Pay By The Hour Green Fee

[Hatchman]

I like the idea.  

[iacas]

51 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

It COULD, but I see no problem with the current method.

Obviously they do.

16 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

@iacas my experience is that when people CAN cost you your own time or money, they will try. People get some sort of ego boost out of setting back other people; just to be in control. At least that's how most people are in my area. 

Well that's an awfully pessimistic view.

I already said maybe there's a minimum charge of 3 hours for 18 holes, or four, even. This is for the guy who might want to quit after four or six or twelve holes.

[mcanadiens]

If you have extremely proactive rangers on a higher-end course, you might have a chance. Otherwise, you'll have major problems. Consider some of the busters that populate the courses I play. Imagine standing on #17 fairway waiting for the green to clear with 3:50 on the clock. It might get ugly. Get the cops on speed dial.

 

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

If you have extremely proactive rangers on a higher-end course, you might have a chance. Otherwise, you'll have major problems. Consider some of the busters that populate the courses I play. Imagine standing on #17 fairway waiting for the green to clear with 3:50 on the clock. It might get ugly. Get the cops on speed dial.

Again, they'd be up against the time too.

And if I can guarantee playing around in four hours I'd be happy to pay the full rate anyway. 

[SavvySwede]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Either do what @Golfingdad said, or… consider that the previous group is at least 3:53 into their round as well, so why are they playing it so slowly?

You can be super cynical and make up all sorts of things, but like I said, generally people aren't assholes. This could work.

I'd don't think it has to do with peoples intent. Sure people are nice but they are also generally oblivious to the way their actions may impact others. I just can't see a change in price structure changing the way people play. You'll have a few pressing to save a few buck and a few others that will feel justified playing slow because they're paying for it but for the most part people will slip into their old habits after they get used to it.

 

3 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

I almost think that it would be better if you pay a set price and get a refund or some kind of voucher to play later at a reduced rate if you play in under 4 hours? 

I think this is a good compromise. Incentivize good pace of play without excusing slow players with what amounts to a fine. I would add the condition that the vouchers give the bearer the ability to book a tee time a few days earlier than those without.

[Golfingdad]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

Again, they'd be up against the time too.

Right.  The courses I avoid the most because they tend to be the slowest are already some of the cheaper ones.  I believe a lot of those people would love the opportunity to try and "earn" a cheaper round (or extra holes if they have the time) on the course by playing faster.

This would also provide incentive to the "Hey, I paid my money, I'll take as long as I want" stubborn crowd as well, since they haven't yet determined how much they'll actually pay.

[Patch]

I am incline not to let some other players, while playing at their own pace, (faster to slower) dictate how much I would pay for a round.

If I paid for 4 hours, as did the guy in front of me, and he played in 4.5 hours, even though he paid the extra, why should I be responsible for his slowness, or what ever reason caused him to pay for his over time?

What about slow downs due to weather issues? Who absorbs that extra time? What about injuries that require stoppge of play? 

No, not a fan of this. Based on what I have read so far, this plan needs some more work.

I could also see golf courses using overtime pay to their own advantage, revenue wise. 

[iacas]

Man, I’m cynical, but holy heck the responses in this topic…

What if the course normally cost $50? What if it was set up so that you could only *save* money, or break even? And yet if you just played four holes maybe it'd cost you $10 if that's all the time you had? Or maybe if you let a group play through they'd take 10 minutes off your time for up to three groups?

Have some creativity, people.

Golf is too expensive and takes too long to play. Those are the complaints you hear most often. So kudos to this group for trying something outside the box. Maybe it'll work. Maybe not.

[CarlSpackler]

48 minutes ago, iacas said:

Again, they'd be up against the time too.

And if I can guarantee playing around in four hours I'd be happy to pay the full rate anyway. 

@mcanadiens and I are most likely thinking of the same courses that are full of hillbillies. Their rational would most likely be "Since Imma paying by the hour to be on this here course, I can take as long as I doggon feel like." :: makes tobacco spitting motion::

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

@mcanadiens and I are most likely thinking of the same courses that are full of hillbillies. Their rational would most likely be "Since Imma paying by the hour to be on this here course, I can take as long as I doggon feel like." :: makes tobacco spitting motion::

Maybe. I know of a few courses where this would work out just fine.

