Ostensibly, college kids can't afford the equipment or clothing or whatever, and they don't literally take a profit from their golf. This guy apparently had not only a million dollars to lose, but he stood to gain as much as well.

I know you like to rag on the college players of today getting all this free stuff, but it seems to me that it at least levels the playing field a bit. Some poorer kid who's fortunate to earn a golf scholarship because he otherwise couldn't afford to go to school - or buy $5-10k in apparel and equipment - can compete with the top amateurs from wealthy families. Plus, football, basketball, and baseball players don't have to pay for their equipment, last time I checked.

And for the college kids, it provides them with the essentials, and does so without putting the father on the payroll as a "consultant," which I consider a far less savory "solution" to the high cost of top-tier amateur golf.

I am not of the opinion that it is so much different than the college situation or the golf programs in various countries like Sweden and Australia. Not really sure that it is a valid comparison. The issue in the golf-poker challenge is the gambling. We all know that there is no gambling in golf. Excuse me, all my laughing has hurt my sides.

Taffy, no one thinks that there is no gambling in golf. In fact, the USGA's rules book includes their policy on gambling.

Agree on college kids. While other college sports also pay for equipment, college football players and baseball players, etc, are not then competing against other amateurs in national competitions like they do in golf.

I don't really care for the fact that the highest level of amateur competition has essentially become the NCAA Summer League. It is what it is and I don't expect it to change however.

i don't understand the purpose of suing to keep one's amateur status. is there an economics angle here i'm missing?

Thusgone,

I don't think there is much of an economic angle, except that he has paid fees to enter Am events.

A more interesting topic of discussion is the USGA's policy on born-again amateurs. Dillard Pruitt won a PGA Tour event and later won the Canadian Amateur. That isn't right. Why are they not so tight-assed on those situations?

I know Dusty rather well, and I wish him the best in all of his endeavors.

I do think he is grandstanding to further his career to a certain point, but I will tell you this: Dusty is a passionate, driven golfer who loves great architecture, loves the sport. I do believe he feels that he has been slighted by the USGA and I haven't actually talked with him in some years, but have emailed with him recently before this whole bruhaha started.

Dusty's temperament is strong enough to take this to the stage that has been set. I'm not sure I agree with his stance on representing himself; because a good attorney could make mincemeat out of him, but Dusty will explain his passion for the sport, what it means to him and how this entire thing has affected him. He could have a case there. But I will never forget the day I begged Dusty not to turn professional; to stay in school despite the bad grades and lack of enthusiasm for the higher institution of learning (school) at that point in his life. (he was no different then many of us: a VERY GOOD STUDENT, just tired of the work because it took away from playing golf) I told him how I felt it would be one of the most defining moments of his life and ironically, here we are some years later and he's fighting to be an amateur again.

You see, Dusty learned, sort of the hard way, but he learned. He experienced physical issues which are not offered in college classes on any campus in America, yet are part of the curriculum in the school of life. He's had a great professor in teaching him how to overcome--Casey Martin, his partner and mentor on his website ventures.

Yes, I do think in some cases, he does have a case. But ultimately, win or lose, Dusty should know this: regardless of the outcome, get on with your life and do it the right way, which might be the hardest way of doing it. There are no shortcuts in life and the stories of heroes which to admire don't have to utilize a courtroom suing the governing body of the very thing you love the most. Either way, Dusty, for all of his quirks and faults is a good guy who just wants to compete. He just has to learn the one thing--there is a reason why they put erasers on pencils.

And if you should be reading, good luck tomorrow.

thusgone, the economics are explained in your tattered Econ 101 textbook...this is a classic example of the old work vs. leisure tradeoff. He's clearly made enough dough that leisure is now looking pretty attractive compared to work, and competitive amatuer golf seems to be a preferred means of relaxing. Hope the USGA loses this one.

PS...been asking around amongst some of the key Bethpage staff about their experience dealing with the blue coats from the USGA and to say they are thrilled to have blue coats gone is an understatement!

