Here are Dan Wexler's thoughts on the subject:
Hole No.1 – Remove the row of trees most recently added off the left side of the fairway, a relatively minor change given that approaches played from the left side are already challenged substantially by the front-left bunker. Would the hole play slightly easier? Perhaps. But with a robust 4.24 average in 2008 (fourth hardest overall), such would be a small price to pay in setting a tone for this historically minded quest.
Hole No.2 – Rebuild the deceased left-side fairway bunker, far enough downrange (and positioned invasively enough into the dogleg corner) to make airmailing it something less than a given. Then remove Gene Sarazen’s right-side replacement bunker; if players wish to bail out right, add significant length to the hole and risk finding the right-side woods in the process, let them. It is also tempting to consider unearthing the long-buried creek that Dr. MacKenzie originally planned to have crossing the second-shot landing area +/- 70 yards shy of the putting surface – but from a traditionalist perspective, that might well represent pushing the envelope a bit too bar.
Hole No.3 – Replace Jack Nicklaus’s four fairway bunkers with a restored version of the original single hazard, slightly repositioned if necessary. For aesthetic/traditionalist reasons, mostly.
Hole No.7 – Though it’s tempting to suggest restoring the original bunkerless, Valley-of-Sin-fronted putting surface, the reality is that for most living Masters fans, the character incumbent to the seventh lies in its revised, heavily bunkered green complex. So in order to return some greater playing interest, and minimize the now-annual complaints from Masters participants, how about either shortening the back tee to a distance more in line with the actual affects of modern equipment (perhaps in the 405-420 yard range) or remove several of the most recently added trees to allow players some reasonable room to maneuver the driver? True, Bobby Jones did speak in positive terms of a driving area made increasingly narrow by the natural growth of trees during the 1950’s, but it’s difficult indeed to imagine he’d similarly endorse the strategy-less, U.S. Open-like hole presently in play.
Hole No.9 – Restore Dr. MacKenzie’s original single-bunker, boomerang green, a remarkably striking feature offering all manner of exciting pin placements – and whose right-side false front could still, with perhaps a bit of minor massaging, provide the same roll-down- the-hill dangers incumbent to present first-tier pins.
Hole No.11 – Remove at least 80% of the trees planted down the right side in 2002. This, combined with the eradication of rough, would re-open the far-left and far-right avenues of play, once again allowing the eleventh to pose one of the game’s wonderful strategic questions instead of simply being a backbreakingly brutal test.
Hole No.12 – Could it hurt to once again have the right half of the green just slightly smaller than the left, and perhaps just a little bit elevated?
Hole No.13 – A modest shortening (say 10-15 yards) might shift the balance back towards going for the green in two, making one of golf’s most uniquely dramatic shots a more regular occurrence – and leading to more than the eight eagles recorded for the entire 2008 event. Further, how about reducing the size of the first greenside bunker and re-establishing the lost section of putting surface that extended forward along the creek bank, creating a really dramatic pin placement whose slightly shorter carry might tempt even more players to have a go?
Hole No.14 – Rebuild both Dr. MacKenzie’s massive right-side fairway bunker further downrange, and some of the front-left green mounding removed in the modern era. Such changes would succeed in re-establishing both the clear advantage gained from placing one’s tee shot down the right side and the hazard that can make accessing this area of fairway a dicey but exciting proposition.
Hole No.15 – Remove the right-side trees, and thin the left-side copse down to its original two pines. This, combined with the renewed absence of rough, would restore the type of hole that Bobby Jones so extolled, surely resulting in more than the three (!) eagles recorded in 2008, and helping to restore the sort of Sunday afternoon drama so plainly absent in recent Masters.
Hole No.17 – Wouldn’t it be interesting to watch the world’s best attempt an utterly unfamiliar run-up shot – to a front pin perched just above the swale, in ultra firm-and-fast conditions – on Sunday afternoon with the Green Jacket on the line? Remove the bunkers from what is presently a patently mundane hole.
Hole No.18 – The eighteenth was built to be a demanding test, and 72nd-hole birdies to win The Masters were nearly unheard of before its recent lengthening anyway – but wouldn’t Sunday afternoon be that much more fun with this hole playing, say, 20 yards shorter, allowing players a chance to hit at least a semi-attacking approach?
Here's a Geoff Shackleford article from Links Magazine where a number of architects suggest changes:
http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/masters-augusta-national-golf-club-course-architects-changesHere is Kelly Blake Moran's IMO piece on the subject:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/kelly-blake-moran-a-framework-for-considering-changes-at-augusta-national/