Especially if the times of day were limited. Like the first two hours of tee times in the morning, or any time throughout the day capping the maximum rate at the regular greens fee, with the understanding that it's not exactly blazing out there (to suit the guys who just have an hour, or two hours).

[CarlSpackler]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Maybe. I know of a few courses where this would work out just fine.

Especially if the times of day were limited. Like the first two hours of tee times in the morning, or any time throughout the day capping the maximum rate at the regular greens fee, with the understanding that it's not exactly blazing out there (to suit the guys who just have an hour, or two hours).

I'm sure there are some courses that it would work out. It would be an interesting experiment.

[14ledo81]

The twilight rate at my house course kinda works like this. I pay a set rate to play until dark. If I play fast, I play more holes for the same price. I love it.  In fact, I almost exclusively play at this time of the day.

[nevets88]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

Man, I’m cynical, but holy heck the responses in this topic…

What if the course normally cost $50? What if it was set up so that you could only *save* money, or break even? And yet if you just played four holes maybe it'd cost you $10 if that's all the time you had? Or maybe if you let a group play through they'd take 10 minutes off your time for up to three groups?

Have some creativity, people.

Golf is too expensive and takes too long to play. Those are the complaints you hear most often. So kudos to this group for trying something outside the box. Maybe it'll work. Maybe not.

Amen.

[dkolo]

I am all for trying new ideas to grow the game. Before I left, they were in the process of converting a spectacular golf course that'd been open 10 years and was all over NY's best public courses lists (Tallgrass) into a solar farm. If it takes clever pricing, 12-inch holes, or foot golf to increase interest in the sport and get money flowing into courses, I'm for it. The game isn't on a great trajectory in a lot of places right now.

[JxQx]

I think it has potential to work as long as they have an accurate way to track each group. It wouldn't exactly be fair that groups trapped behind a slow one gets penalized financially for someone else not keeping up. A min and max price may help the situation but a big key I think would be that rangers would have to be very active on the course (though they already should) to resolve issues since money is involved.  

[Abu3baid]

It might be a novel idea, but that's about it.

the easier solution?  Just divide your rate by 18 and charge a by hole rate with a 3 hole minimum.  Simple and clean and pretty much takes care of all the comments I have read in the threads.

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

It might be a novel idea, but that's about it.

the easier solution?  Just divide your rate by 18 and charge a by hole rate with a 3 hole minimum.  Simple and clean and pretty much takes care of all the comments I have read in the threads.

No it doesn't. It doesn't improve pace of play because you still set a fixed fee, not a fee fixed to the pace of play. 

$54 / $18 = $3 a hole

$54 / 24 = $2.25 every ten minutes of play

Group finishes in 4 hours and 30 minutes on the first scenario. They pay $54

Group finishes in 4 hours and 30 minutes on the 2nd scenario. They pay $60.75. 

[mcanadiens]

13 hours ago, CarlSpackler said:

@mcanadiens and I are most likely thinking of the same courses that are full of hillbillies. Their rational would most likely be "Since Imma paying by the hour to be on this here course, I can take as long as I doggon feel like." :: makes tobacco spitting motion::

There are all sorts that show up at the munis I play (and @CarlSpackler used to before he stopped slumming it). As we know, everyone is as fast as the slowest group on the course. That slowest group isn't always just inconsiderate. They are often very bad and/or very ignorant. The carrot of reducing their greens fee might motivate them, but someone will always be gumming up the works.

In my earlier post, I allowed for the idea that the per-hour plan may work better at higher-end courses. You know. Places with starters, rangers and the kind of places where hackers like me never tread. If freaking Kittyhawk tried it, you'd have total bedlam. 

One other thing that occurred to me as unattractive. The very last thing I want to do after 18 holes is pay. Paying first suits me better. Also knowing the home course's clientele, you'd have a ton of people just walk off without paying. They already walk on without paying often enough.