#8: Mike Small
Mike Small is head men's golf coach at the University of Illinois, ranked #10 in the 2021-2022 pre-season golf rankings. In this episode, we discuss the ramifications of the Name, Image and Likeness ruling, how the mechanics of college golf (recruiting, fundraising, leadership) really work and how Coach Small develops college players into pros.
Read the interview below or listen on Spotify, Apple, Google, Stitcher or Amazon. Enjoy!
Roberto: Mike, thanks a lot for joining The Course Record Show today. Let's get right into it. I spoke to one of your former players and he told me, “Coach Small’s secret sauce is his ability to turn a white collar sport into a blue collar sport.” Tell me what he means by that.
Mike: Well, it means it's not always pretty. It doesn't always have to be easy. It's not a recreational sport. I think people have always looked at golf- maybe people that don't know the Tour and you know this obviously- but they look at golf as they've watched on TV and they see guys on Sunday, got their beautiful shirts on, their nicely creased pants, their shoes are shined. Everything is perfect. They're waving to the crowd. Balls are going perfect. Five irons are beautiful up in the air, sitting there landing by the pin. Waving, and it's just like a euphoric game. It’s easy. But we all know that golf is totally opposite. Those guys are churning inside and maybe their grip may not feel good that day.
You know they might not be feeling great inside, they're nervous, not all lies are perfect. Not all shots are perfect. Some days they’re hitting them off the toe and they're having to get up and down from 30 yards and make eight footers for pars and 15 footers for pars.
And golf is probably the most mentally cruel, inconsistent game there is and people think it's just everything is perfect and structured and clean. When, you know, to be a champion, you've got to get down and dirty. You can't make excuses, you have to fight the adversity, to fight the demons in your head. You know, bad things are shooting at you every time you turn around and you have to really just persevere through all that stuff and bring your lunch pail to work and deal with some tough conditions, more mentally than physically. But you know, you're going to work. You're going to put your time in and grind it out and earn that paycheck.
Dan: So on the recruiting trail with that philosophy in mind, what kind of players do you look for and what kind of players look for you and your program with that philosophy?
Mike: I think that's a good question. And people ask me all the time, even in the summer when I've been out after the COVID break that we had, you know, what are you looking for in a player? And I always say, I look for everything. I just look for everything. I recruit more from a holistic approach.
I just kind of let everything come to me. I'm not an analytical guy that crunches numbers and writes notes. I just kind of let it come to me. And you know, sure you watch if they can compress it, you watch if they can control the distance to their ball. You watch their fundamentals.
But I watch how they walk. I watch what they're doing when somebody else is hitting the shot. I watch how they treat their parents. I watch how they put their glove on. I watch their pre-shot routine. I just watch everything and just let it come to me. And I think what our personality of our program comes about, I think is in the conversation piece.
Once you identify these players and you want to start a relationship with them, I think they can tell pretty quickly what our program's about by our conversations and about maybe the questions we ask and then the answers they get are pretty direct and pretty honest all with the intent of, we're trying to find out what's best for them. We're trying to find a match so that their future can be productive and successful. And you know, not a lot of these conversations are all going to be rehearsed and the same, that you may hear at some other school, and we just try to get down in the weeds as quickly as possible. I think they see that and the ones that embrace it, the ones that can recognize that really are drawn to our program. The ones that maybe can't see it are maybe pushed away sooner than later.
And I think that's something that we started doing maybe 12, 15 years ago. And I think the kids that really want a type of program that is so honest, so direct, so positive towards their future coupled with our way of doing business, that once they see that, they're drawn to it.
Roberto: I like that.
Dan: Sticking on the recruiting theme with the onset of COVID, the transfer portal has made quite a stir in college sports, making it much easier for players to transfer schools. From your standpoint as a coach, is it a good thing for you? Is it a good thing for the players? How do you process the whole transfer portal thing?
Mike: Well, the transfer portal. Yeah, it’s organized the whole transfer process because the way the big sports now can transfer and not sit out a year has always been the way for golf. It's always been that way. Guys didn't have to sit out for golf. But now it's become more since basketball and football are doing it more, that's almost becoming more of an accepted process, it seems like. And it's just too early for me to tell which way that's going to go for golf specifically. I'm not a big believer in transferring just to transfer.
I think I've always had this stance. Since I started coaching 21 years ago, I learned very quickly in the process. I think a transfer is productive if both parties agree that a transfer is in order, that's kind of my philosophy on transferring. I think sometimes people look for the easy way out and they don't like to fight through adversity. They don't like to maybe reflect personally on situations. That's coaches and players, both. I think if some players aren't happy and they bring it to the coach, I think the coach needs to have some self-reflection, look at himself and figure out maybe how he can change things and make things better.
And I think the player can have some self-reflection as well. And you know, once that's all exhausted, I think a transfer could be in order for both, but I think they both need to look at it and learn that they can make this better and that they can become better through this thing. And I don't think a lot of kids do that nowadays.
Roberto: That's a good perspective. I think it really affects how coaches recruit and plan out their team. So for the listeners, college golf has four and a half scholarships. So if you have a team of eight to 12 players, the coach has to figure out how to fit those puzzle pieces together. If I'm not mistaken, Mike; correct me if I'm wrong. So you might give your top recruits a full ride, and then you're trying to allocate four and a half scholarships over eight to 12 players. And when you have a transfer that might be on a scholarship, it's hard to redeploy that scholarship. So it really affects the long-term prognosis of your team.
When, on the flip side of it, that player could just say, Hey, I've hit the skids here. I'm out. It's not that, it's really not that easy.
Mike: No, you're right. I mean, we have a salary cap. Our salary cap is four and a half scholarships, 450%. So it's not unlike a professional sports team, but we have to keep under our 450%. And you gotta plan out two, three, and four years down the road. And then if somebody is not happy or if somebody's maybe planning on going somewhere else, you know, it catches you midstream/mid season & that kind of throws your plan out the window. But I understand the argument that if coaches leave, well then players should be able to leave. I get all that.
And if it's not meant to be, if there's a true, better place somewhere else, well then, okay, let's discuss it. But let's just not make these commitments if we're not exhausting every opportunity to stay together and do what's best for the young man and for the team, because this is a two way street. It’s a relationship. I think people lose sight of that sometimes. They think it's all one sided. And I think if the school goes at it like it's all one sided, it's just wins and losses and this and that. And the student athletes aren't important to our institution. That's wrong. And if the student athletes look and say, Hey, this is all about my development, my growth, my career, and not looking at it from the institution's point of view, I think that's wrong as well.
So I think that's where communication and understanding that it's a relationship. This is the first time in a lot of these kids' lives that they have to enter into a relationship where there's accountability on both sides. And so for the first time, some kids who are 18 years old are working into and entering an agreement where both parties are there for each other, but they're both needed to be held accountable to what they do. And I think that's something that is missed in the recruiting process.
And we've talked about that too. And the kids that come to our program know a hundred percent that we are all in, in their development. We will not stop. We work harder than they do. We'll commit to work harder than they do as well. We'll do everything we can to make them great. But we expect the same thing.