Sounds like reality for primetime.

not to get too technical here, but schmidt can be made whole on the entry fees with money damages. in order to prevail in an action for a tro, he has to show irreparable harm that cannot be addressed by money damages. i suppose there is an argument that the time he loses from playing amateur golf while waiting to have his amateur status restored through the existing process cannot be repaid.

i am not a rabid supporter of the usga, but i'm generally against taking disputes with sports governing bodies to court. i like the idea that there is a set of rules that govern all players, and that the governing body is the last resort.

one of the consequences (to the game) of this "take the usga to court" approach is chaos when the governing body is hesitant to step in with definitive rulings for fear of economically crippling litigation. the "rollback the ball" types often cite the ping eye2 litigation as an event that is at least partly to blame for the usga's (perceived) failure to properly regulate equipment standards so as to safeguard the classic golf courses.

The USGA has more money for lawyers then this guy.

I played college golf with Dusty at UC Irvine our freshman year. Dusty is a true fan of the game of golf and would never do anything to harm the game he loves. I can still remember him dressing up in full payne stewart atire the week after his death as a tribute. Good luck tomorrow Dusty!!!!!

I reported myself to the USGA after winning a putting contest in Dallas in 2005. It was indoors, on astroturf, at a golf show. I got hot and won, and first prize was $1000 and a vacation to Vancouver Island. The USGA revoked my amateur status. I am a 12 index player.

I wrote about this for Erik Barzeski's golf blog. To this day I'm not completely sure I understand how cases like mine threaten the spirit of amateurism in golf, but I trust that the USGA knows better than I about it. I reported myself out of curiosity only, to see what they'd do. I don't play competitively.

To me, it comes down to your definition of amateur, which I guess means someone for whom golf is a hobby or diversion, and who has another primary occupation or job as their means of support. Those who make a living at golf have their own tournaments.

But in my reading about amateurism and golf, it seems that there was, at the turn of the 20th century, a sort of different concept or definition of amateur, or another connotation of the term. The "simon pure" amateur was akin to a "gentleman," someone who played the game for the pure enjoyment of it, not for the "vulgar" motive of support or making money. A golf pro at that time was more akin to a tradesman. It was a class thing.

To me, Schmidt's case would seem to violate the latter connotation of the term. The idea of someone promoting himself via golf does not fit the simon pure mold of Chick Evans and Bob Jones, playing the game for the pure joy. I'm not saying I know Schmidt's motive, but I can see where the USGA might believe his motive was incompatible with the spirit of amateurism. As for his actions threatening the fairness or purity of amateur golf events, I can't see where there's a significant issue.

86 - can you link to the post? Sounds like an interesting story.

I find it somewhat incongruous that you get stripped of your status for that while so many former touring pros can get their am status back despite relative prominence.

Tighthead: http://tinyurl.com/lrpze8

Thanks Erik.

In most team "amatuer" events, it is common for competitors to get free equipment, uniforms, travel to the events, and coaching. I know my eight grade football team got all of that and awards banquet at the end of the year. No one would consider us professional.

Think about it this way: I challenge anyone to name one Division I college football player who pays for his coaching or his helmet.

I think the USGA is trying to treat amatuer golfers in a manner similar to amatuers in other sports. By trying to make a large amount of money, this guy was not an amatuer.

A golfer in an NCAA Division I Program is not an amateur. Period. The players might not be professionals exactly, but they probably inhabit the same so-called gray area Bob Jones lived in after his retirement in 1930. The USGA agreed until some time in the mid-1950s. I also played football from third grade through high school and only paid for my shoes, for the most part (but even those were available in high school). But, then, we didn't actually take any of the stuff and use it in other competitions. In fact, the equipment was used over and over from year to year until it wore out, which is probably what happens to football equipment in NCAA programs. Somehow I doubt that happens in the Oklahoma State, Georgia, Florida, or Houston golf programs.

I must side with the USGA on this one. And college golfers are very much amateurs. So there.