TEPaul, an interesting proposal but I think it has some problems.
1. As Tom H mentioned, quantifying your plan into a reasonable standard might be difficult.
2. Even if you could quantify it, unless your plan went so far as to dictate exactly how the ball was built, the companies will likely find a way around your limitation, just as they have the ODS.
3. Also, if the USGA dictated exactly how the ball was built (making a competition ball without calling it so) the ball companies would not likely take it well. It is one thing to say, "Do whatever you want so long as your ball cannot go any further than X yards under Y conditions." It is quite another to say, build the ball exactly this way, or we will not allow you to play our game. For one thing, I think the latter is much more susceptible to lawsuits. (For example, I imagine the small ball manufacturers would view such a draconian rule as locking the market share status quo into place, and unreasonably favoring the large companies by eliminating all future competition and innovation.)
4. Lastly, whether you call it a competition ball or not, your suggestion would create a separate set of rules for the pros.
I do agree, however, that the goal of any plan should be to find as many "similarities of interest" as we can amongst the parties. But I don't agree that we should count on Titleist seeing it our way, and defending reform in the courts. When Titleist starts jumping to the defense of the USGA, we have a potential conflict of interest/antitrust problem on our hands.