I think once the young people for the first time in life understand that it takes them to a whole other level of maturity-wise, accountability-wise, commitment-wise, I think that's huge. And I think that's something that should be discussed early. And I think that both parties, especially the student athlete, realize this is a two-way street and that we're both in this together, I think they’ll be more apt to stick through the downs and the struggles and the slumps and fight through it and come out a better player at the end than just jumping ship and going somewhere else, hoping that the grass is greener when inevitably it isn't very often. But I think if they realize that if they can get through this stuff together, it will be greener where they’re at.
Roberto: Yeah, I think you've nailed it developmentally. Your parents love you unconditionally. That's not a relationship. That's nature, right? This is the first time I had a similar experience. Not to dive into it, but I was 19, two years of college and the books, and I was crossed-up with my college coach and we went into a meeting room at Golf Club of Georgia. And I said, you know what I want, I want to do well myself and for this team to be good. You know what you want? You want the team to do great. And you want me to do great, but we are at odds right now, but we want the same thing. Let's figure this out. And we sat there for a couple hours and we're close to this day.
I stayed at Tech, obviously. We had a great junior-senior season. At 19, that's a difficult conversation, but it was a huge conversation as a person for me to grow up. And I look back on it now, and it wasn't a fun experience, but a very valuable one.
Mike: Oh, of course that's a relationship, and you grew up a lot. But the coach grew up too, you know, I mean, I'm open to change. I'm open to listen. I don't think coaches are stuck in their ways to where they, you know, they won't bend- at least the good ones have to understand that we need to change with the times. Now there are standards that you have to have, and principles you have to have in your program, but we're open to learn and discuss it.
And kids want an opportunity and coaches need to give them an opportunity, but the kids have to reciprocate with the effort and the commitment and the toughness and just the ability to stick through things as well, and coaches have to stand by players when they're slumping too. You have to go to work with them and give them your extra gear too. And I think it's a relationship. I think that what's great about college athletics is for the first time the student athletes enter into a relationship with somebody besides the family where they both have to be accountable to each other.
And I think that's part of growing up and that's a huge part of going to school and why student athletes are very successful in life after college, after athletics, because they learn to co-exist and come together with people they may not see eye to eye with in trying to reach a goal together.
Dan: Switching gears a bit to another recent change to the college game around the NIL: the recent NCAA rule change that allows players to monetize their name, image, and likeness. What's your take on this? Is this a good or a bad thing for college golf?
Mike: I think it's a good thing for college sports in general. I've never seen a problem with the young man who is 18 years old and he wants to, he has his own name, image, and likeness to capitalize on it and to monetize it. I think there’s nothing wrong with that. That's America. I think that's great. My concern from that standpoint, the only flies in ointment, is the student athlete’s ability to manage their time correctly at such a young age, and maybe not put the carriage in front of the horse and not see the big picture sometimes. But I think they should be allowed to earn money based on their name, image and likeness. And I think that I know in our program & the institution, our program will support that as long as it doesn't get in the way of their academics and of their sport, continuing to see how good they can be. When people's priorities get out of whack, for whatever reason, development doesn't occur and growth doesn't occur.
And as long as NIL fits into their timetable, into their schedule, where they can still be the best student athlete, they can be, I think, a homerun. It's too early to tell from this standpoint, but I think well, my concern is, how it's gonna affect recruiting? And in that aspect, I don't know.
We’ll have to wait and see on that one, but I think you're getting into a lot of gray area there. And I think maybe it’s a lot of the state governments that actually run and enforce the NILs now. The NCAA has nothing to do with the NIL rules. It's not an NCAA rule. It's a state. And I don't think it's a federal law, but it's a state law. So all of the violations and all of the rules are being enforced by state governments, from what I understand. So, that's a whole other ballgame now where you'd have that getting involved in the incentivized...
Roberto: Okay. So let's pull that recruiting thread for a second. Let's say that you're recruiting player XYZ, and he calls you and says, Hey, Coach, love Illinois golf. But the other school in the running, they have a couple of boosters that have guaranteed me a hundred thousand dollars a year for my four years playing there. Do you think that's going to happen? And if so, how do you respond to that?
Mike: Yeah, again, I don't know how this is all gonna turn out, but as coaches and institutions, we're not allowed to be involved in any of these NILs. I can't help organize any student athletes to pursue any opportunities in the NIL and has to be done by themselves and they have to go through the appropriate channels and get clearance to do these things. But as coaches we're not allowed. If a booster were to call us and say, Hey Coach, I got this for one of your players. Can you, do you think he'd be good? Can you set this up? Can you do this? Or can you send me some players? I have to say “no comment.” You have to go through the appropriate channels that's through that student athlete. So, I think the way it's probably gonna be done is the students are going to talk to student athletes or the prospective student athlete would talk to current student athletes.
And who knows, what's going to, how all those conversations will go because coaches cannot be involved in any of this stuff. It's just starting right now. But what I've gathered through our meetings and through my reading so far is that as coaches, we cannot be involved in this at all. We cannot act on behalf of the student athletes; they have to do it on their own.
Dan: So what about this scenario? Say the program has certain sponsors with equipment companies, et cetera. And then a player wants to take an endorsement deal from that sponsor’s competitor. Does that just play out on its own where there's like this mixed sort of message amongst the team where one person supports company A. And how does that kind of work in the locker room?
Mike: Well, I think that's potential for animosity and for, you know, getting sideways with some situations. I know if the university or the department has an agreement with company A and a student athlete is asked to represent company B who are competitors, they can't wear that stuff during competition. They have to wear the university's agreement. And then if any student athlete goes and does something at NIL or makes money as appearance or something? They can't be wearing the institution’s uniform official logos and stuff. They have to be wearing different things.
So they've addressed that in some instances. But from that standpoint, I don't know if any golf programs have deals that say you have to use this club. I don't think that's smart. I think somebody, some companies, support programs with product and support the program, but I don't think there's anything written in there that says the players have to use club A or club B. I don't think that's smart golf in general because it's such an equipment intensive sport. You have to use what you play your best with. But you're right: there could be some competitiveness and some animosity between those companies. And I don't know how that's all gonna turn out, to be honest with you. It's going to be interesting to see.
Roberto: I go back to where you started. It's hard enough to manage your attention much less your time as an adult, forget being 18 or 19 years old. And it's just so distracting- a $5,000 NIL deal, or I got XYZ company to put me on their Instagram. It's just such BS. Kids should be focused on going to school and getting better at golf. And that's going to be a real challenge.
Mike: That’s right. Well, that's companies and that's people looking at the top players in the sport to help their brand move forward. That's going to happen with the top one to five to 10 top players in college golf, the top 20 players in college basketball. These big corporations are going to want to get these kids. I understand that. But what people don't realize (is) where the time commitment is going to happen.
Conflict for some of these student athletes is the local boosters. If they want to help a football team or basketball team or golf team out, and they want to, you know, on a Sunday afternoon, throw a party at their home and pay athlete A a thousand dollars to come out for three to four hours to hobnob with the guests or come out to one of their kids' birthday parties and shoot hoops with them, or come out and play nine holes with five other kids for a kid's birthday party.
