My young colleague, Hunter Chase, made some valid points in a column on Thursday regarding a playoff in the U.S. Open.

Chase pointed out that this is a championship that means more to most golfers than any other, including the Masters. And, as such, he feels it should be decided over 18 holes, not by one or two holes of sudden-death play.

That, of course, necessitates an extra day of play for the golfers engaged in the playoff, and another day of work for as many volunteers as can be away from their jobs on Monday. It also means that most of the 40,000 spectators who purchased tickets won’t be around to see the championship decided. It also means that NBC-TV will be broadcasting the Open’s finest moment to a bunch of housewives who are ticked off because their favorite soap opera has been preempted.

Yeah, I know there is a playoff day ticket included in the book they purchased but, hey, some people have to get back to work. Not all of them are sportswriters.

I have to tell you up front that I am a huge fan of the USGA. Admittedly, I do occasionally refer to the organization’s hierarchy as Blue Blazers, but that is not meant in disrespect. It’s just that, no matter what the temperature may be, USGA officials wear their blue jackets. They take their work very seriously, as they should. And they’re willing to do some sweating in order to show their respect for the game.

That said, let’s get to the point. It’s time for the USGA to rethink its playoff policy. Yes, the Open is a special championship. But come on, aren’t 73 holes enough to decide it?

Look at it this way. You have one of the largest gatherings of media types ever. You’ve got the world’s greatest golf tournament being played on a great course. It’s Sunday afternoon, late, and everybody wants a winner.

Come on guys, we’ve been playing this thing for four days and working on it for four years. We’re tired; we want to go home. And we want a winner. Now. On Sunday afternoon when golf tournaments are supposed to end.

Hunter Chase and the USGA dignitaries don’t think the Championship should be decided by what happens on one hole. Why not?

Have you seen a Masters title being settled in sudden death that wasn’t gripping drama? Have you seen a British Open four-hole playoff that didn’t leave you breathless? Have you ever seen a U.S. Open Monday playoff that was a study in boredom after one of the players built a huge lead and they still had to go 18-holes?

Better question; have you ever seen an 18-hole Monday playoff?

Remember Fuzzy Zoeller’s thrashing of Greg Norman after the infamous white flag waving incident? Wouldn’t you have loved to have seen them going at it immediately instead of waiting until the next day?

Which is more dramatic, a chip-in by Larry Mize on the second hole of sudden death or a five-hour marathon that’s decided by five shots?

And, final point, if a U.S. Open must be decided in 18 holes, then why is there sudden-death if the contestants are still tied after those 18 holes? What’s the difference?