Telemark had 43 pros? I'm not certain, but that's a pretty established tournament isn't it? If it is, considering that there aren't too many other tournaments competing with it that weekend, why was the turnout low? (43 is low for an A Tier, no?) I'm not saying it's because of that only, there's lots of factors, maybe that's one of 'em.
So there are people that don't care whether or not they have natural tees, otherwise we wouldn't be debating the issue. It's a good thing.
As far as 4 pages....c'mon, not even 4 posts prior to this debate.
And I'm sure there's a handful of A-Tiers that use courses that aren't temporary that don't have good tees. But there's more that don't. And they are better attended tournaments, and I want to see the RC Rumble be one of those.
I'm not speaking/debating just for the sake of "my specifications". I've been going to A-C tiers since 2000, and whether you like it or not, the standards have risen, just in that short period of time. GPO is a good example. Look at turnout decline between 2000 and now, and how it went from A tier to B tier. Sure there's other factors, but one is definately other competing tournaments with better courses. They (Peoria) still host a major, for women, (i.e. the courses aren't that bad) but not good enough to draw the NT type crowd that it used to.
Flip side of that is that there are tournaments that have crete that have declined in attendance--Mid-America Open, for example. It's not because of natural tees, it's because the courses (well, one of them) kinda sucks. It is a very old design. No big deal, but not A-Tier material anymore.
I'm rambling now, my only point is that course/tournament standards have changed, not only because of tees, but course design as well. I'm not debating one side or another because of what I personally want to play at RC Rumble, I just want this tournament to be well accepted. I want people to have a good time playing in the QC, and for them to be sure and mark their calendar to come back. All of us here will, it's our A-Tier.