You know, I can see parents and donors paying money to a top college athlete to come out and hang out with their kids as a present or something for the kids. That's an NIL thing, name, image, and likeness, these student athletes could do. There's where the time comes- the three or four hours on a Saturday afternoon, or going to a dinner party on Saturday night, or going to a breakfast on Thursday morning or whatever.
And then you get some of those lined up. People can get, you know, this is kind of nice. I'm getting $500 to go to this birthday party and hang out with these nine to 10 year old kids for three, four hours. You know, you do that every weekend. You get used to that money, then all of a sudden, where's your time go to prepare for that test on Monday or to go get some extra work in on your short game or a jump shot on Saturday afternoon, where you used to head to the gym and shoot.
Now I think you might get drawn to some other areas in your community by people just wanting to spend time and get to know the student athletes and pay them for their time. I think that's something that may be more time demanding & time consuming for the student athletes than just those corporate deals.
Roberto: Yeah. That's interesting. All right. I have one more. And then I know Dan wants to cover the business basics of college golf. But on the name, image, likeness, I also think there's a chance for a university that has a booster or two. There's a lot of wealthy people in this world now that are passionate about golf.
It just seems to me like you're going to hear a story where, you know, pick a school, whatever- Colorado University. I don't even know if that's a thing. Colorado University has a booster who loves golf and made a billion dollars and he says, Hey, we’ve got eight spots on the team. Every guy that comes, you have to come twice a semester to my car dealerships.That's how I made my money. And every guy gets 150 grand a year. That's my deal. And all of a sudden you've got Colorado University that built up their golf team because one guy is going to write a million dollar check every year. I think that's going to happen. Like, how is that going to play out?
Mike: Yeah, there's been talk about that. And again, that could happen, but I know there's a rule in there, a law that says Fair Market Value or something like that. There's gotta be something that says you can't, you know, what is it? What price can you put on that? And I think they have to justify that.
Roberto: Oh, okay.
Mike: I think there's gotta be something there, but that wouldn't cause red flags. But you're right, college athletics is where it's at and it's grown. In my opinion- this is my opinion- it's grown in football and basketball and its stature across the country, primarily because of how bad the donors and supporters want to win. If university A is, and then University B the rivals and the members go to the club on Sunday morning, or they see each other at work on Thursdays and they want bragging rights and they have a lot of money, you know, they're going to pay for new facilities.
They're going to pay for these tickets to the suites. They're going to donate all this money to the university because they want their institution to win. As long as that competitive drive exists in the donor side of things, that's how this whole thing grows and grows and grows. And if golf programs want to start to be overly competitive, one program does what you suggested maybe to a level of maybe not that high.
If program A starts doing that and program B is competitive and they want to compete and they don't want to lose. And they tell their donors, Hey, this is what these people are doing. And then their donors will say, We can compete with that. And all of a sudden it becomes an arms race there too.
That's what's happened in facilities. That's what's happened in coaches’ salaries. Is primarily the donors and the alums want to win. I think that's what's been spurring this thing. And if you want to trace it right down to where it all starts, I think that's what happens. And if that were ever to dry up, then you think you see the income or the money kind of dry up as well. But you make a great point that if the donors want their teams to win, and one of the programs wants the same thing, they're going to do whatever they can do within the rules to get that done.
Dan: So Coach, stepping back from these recent issues that we just covered the last few minutes, walk our listeners through the basics of college golf. For instance, on the business side, what's a budget for a power five conference college golf team. And how does that money typically split up between some of your budget items?
Mike: Well, I can't speak for other programs & I don't really know. I don't really get wrapped up in that very much. Budgets and things like that. I know every program is different. Every program has a different mandate and like we just talked a minute ago, some minor sports, or Olympic sports they call them, are more important in some schools than others.
Our program is very respectful to the institution and we spend what they give us or allow us to spend. And we don't for one minute think that the tail wags the dog. But we are part of a department that prides itself on graduating really strong student athletes and preparing them for the next stage in life, whether it's professional sports or not. And we all have a place in educating this, and we do it to the best of our ability. And I think our department, the way we do things, I'm very impressed and proud to see how we do that.
I can't give specific numbers, but our department will fund us to the level we need to be competitive, and I'm on the same regard. I don't think you should overfund things just to do it. Like I said, I think there's a purpose and a method behind everything. And ours is mashed up perfectly to a wonderful experience. So these kids get to see how good they can become, but also keeping them grounded and having them share in the responsibility as well. Now, I will say that I've been at coaching for 21 years.
And when I came back, I had lost my card with the PGA Tour. And a year and a half later, I was still on the Nike Tour at the time, I believe, Nationwide Tour, maybe as a past champion. And I was trying to get back on Tour, but I wanted to become a coach. And when they asked me to come back and coach Illinois to see if we can make something special of this golf program, I wanted to be sure that we were gonna have resources to build facilities and resources to compete with the best teams in the country.
And they promised me we would, and they have. We have facilities that can compare and compete with anybody in the world schedule, but it's not something that goes overboard. But we pride ourselves on building some of the best, efficient, practical facilities for our student athletes.
So, I know it's a long-winded answer to your question probably with no numbers. But you know, because some programs fly privately a lot, some fly privately a little bit. Some don't fly privately at all. Some programs have equipment deals, some don't, you know, some are restricted to where they travel and some aren't, so it's all across the board.
But I think that goes back to your recruiting question too. The recruits have to find out exactly what fits them and what will give them the best chance to reach their goals academically and athletically. But specifically to answer your question, I don't know the numbers. I just know that it's all across the board.
Roberto: Let’s jump over to some of the competitive side of college golf. The NCAA signed a six year deal to host national championships at Grayhawk in Scottsdale. I think the driving factor was TV. Production costs are lower at one site. You go back-to-back weeks with the guys and the gals. You're in a major city. I see the upsides and I think college golf on TV is awesome. But do you think that compromises the competitive integrity or the equitable competition of playing in the same place six years in a row?
Mike: A hundred percent. I agree with you in what you said there. I've said this from day one now. Grayhawk is a three-year deal and LaCosta is the next three years. Austin, San Diego are three. So Grayhawk, only three years. But you're right. TV has really helped to promote and advance college golf, has helped the young players- the student athletes- become a brand, be seen nationally; college golf has become bigger. It's helped coaches in salaries and in recognition. What their alums and donors- we just talked five minutes ago about how important it is. If the donors and supporters want a good team, if they know the staff and other coaches and they're doing well, it becomes more important for the Athletic Directors to keep the coaches. So TV has really helped build a brand for the student athletes and the coaches and the universities.
It's been a huge boom and a great opportunity for the programs, coaches, and players. But in order to do that, the Golf Channel had leverage and they wanted to host it at a venue that made sense to them economically from production costs to commercial space, you know, prime time TV. That's why it's out west to be on prime time.
So there's a trade off there. So the NCAA and the coaches had to, you know, pick their poison. So they decided to because I don't think the Golf Channel would have covered college golf if it would have stayed stroke play. It had to go to match play, had to stay in match play for them to do it.
