I'm sure you're on the other side of this, but if the people that make decisions around golf course design (architects and owners) could simply forget about what the guys on TV might shoot if they show up at their course, a great majority of the perceived problems with equipment would go away.
I think we should ignore the TV guys in this context for exactly the reason you stated, that I quoted. They are going to set up their courses and event for maximum entertainment. Despite what some on here wish, watching a player try to cut a 4 iron into a 430 yard par 4 and finishing the event 5 under par for the win is not seen as entertaining by the people that make that decision.
So, if the ball was rolled back 10% they would play the courses 10% shorter, in my opinion. Or at least do what they had to do to create similar scoring to current.
So, if the roll back is not going to achieve one of it's primary objectives (maintaining "relevance" for the top courses), why worry about it? If it happens, great...if not, it's still a hell of a lot of fun to play.
Jim:
I agree completely with your first statement. Clients, and many architects, are obsessing over the winning score and making the course seem challenging. On the other hand, I've had some discussions with Padraig Harrington recently about The Renaissance Club, and tangentially Memorial Park, and he said as a player he would much rather see them start with a hard course and set it up easier if desired, instead of taking a course that isn't challenging and trying to make it challenging with the setup.
Importantly, it's the Tour that controls the setup. And the weird part is that while at The Renaissance Club, they say they agree with the client that it should be harder, most of the individual things they support changing on the course are to make it more fair, which means easier in the instances I have seen.
I am not sure I agree with some of your assumptions in the second part of your reply, though. I don't think that making courses play longer for the pros and bringing certain fairway hazards back to "relevance" will change the scoring as much as you are assuming, and it's wrong to focus on the scoring result anyway . . . we just want to make the players think about what they are doing again.
The problem with moving the fairway bunkers on a par-4 is if you move them to where the guys drive it now, they still only have a 9-iron recovery if they hit it into the bunker, so they don't care if they do. It would be much more effective to leave the bunker where it is, and find out if they can hit a 6-iron recovery as easily; at that point, they might have to play around the bunker. But in general, fairway bunkers are not so effective anymore because the players are so consistent in their carry distance with a driver, that they are 100% confident about when they can just go over them.