for a routine bogey.

Is the hole difficult? You bet.

Does the high-handicapper need a stroke here to gain a tie? Probably not. The handicap stroke probably generates a “win” meaning that there are other holes where the stroke is needed more. The par three described should actually be assigned a rather modest ranking.

If your course has acted properly, you might have noticed a couple of other match-play influences in the rankings. For example, even if your 18th hole is crying out for a stroke, the ranking should be downplayed. Why? Think about it ¾ how many matches ever reach the 18th hole? It would be a shame for such a pivotal stroke to never have an opportunity to have a bearing on a match. The same would be true for a 9th hole (due to 9-hole matches). Similarly, ranking the first hole too high should be avoided because of the potential impact on a sudden-death playoff (awards the stroke too soon).

Two myths shattered, many more to go.

Some of the changes during my tenure have been profound (T-score reduction process), others controversial (Internet score posting). This year’s changes are neither, but merit explanation.

The first involves the USGA’s decision to require all golf clubs in the United States to become “licensed” to issue a Handicap Index.

What does this mean?

Basically it is “legalese” for, “every four years your club will have to fill out some minimal paperwork verifying that you are issuing handicaps properly.”

Beneath the surface, however, this step is significant.

In recent years, hundreds of websites have surfaced offering to perform handicap calculations and purporting to issue “official” handicaps. In reality, these handicaps are not official.

There is a lot more to a handicap than just math. And not every handicap earns the right to be designated as a Handicap Index. There have to be checks and balances in place to ensure that scores are posted properly and that handicaps are accurate . . . in other words, there has to be a club in which the members know each other and have an opportunity to play golf with each other. Collectively known as “peer review,” such elements compose the backbone of handicapping.

Many websites represent collections of strangers living hundreds or thousands of miles apart with no knowledge of each other and no peer review¾yet they claim authenticity. Such claims tend to weaken or dilute the meaning of what is a true Handicap Index. The licensing program, in effect, identifies the contenders and weeds out the pretenders.,/

The licensing agreement consists of a checklist of handicapping requirements. Clubs must be able to verify each statement in the affirmative¾anything less than a perfect score indicates non-compliance.

One recent checklist addition is a requirement that a club representative has successfully completed an accredited Handicap Seminar. It seems that the success of the NCGA Handicap Certification Program (and that of other associations) has not gone unnoticed and now represents an important component of handicapping.

What does all this mean to an individual golfer?

Not much. But you can rest comfortably, secure in the knowledge that every club issuing a Handicap Index is exercising the same level of care and diligence as your own club.

The second major change for 2006 involves the definition of a golf club and illustrates how the Handicap System adapts to an ever-changing world.

In prior years, there was a single, broad, all-encompassing definition of a golf club in place. Beginning in 2006, golf clubs are now broken down into three varieties or types.

Type 1s are the traditional golf clubs that play out of a particular golf course. In NCGA terms¾regular clubs.

Type 2s are clubs without real estate where the members are known to each other via business, fraternal, ethnic or social organization. This is the associate club program that the NCGA has championed for years.

Type 3s are a brand new club designation in which the membership, in general, has no prior affiliation and where the recruiting and enrollment of members is performed by solicitation to the general public (via Internet, newspaper, etc.). At first glance, these clubs resemble the website clubs I referenced above, but with some pronounced distinctions which will be obvious as the NCGA enters into the Type 3 arena.

For Type 1 and Type 2 clubs, peer review is somewhat natural. After all, Type 1 clubs have the advantage of a golf course that draws the members together and allows them to interact, and the members of Type 2 clubs are typically known to each other both on and off the course in business or social settings.

For Type 3 clubs, peer review will prove more challenging. I have often described the role of the NCGA as that of a dating service in establishing Type 3 clubs. For the most part, we are bringing strangers together and making initial introductions. It is then up to these individuals to take the necessary steps to transform this diverse collection of golfers into an authentic club that plays together and practices peer review. Because of these unique challenges, Type 3 clubs will be held to a higher peer-review standard than Type 1 or 2 clubs. Members will be required to post a minimum of three rounds per year with fellow members including one round in a club-sponsored event.

The key to Type 3 success will be an NCGA/GHIN-supplied interactive website where individuals can join on the spot, log-in and out at their convenience, sign up and pay for club tournaments, seek out fellow members for games, log their round stats, etc. Each website is easy to access and easy to administer. In the long run, the NCGA expects to open Type 3 sites in all metropolitan areas in an effort to attract brand new members, and in the long run, pass them on to existing Type 1 and 2 clubs.

So how does Type 3 impact existing clubs?

It should have little to no effect as we are targeting golfers who will be brand new to the NCGA. One significant by-product of all this effort is the same interactive website platform infrastructure being developed for the Type 3 clubs will be made available to any and all NCGA clubs. Just imagine the possibilities for your club!

Type 3 will be a win-win for all NCGA clubs!