So that's why, that's how this whole thing transpired. And I think it's worked out well. And like I said, I've benefited, our team has benefited. Some of our players who have gone on to play professional golf have benefited from the extra branding and the extra notoriety and recognition nationally. But I think it does affect the competitive- I won't say credibility- but I think match play doesn't always pick the best team in the country, in my opinion. But does the NCAA basketball tournament with the top 64 teams, one and out? Does that pick the best basketball team every year? No, it doesn't, but it's the most exciting way to project the sport. And there's not a more exciting way to play college golf than match play.
It is an awesome experience. It's nerve-wracking, it's fun. It's exhilarating and it's devastating. All wrapped into one. But without it, we wouldn't have TV. So, our team's been fortunate- we've made Match Play seven times, I think.
Roberto: Every year! You guys are up there every year.
Mike: The second most appearances behind Oklahoma State, something that we're proud of. Second in the country in that stat. And we made the national finals 13 years in a row, which is the second longest active streak in the NCAA, one behind Texas. So we've been competitive. But we haven’t won that dang thing yet. We would have won it under the old format. We were stroke champions one year of four rounds. But one year when we lost, when we finished second to Alabama, we were nowhere near the top five or 10 teams that year, but we got hot and ran it to the end. So I've done well on both sides of it. I don't think it's the most exact way to define a national champion for golf. Because it's one match.
It's a sprint. It's not a full length golf tournament. I mean, the Ryder Cup plays five matches at least to define their champion, their winner. In golf, you play one- it's not probably the most exact way to do things, but it sure is exciting. It sure is competitive. And it's great for TV.
So I think if you look at it, it's turned out to be a great thing for college golf. And then you mentioned Grayhawk and I was always kind of curious about going out and worried about going to the desert to play a national championship. And usually the national championship moves around the country- in the west, the Midwest, the east plays classical golf courses.
You get different venues every year, some years it benefits the east coast school. Some years it benefits the Midwest schools. Some years, the west coast. Well now it's in the desert for three years and then Southern California for three. So what does that do to some schools? My first inclination was, that's not great. That's not perfect.
But this year at Grayhawk, they did one heck of a job. And if you looked at this year's eight teams that made the match play, they were on paper probably the best eight teams at that tournament. And so the way they had Grayhawk set up with the pins and the rough the way it was, the heat and the way the ball carried wasn't as big a factor as I thought it would be because of the way they had the course set up with the greens and the firmness and the pins.
And I thought it identified a great champion. I thought Pepperdine was playing well. We played with them three of the four rounds, I think, of stroke play there. And they got on a roll , and they took care of business. But again, I looked at who gets into match play. And because once you get into match play, it's not a better word, I guess, or adjective. It's a crap shoot because it's such a sprint, a quick decided match that you don't always get the best. But the eight teams that got into match play were all the best.
Dan: So if you had to choose to change the venue, the fixed venue, or change the format, which would you choose first?
Mike: I'm a traditionalist. I think I wish Golf Channel would come up with a way to promote and put it on TV by doing stroke play, but I know that'll never happen. So I've kind of resigned myself to the fact that match play is going to stay there. So with that being said, we have these next five years, which we're going to honor and go to these host sites.
But I would love to see it change. I'd love to see it, you know, one year it was the Honors Course, and then one year we were in Inverness, and then, you know, then the other year we're out in Riviera and then we were up in Oregon and then you're down in Florida Concession. I think that's a true national championship of an NCAA sport like golf.
It's not a basketball court or a, you know, every base is at 90 feet. It's not the nature of the sport. The nature of sport is to play different golf courses, different conditions, different topographies. And I think that's what should be represented in the national championship, in my opinion.
Roberto: I agree with you. I think it's a huge advantage to be playing on your home turf. You see it on Tour all the time. Guys get their first wins in conditions that are close to where they grew up. I mean, even Rahm said so. He can win anywhere. But he won his US Open and his first Tour win, both at Torrey. He said, it just feels like the place I grew up, the same weather, the same grass. Even the best players in the world need that edge. So I hope it goes back to moving around too.
Mike: Yeah. Yeah. And being in the desert’s great, or being in Southern California is great. I don't know, but being there two and three and four years in a row, I think is a little strong for golf. You know, I understand the Omaha for baseball every year. It makes sense. But it's basically baseball is baseball. I mean it all feels the same.
But in golf, move it around east, west, central, east, west, central or something like that. But again, if I was king for a day, that's what I would put my emphasis on to answer your question? But you know, I also will say that my players- and they agree and we've talked about it- we just go where they tell us to go and we're going to go play it wherever we need to play. And we're going to play as hard as anybody to compete, and we're not going to look backwards. And so this is just for, you know, for our talk here, hypotheticals, but we're going to go wherever we need to go. We're going to have fun.
And we're going to lock arms and compete.
Roberto: We love hypotheticals here. Let's keep them coming.
Roberto: Mike, let's switch gears again to transitioning from college to the pros, something you've seen a lot of your players do. You did it yourself and then you transitioned back actually to college. But specifically let's talk about the PGA Tour U. For the listeners, it's the system where some of the top graduating seniors can earn some status on the Korn Ferry Tour or on the Canadian Tour, Latin American Tour. So some of the Tours under the PGA Tour umbrella. I was against it. How do you think it's working? And do you think it's a good thing?
Mike: I think it's still a work in progress. I think the intent is great. But again, I've been in those PGA Tour players meetings and I've heard all the griping and talking and discussing things. I think it's a win-win, but I can't imagine all the players on Tour, you know, these guys trying to make a living who’ve been out there for two or three or four years on some of these Tours, giving up spots right away to these young kids. That's the professional golf mentality.
But for the student athletes, I think it's wonderful. I think it may keep some of them in school a little longer, which it was intended to do.
Roberto: You have to be a graduating senior, is that correct?
[00:32:42] Mike: That. Yes. But now with the fifth year, if you're doing well or not so well, you can take your name out and wait another year if you want to.
Roberto: Okay. But like, if a freshman is national player of the year, he's not eligible, correct?
Mike: I think it’s just fourth and fifth year players. Exactly. Right.
Dan: So Roberto, going back to one thing the Coach said about how Tour players perceive PGA Tour U, you're on the Tour now and you talked to the guys. Does what Coach says kind of play out in your circles, or do
Tour players have a different perspective?
Roberto: No, I was in the PAC, I think, when this was going through and there was never any consideration of giving spots on the PGA Tour. So that kind of appeased the players pretty easily. But from a high level, really two reasons I didn't really support it. Number one, I just didn't think, to Mike’s point, that my performance against other collegiate golfers should reward you in professional golf. I played the mini tours for three years and it's hard to get on the Korn Ferry.
And then all of a sudden, some college kid jumps onto the Korn Ferry because he beat college competition. Okay. Fine. Whatever. And then second of all, I just thought from the Tour’s business stand, I just don't see why the Tour wants to legislate amateur golf. So now they have this formula, wagger or not. Why does the Tour get to tell you, that you don't get access to their events through PGA Tour U until you're a fourth or a fifth year?
