Tom Paul,
Interesting your mention of Nash's equilibrium theory as relates to course architecture.
However, somewhat ironically, you probably have inadvertedly given credence to the Tom Fazio philosophy of design.
It would seem for equilibrium theory to apply to golf course architecture, in the way you suggest, two things would need to remain static;
1) The amount of land for the routing
2) The topography of that land as fit for golf usage
By way of contrast, a modern architect would try to change those static attributes. If aquiring additional, more suitable (if much more spread out routing) land for golf wasn't a possibility, they would probably focus on changing number two.
Using your example, Tom Fazio might argue that Nash's barroom revelation was simply short-sighted. Instead, he would seek to change the five other girls into "10's", as well, probably through massive reshaping, restructuring, and artifice (and silicone, or at least bunker-woll
). That way, he might argue, everyone wins.
Of course, the debate then becomes to what extent is the cost involved in the "makeover" inevitably good for the game, and more importantly, can the trained eye still detect that the beauty is surface only, without real depth?
With escalating costs, boilerplate design, and often diminished strategy and quirk, does everyone really win?