The problem can be that if the expectations are Top 100, a courses rank is not only dependent on what is done to it, especially with Classic Era courses, but also the state of other courses. A superintendent can be doing everything in his power to have his layout at it's very best and five other courses that for years were neglected undergo a "sympathetic restoration." Those five enter the rankings or move past the superintendent's layout and now the owners and/or members point a finger at him. They surely are not going to blame the golf pro.
The other scenario is a modern course is designed by a famous architect who's work is not valued by raters. It either doesn't make the lists or doesn't garner a ranking the owner and/or members want. They are not going toto lay blame on the architect. Hell, they paid a lot of money for him. Again, it will be the superintendent who comes under fire.
Nearly 100 percent of the time rankings cause superintendents more headaches than not.