I'm pro-education. I think kids should get their degrees, but the college player of the year is a freshman? Who is the Tour to tell that kid that he's not eligible for these PGA Tour U starts? Bottom line, the Tour runs professional golf. Why get involved in amateur golf? That was my take on it. It's not a real hot button issue, Dan, long story short because it's a small deal, but that was my take.
Mike: Yeah. And I agree as a professional golfer, I agree with what you're saying. As a college coach, though, I can see that the Tour’s trying to help young kids stay in school longer. And this was their intent on kids leaving, you know, turning pro early and just trying to go out and slap it around a little bit and hope to get some starts through that or through their agents or something. I think that was their intent. So I think it was all well-intended. But I just think it needs to continue to be tweaked.
But I just remember when I was on the Korn Ferry Tour and then the PGA Tour, those player meetings and guys griping and arguing and this and that and playing opportunities are always a number one gripe. And that's what I remember.
But as a college golf coach, I think it's great these kids are getting an opportunity because there is no Tour School anymore to get a chance to get out there. So, especially when the season ends in June, they’ve got all six months- what do they do?
Roberto: All right, Mike, as you mentioned, you’ve had a long professional career and 21 years at Illinois. You've seen plenty of players try to make the Tour to varying degrees of success. What's the one piece of golf-specific advice you give them on their way out the door?
Mike: Golf-specific advice. Well, I think they realize this too- golf owes them nothing. The game of golf is the greatest game in the world. And when I was struggling as a professional, you know, it's easy, it's human nature to be negative and to make excuses and to complain and to gripe and to get down on yourself and think negative.
It's harder to think positive. It's harder to be optimistic and just do all the correct things. And these kids, young players, even pros when they struggle, they just look at everything so negatively sometimes. That's what the game does to you. But that's why I love the game. Because it is hard. It's supposed to be hard. But it owes you nothing. And if you think the game owes you something, you need to grab hold of that really quick and slap yourself a couple times on the cheeks. The game owes you nothing. You create your own breaks. You make your own hay and the game gives you the opportunity to be great. Kind of like in life, this country gives you a great opportunity to be successful. There's no guarantee you're going to be successful if you live in America. It guarantees you the pursuit of happiness, not happiness.
Golf- it gives you the opportunity to go tee it up and play. It's not going to always be great, but you know, it doesn't owe you anything. And I think if you have that mentality and you can go out and stay in the present, believe in yourself, surround yourself with really good people. I mean, that's a huge thing. I tell them about: surround yourself with good people.
And you know as well as I do, when you're a young player, things aren't going very well. It's a lot easier, a lot more fun to find somebody who's just as miserable as you are to make you feel better. You know, misery loves company. The mini tours are full of that stuff. And if you want to be successful and you want to keep getting better and improving, you can't let yourself fall into that trap of “poor me.” You know, I'm struggling. And then just find somebody else who's just as miserable as you so you can feel better. You need to be steadfast and stick up for yourself and remember what your principles are. And remember you make your own breaks and that the game owes you nothing.
Roberto: I like that one.
Dan: What about on the business side? Any advice that you give players as they go out the door?
Mike: I've had several players- I think five or six of them who played the PGA Tour. Some still are and they've all signed with agents pretty early. Which is great. So I kind of stay out of the business side with them. When they get set up with those guys, kinda back off and let them ask me questions. You know, I've always done this. I'm not a stalker coach. I don't recruit this way. I don't coach my players to go on to play professional golf. They know that I have their back, 100% support for them the rest of my life, their life. And if they need me, if they're in LA or like Thomas Pieters was in Dubai, one time he needed me. I will fly to these guys and will help them, but I'm not going to call them up just to make small talk and I'm not actually coming to Tour events and walk with them just to share in it and to be in it. I got nine other guys right now that need me. I'm trying to find nine other ones in recruiting and I'm still trying to play a little bit.
And I think they respect that. So I'm not the kind of coach who's going to always kind of meddle and call them, but they know unequivocally, if they need me and need something, they'll get me on the phone and I'll be there. If they say, Coach, I need you, I'll be there. But I would think the coaches do a good job when the kids turn 21 or 22 and they graduate and they get their degree and they put it in their pocket and they go play professional golf.
They've already been versed and prepped in the kind of the way that life is going to be like on Tour. And so if I don't get a lot of those calls, I take that as a compliment. So I like to think that the way we coach and teach, which is from a player's perspective and from a professional golfer’s perspective, that they're probably more ready and more mentally ready for what's out there than maybe somewhere else.
Roberto: Let the record show that Mike is, quote, “still playing a little bit,” & shot 66 the day we're recording this in a tournament. So just wanted to throw that out there.
Mike: Easy course, a senior course, I’m a senior now. So it was a short course.
Roberto: 66 is good on any course, my friend.
Dan: Alright, Coach, you survived the tough in-depth questions. We're going to switch to a couple of segments here that are more quick hits. So the premium is no longer on depth. But now on speed. More like first idea that pops into your mind when you hear the question kind of thing.
Mike: So that's scary for me now. I usually like to think about what I'm going to say here. I don't want to say something wrong. In today's world, I say something wrong, I get in trouble.
Roberto: We're still gonna edit this. Don't worry.
Dan: Alright, toughest course you played in a tournament?
Mike: Oakmont. US Open.
Dan: Toughest course you’ve seen your team play?
Mike: Wow. Toughest course seeing my team play. Karsten Creek, 2003, the first NCAA championship they hosted, I think it was 2003. The kids were derailed. I'd never seen so many disillusioned kids in my life.
Roberto: I've heard so many... there are a lot of Tech stories about that, about a scene on the first tee that was like a 30 minute period where a kid, no joke, had a panic attack. Then one of our kids got stung by a bee, but I've heard a lot of words similar to “panic attack” used describing that tournament.
Mike: Well, we've had, they've had three NCAA championships there since then, or three total. And the course has gotten- I don't want to use this word incorrectly- but it's gotten better, softer, more fair over time. And it's a really good test now. We went to regionals there. It's a really good test. But in 2003, it was over the top. It was Bermuda rough overseeded with rye or vice versa. Only eight feet of it and then went straight to weeds higher than your eyeballs into the woods. And it was, it was something. It was a heck of an experience.
Dan: Best round you’ve seen from a college player?
Mike: Well, I’ve had a lot of them. But Brian Campbell, I think, shot 63 the last round of the stroke play portion of the NCAAs at Prairie Dunes to help us get into match play. I think that was a good one.
Dan: Is he the best college player you've seen in your 20 years there or was there another one?
Mike: Oh, no. I mean, the best college player I’ve seen all over or on my team that I've coached?
Dan: Both.
Mike: Well, Thomas Pieters is pretty good for us. He was my second NCAA champion. Scott Lamb was our first. Thomas Pieters was our second. Thomas won three college tournaments at Illinois. The courses they were at were French Lick (Pete Dye course which is diabolical), Muirfield, and Riviera. So he knew how to play a hard golf course as well.
Dan: Best college player you've seen that didn't play for you.
Mike: Didn't play for me. I've seen a lot of them. I've been blessed. That's been the fun part of coaching college golf is to be in the middle of it all and watch this. But there have been very, very many of them. But I remember Jordan Speith. He was very, very impressive. John Rahm just a few years ago- we played Arizona State a lot that year. He was very impressive. You know, those guys come to mind probably right now.
