Well... it's not like I've done these course ratings for six years now... how long have you participated in the process, Garland?
And your understanding is correct, for the most part. But of course, that's exactly what I meant; and I fail to see how you are saying anything different than what I just said. You do need the ratings, hole by hole, starting from fixed points (ie the tees already rated). If you have this, you could indeed adjust a little based on yardage - there are simple calculations for that. We don't do it that way NOW - the rule is only tees more than 25 yards apart are rated - which makes sense given the deviations tend to be so small. But anyway take the rating for a hole, adjust for the yardage difference, voila, there's the rating to be used for that hole. Doit all 18 times - as your device obviously would - bingo, it works.
In your zeal to attack, you rather wildly missed that we are saying the same thing.
Or at least I think we are... you're not suggesting doing this based on a TOTAL difference for the entire course played (from the rated tees), are you? Yes that would work too... but would not be nearly as accurate as the method I suggest. Given said method is pretty damn simple (courses are rated hole by hole as it is), I assumed a smart guy like you would go for the most accurate way to do it.
Or do you really want to half-ass this great idea of yours?