Dan: Best player who may have played for you or not who did not make it on Tour?
Mike: I have to think about that one. Well probably Charlie Danielson. Charlie Danielson was a four time All-American for us. First team All-American, Big 10 player of the year and everything. And his career is going to end because of an injury. And unfortunately he never made it because of that. And I just talked to Charlie this week and it's something he's still trying to fight 70 operations later. He's hoping to get back out there, but he hasn’t made it yet. He was very, very impressive. Four final fours I think he went on our team or helped our team get to three final fours and one elite eight.
Dan: Wow. If you beat one of the players on your team during a round, what's the ritual that takes place afterwards?
Mike: Oh, how do I put this?
Dan: Sounds good already. I love it.
Mike: I, yeah, it's needling, but it's a silent needling. It's just...You should see the steam come out of their ears, especially the older I get, because I tell them there's no way that should happen. I mean, you know, they train like the Olympians and I don't ever play anymore. So it's just a lot of rubbing in there. A lot of trash talk, we talk, we trash talk on our team pretty good. We got some good trash talkers and I can probably, I'm the one that instigates most of it. I come from that era. The town I'm from, how I grew up. And there's a lot of needling. There's a lot of long-term memories when I win, a lot of short-term memories when I lose.
Dan: Their memories are long when they lose, I have a feeling.
Mike: But they're such good kids. And I tell you what, they're so respectful. I mean, it's just they want to win a lot of them. I remember Thomas Pieters used to choke all the time. Cause it's like beating your dad for the first time. You know, they just can't do it. They just want to do it. And they choke it and they choke and they can't do it. It happens to a lot of them. But once they started beating me, then they get a little more confident.
Roberto: That's fair. Alright. My section is called Buy or Sell, so it's more business oriented. But I have to chime in real quickly about Pieters who you said was maybe the best player you'd seen on your team. He's one of the best players I’ve ever seen, period. When people ask me that, I say Dustin Johnson, McElroy and Anthony Kim, but Pieters is like the next guy on that list. He really is that talented. One of the two Masters I played, I played in the morning, Friday, missed the cut. We were back at the rental house. The pin on 14 was like three over that massive fronts, whatever you want to call it. And I'm hitting like six or seven iron in there. And I could have taken a bucket of balls out there and not hit it within 20 feet and it's on TV and he was hitting a shot. And I said, if he hits us within 10 feet, I'll walk back to Atlanta. And he hit sand wedge from like 160 to a foot- impossible. It's impossible. And I've played with him a number of times. He's phenomenal. Like just strictly talent level is incredible. So sorry, I'm rambling, but...
Mike: No, but I can, I could talk about Thomas and I think he's got some great golf ahead of him yet. He's a very wonderful person, big heart. And he's just learning how to live his life with success. And I think he'll have a good run. The year he won at Riviera, he hit driver-wedge to a foot on 18 at Riviera. So I knew something special was happening.
Roberto: Yeah. The coach at Tech- I told him we were talking- and he said that at regionals that year, the last round, he said, it's blowing 30 and he's never heard of Thomas Pieters. And I don't know if y'all are playing together. He said, this dude's hitting balls that the wind's not even touching. And he said, this guy- I've never heard of him- I've never seen people hit golf shots like this through the wind. And he said, two weeks later, he wins Nationals at Riviera. So I figured out who that guy was. Alright, buy or sell: Tesla stock?
Mike: Buy
Roberto: Simulator golf? Buy or sell?
Mike: I'm selling
Roberto: Buy or sell: golf in the Olympics?
Mike: Buying.
Roberto: Okay. Should it be played by pros or amateurs?
Mike: Amateurs
Roberto: Buy or sell- Belgians? And is it the beer or the chocolate that keeps you wanting to stay close to all the players from there?
Mike: Oh, I'm buying those players. They've been very good to Illinois and they've become very, very good friends. The beer.
Roberto: Buy or sell- the PGA Championship in May as the second major of the year?
Mike: I’m selling.
Roberto: So buy or sell: two stars on a college team or five solid players?
Mike: I'm buying five solid players. But you need your stars. I mean, it depends what you got behind the stars, but I'd take numbers.
Roberto: Alright. And then I think Dan wrote this question, being in Boston. Does being in a colder climate help you appreciate golf more? Buy or sell?
Mike: I appreciate golf more. I think it probably, yeah, I'd say buy, but it makes you better.
Roberto: Well, Coach. One last question. I have to ask you. This is not related to business, but I played with Stricker a number of times on Tour. You played with Stricker in college and have obviously known him for years and years. I told a few people like my buddies who really know the game. I said, Stricker does the hardest thing in the world to do, which is play golf how you're supposed to play.
And by that, I mean, you can take the hardest golf course in the world and you can say, how do you shoot 65 on this course? Well, the first hole is really tough. So you hit a driver and a five iron in the middle of the green. Second hole, you get a short club in your hand, you hit it up there close. The fifth hole, you just play how you're supposed to. It's the hardest damn thing in the world to do. And Stricker did that. And I see today, more Okai do that. I've played with him once and I’ve watched him. Do you agree? Am I way off? Is that the Stricker deal? What am I missing here?
Mike: Yes, Strick knows who he is. But Strick, you know, when he was in college and he went out and he graduated college as a dominant college player. And I tell people all the time, I never would have played professional golf on the PGA Tour if I didn't play with Steve Stricker. Because I saw what good golf was. He made me better. But when he got out, he’d won a couple of times, was top 10 in the world.
But then he lost his game. Many people don't remember that, but he got the driver yips and lost his game for four or five, six years. But he got better through that downturn. And I think he learned a lot about himself and he learned that he had to find it himself. The way he plays the game of golf the last part of his career in the last 10 or 15 years is so impressive. Like you're talking about: it's simple in his way, but he mashes his competitiveness- and I tell people all the time, he's a more competitive, ruthless killer than people would ever think he is, right. He’s a calm guy on the outside, but man, he hates to lose and he'll make that putt, he'll make that shot.
But what you're talking about is what I think you learn through those downturns, how to do that. And I think that just helped him become the preimminent number two in the world after all that. And I think he rediscovered the game, rediscovered himself, and put the pieces together. But you see a ball just go up so straight, so soft, so purposeful all the time. Every one of his shots has a purpose to it. His putts have purpose, his chips have purpose. His five irons, his wedges. They're not just out of control. But they're not off the club, boom, you know, dynamic, but they're just purposeful. And I think that's exactly what you're saying is that every shot has a purpose behind it and he executes it and he plays the game how he should play it, and it's just repeatable, and it’s why he’s made all that money.
Roberto: Yeah. Incredible run. Really great.
Mike: He's a great person. He's done a lot for our program. A lot for me personally. And I've been surrounded by a lot of people that have big hearts and are people-pleasing people, you know, guys who play for me, all my guys and my team- selfishness doesn't really exist for some reason around our program. And I think Strick started that whole trend. And I learned off of that and he's the most selfless, competitive, still competitive person I know.
Roberto: That's great. Well, the trend continues- very selfless with your time. We really, really appreciate this, Coach. I know- played golf all day, rain delays, and you have a full schedule with the guys coming back. So can't thank you enough for doing this.
Dan: Yeah. Thanks again for the time. This is great. I think the listeners will eat it up.
Mike: Alright, guys. Thanks and all the best to you.
Roberto: Thanks. Good night.
Mike Small Takeaways
Roberto: All right, Dan, let's jump into Takeaways. College sports are right around the corner. Football starts in the next week or so; college golf is kicking off. Really enjoyed talking to Coach Small. I feel like he gave us a good overview of college golf, which is something people don't know a lot about. So what jumped off the page to you?
Dan: I agree. It was a good primer for someone like me understanding the basics of college golf and the mechanics, but like every good conversation, it inspired more questions, even more so than the answers that came forward. And I want to really explore some of those here in our Takeaways because my mind was left racing after we hung up with Coach Small.
Roberto: You were just thinking about what the right price is for a kid's birthday party for a sixth guy on a college golf team. Those are the kinds of questions you had?
Dan: Well, it starts there, but if you keep going and the dominos keep kind of trickling down and down and down, the rabbit hole could potentially go pretty deep. So here's where my mind goes, Roberto, to where I want to pick your brain on this kind of stuff, because I'm very curious how this plays out. For example, golf has had such a strong amateur status for so long. It's been such a very clear line in the sand, stronger than most sports, in my perception. In that this, given that it came from the Supreme Court, has a pretty potential impact on that line between amateur and professional golf, even outside of the polidrome.
So a couple of things going through my head. Do you think guys will stay on as seniors more? Because of this, they can take advantage of the NIL as they hone their game before going to Tour. What do you think about that?
Roberto: I think so. I think there are two things that could keep guys in school that really kind of the top players, maybe not the top one or two guys that are just going to go when they're ready. But let's talk about the top 25. Number one is the NIL, like you said. You can be in college, have access to great facilities, travel on the team's dime, which you could always do, but now you can generate some cash too. So, Hey, I can just work on my skills, work on my skills, bank some money. And then number two, wait for PGA Tour U. You're only eligible as a senior. So I think the combination of those two things could keep some of the top players in school for four years. But that being said, most guys stay for four years. Rohm did. Speith left after a year or two. It's like a 95-98% guys staying for four years already. So not a huge net effect.
Dan: Got it. Interesting. Now on the flip side of that, do you see top juniors skipping college altogether, and maybe spending their years as 19-20 years olds as amateurs? Just playing golf without the distraction of college.
RC: Yeah. I would say that it would reduce kids skipping college because now I can go make money in college. So it's just a better training ground even for a year or two than turning pro at 18. If you don't get through Q school and you're not on the Korn Ferry, where are you at 18 years? Speith went to college a couple of years. Tiger Woods went to college a couple of years. The ones I can think of that did not- Kevin Na turned pro at 17. Rory, but Rory is a generational freak show. Some of the Australian guys don't go to college, but I really can't think of many more that went. This Atthaya, theThai kid, who's playing now. He skipped college. Well, he's probably close to 20 now, 21. You're just not going to do a lot that 18 or 19 year old year, unless you're Rory McIlroy.
Dan: In episode four, we talked about how pros including yourself sort of save up money and build up that war chest to give pro golf a run. How does this impact the NIL and the ability to kind of save up some money?
Roberto: Oh, I didn't, I didn't save any money. I raised money. You can't save money in college until now when you're playing college golf. So I was in college, raised some money, turned pro. Huge effect here, big effect, I think, because if you can get some NIL money going and you can tuck some of that away over your four years. You know, I raised, what did I say? Like 40,000 bucks, 50,000 bucks, which was enough to play for a year and not make anything and still keep going. I think we're in the ballpark with this NIL, if you're playing at a blue chip school, that you could easily save that much over four years doing some of the stuff we talked about with Coach Small. So I think that's a really big effect.
Dan: Alright, so forget pro golf for a sec. Is there a chance to see more career amateurs- throw back to the days of the 1910s, 1920s, Bobby Jones, et cetera? I was struck as we talked about this at the number of sponsors and hats of corporate sponsors on players at the US Am. Do we think there's a lane for folks to play golf for the entirety of their lives that way and never even play pro golf?
Roberto: I would say definitely not because what you saw at the US Am or endorsement money or NIL money going to these kids, they're betting on the future. They're not necessarily endorsing them for now. So I don't think we're going back to the Harvey Ward days because the 32 year old career amateur has no marketable value playing in cocktail circuit events. So it's just venture capital going to these college kids. But if you're a 35 year old career am, I don't think you're going to be getting any sort of endorsements.
Dan: Sorry, Buddy Marucci. I was looking out for you there.
RC: Buddy Marucci. I don't think he's needed too many NIL endorsements. He's doing just fine, but that's a good example. The world of career amateurs today, or the really top level mid amateurs like Buddy, those guys are very successful off the golf course, and that allows them to play 20 tournaments a year. They have successful professional careers that allow that to happen. So the twenties and thirties, like the Match, Harvey Ward and those guys, they had benefactors or sponsors, but now it's not like that.
Dan: I'm dying to know how so many people make so much money and are successful outside of golf. You have so much time to play top amateur golf, like teach me the way, right? When did Bobby Jones ever practice law? No one ever talks about that, but I'm going on a tangent, but I think about these things.
Roberto: That is a tangent, but these folks are smart. They get into industries where they can. It's like a flywheel. Like they get a skillset and get started. They grow their business and then they figure out how to use golf to continue to grow their business. So, yeah, I think for those folks, a week at National Golf Links at one of the top mid am events could generate more business than being at home, staring at the computer screen all day. Not if you're in tech and not if you're in certain industries, but if you're in the right business, you can turn that into your business development. Right?
Dan: That's true. Well, anyhow, thanks for entertaining my forecasting there. It was fascinating to kick these ideas around. We'll see how these play out. We'll have to revisit these predictions when we get a little bit more data.
Roberto: I think we should do that. I think one of the big things with sports commentary is they're always talking about next week's games and they never go back and review what happened in last week's games. I think we should make a note to do that a year from now because I think we're going to be dead wrong about a bunch of stuff, maybe close on some things. But I think that would be interesting. It's something we need to hold ourselves a little bit accountable.
Dan: I like it. Feet to the fire. Alright. Switching gears, let's talk about PGA Tour U. In our episode, you commented how you felt that it was a bit misguided for a pro to be able to get sort of a jump on the system based on their accomplishment as an amateur. Say more about why you feel that way.
RC: I just think it's a big ecosystem and it's not comparing apples and oranges. I think there are a couple of thousand people playing pro golf and they're stacking up at different levels. And just because you're a college player playing against a few hundred good players and you fall somewhere near the top that you get to jump some of those professional guys. I don't really agree with that. It's just lesser competition. But that being said, I really think it's a non-issue. I don't have any strong feelings about PGA Tour U because the access is all to the Korn Ferry and to the lesser Tours. We're not talking about starts on the PGA Tour. So it's not a hundred percent perfect analogy, but it's kind of like the Allen Iverson thing. We're talking about practice. We're not talking about starts on the PGA Tour, so I just don't think you're going to get Tour players really riled up about it.
Dan: Yeah. I mean, it feels like the closest thing to pro golf where we get to a draft, right.
Roberto: A little bit.
Dan: It's not a perfect thing, not a perfect analogy, but it's a chance to get some of some traction for the top studs.
Roberto: I would even say a better analogy for a draft in pro golf is the equipment companies- the Harry Arnetts of the world betting on kids coming out of college. That's what a draft really is because you could get a kid who's not necessarily ranked 1, 2, 3, but… Dustin Johnson, he was one of the best college players when I was in college; we’re the same year. And I think I might've said this on the show. I played with Dustin my last NCAAs and the Taylor Made guy was like, that's the future of the company. And I was like, the tall guy from Coastal? I knew he was a good player, but they took him at the number one spot. And that wouldn't have come off his ranking, so that's a really interesting example of that.
Dan: Yeah. And now the draft starts even further, right. It starts even before declaring pro with this new regulation, which is a fascinating thing.
Roberto: Great point. That's a great point. You're trying to allocate resources now at 16, 17, 18 years old. Totally.
Dan: So let's talk about Mike as a leader. I hadn't heard much of Mike Small and I knew he was the coach, but I hadn't seen many of his interviews. But he really made an impression on me as just a no-nonsense, meat-and-potatoes guy, tough love. And that really resonated with me. What are your thoughts? I mean, you, with the process of picking a school and evaluating coaches much as they evaluated you. What are your thoughts on this?
Roberto: My thoughts are that it's amazing how good they are. Okay. They are. In arguably one of the blue chip programs in college golf. So whether you want to say they're one of the best five or one of the best 10, they're definitely both of those things. But they are the only one (top program) that is in a truly northern setting.
And how is that happening? I think it's his recipe and his way of dealing with kids and the perspective he brings. So, look, not to sound like the old crotchety guy. But we're in a culture where everyone's mom is telling them they're the most special kid in the world. And Mike's take is that if you want to play professional golf, you need to be one of the 125 most special players in the world.
That's it. It doesn't matter how great I think you are. And the game owes you nothing. That is not something a lot of kids are hearing at home or from other coaches. I guarantee you that, but that's the truth. So I think there's the secret sauce right there. And that was our opening question. Scott Langley told me that. He turns golf into a blue collar sport. So those were my takeaways on his leadership style. I think it's unique. I think it really separates their program from other places.
Dan: You know, in the military, just to make another tangent, you have to back everything up with physical. Right? I love how Mike Small backs his talk up by being able to really take it low and play and beat some of his players. And that's an added bonus. The philosophy that's hard to come by in that line of work.
Roberto: Totally. And you know, you had asked me previously how many coaches can really play like Mike? A lot of them could play like Mike, were former players, former All-Americans, maybe former professionals. But they don't continue their playing career like Mike has. So that makes him very, very, very unique. Like he said, he's playing some senior stuff now. He was playing in major championships over the last 21 years. He's played in at least 10 or something PGA Championships. He would play four or five or six Tour events every summer. So an active player? That's very rare.
Dan: And say more about some of his takes on how this affects the college landscape. I mean, we talked a little bit about how American it was for the NIL to come in and he was very bullish about the opportunities for his student athletes. By the way, that word- I could not be paid enough to say that word over and over. That's a tough one for me. He nails it. But you know from a donation standpoint, the role of boosters. What were some of your takeaways from that aspect of the conversation?
Roberto: That was a big one for me was his take on donors driving college sports over the last few decades. And I thought a lot about whether I agree with him or not, and I'm going to separate it into two buckets. I think the big revenue sports- football and basketball- have been a combination of donors and television and media. So just more coverage. So the donors get more passionate. It's just a self-reinforcing cycle. But the “Olympic” sports, or the non-revenue sports like golf, I really think he's right. I really think it has been driven by donors because you build a culture around an individual program, whether that's tennis at UGA or golf at Oklahoma State or water polo at Stanford, you get these pockets. And the reason for that is a great coach and donors who are paying for upgraded facilities. They're creating a culture. It comes from the top down. At Georgia Tech, we're very involved with the Georgia Tech golf boosters. We get to know them over our four years. They're very successful off the golf course in their professional careers. It really does drive the non-revenue sports. So I agree with him.
Dan: Yeah. Again, another fascinating thing for us to check in on in a year. And we pick it up again with another coach and get what's going on, but...
Roberto: We have to pick up with another coach in a year because I’m dying to know how fundraising goes this first year of NIL because I have this theory that I've talked about this with numerous people. Let's say Dan used to give $10,000 a year to the Georgia Tech golf program. And that's a realistic number. That would make you one of the top donors for the annual fundraiser.
Dan: Are you signing me up? Is that what you're doing?
Roberto: Yeah. I'm just going to take it out of our massive The Course Record Show revenues. Is that okay?
Dan: Sounds good.
Roberto: Okay. So you used to give- Coach, you go do with it what you need. If you need to take an extra recruiting trip, great. If you need to get some new equipment for the practice facility, great. If you need to take the team on a special trip over Spring Break or a training trip, use that money there, great.
Today, you could easily say I want my $10,000 to go towards a player. I want to guarantee that money to a player. So five of us have pulled together 50 grand. And we want you to go offer that to the top recruit. And maybe the Coach can't do it directly, like Mike said, but make it known that if that kid comes to school here, that he has to do two appearances, one in the fall, one in the spring, and he's going to get $50,000.
You just diverted funds from the program to an individual player. So where this money starts to channel and where it starts to run to me is really interesting. And I'm curious to see what happens over this first fundraising year. So I really want to check in again a year from now.
Dan: That’s interesting because in the way I read NIL, it would just grow the pie of funds coming in. And that may be true, but you just picked up on an interesting element, which is like how that pie money gets sliced up, right? From the program to a great individual, committed restricted money, which could have a pretty big implication, right? Like college sports, to me, has always been: the coach is the star. Pro sports, the players are the stars. Could tilt the balance a little bit more. So, yeah, that'll be fascinating to play out.
Roberto: Think about it from a bigger picture. Let's say University of Texas. Chevron donates a million dollars a year to the University of Texas so they give it to the Texas Athletic Association. Now Chevron could say, Hey, I want the quarterback at the University of Texas, so we're going to put them in our commercials, we're going to pay him a million dollars a year. It's not going to necessarily grow the pie bigger. There are budgets for sports marketing, and I think the funds are going to get diverted to different places. So small scale with a golf and an individual booster who may own a car dealership, like I said, I think all the way to the big scale could be really interesting.
Dan: Sounds like more work for me in my day job evaluating how that money is spent and what the ROI is.
Roberto: I like that. Analytics, baby.
Dan: All right, want to wrap it up here.
Roberto: Yeah, really enjoyed it. Hope everyone follows along with college golf a little bit more this year. Check in on Illinois, Georgia Tech, obviously, and just see how it all shakes out.
Dan: Best of luck to Coach Small and the Illinois program this coming year. Thanks again for the time, Coach, and we'll see you next time on The Course Record Show.
