Jim:
Well, the attempt at throwing out Pine Valley, Sand Hills and Ballyneal into the mix was to generate a bit of debate about the architectural merits of those courses as US Open courses, not as legitimate sites for them. If, as Ran suggests, the USGA's financial position is such that it can take a "breather" every so often, who not extend that argument to its logical extreme and debate the merits of SH and Ballyneal? (I actually think you can put Pine Valley into this argument, if the club wanted to host, which I've read is doubtful.)
The USGA clearly wants to move its major around the country, as a way to access all of the corporate money that's available in different regions. They searched very hard for a second/third West Coast course, and came up with an elongated Torrey Pines as the answer. Nice scenery; Open-worthy course? Maybe it will be. There were lots of doubters about Bethpage, and a friend of mine who played it a lot when he lived out there said a year before the Open there that it would absolutely eat the pros up, and he was largely correct.
And Ran's argument about the three new ones added -- Bethpage, Shinnecock and Pinehurst -- gives credence to the argument that it was nice to host the Open at courses of true architectural merit. But those are also pretty safe markets -- and market considerations are some of the biggest factors influencing USGA Open siting decisions these days, it seems to me.
It also seems like folks are looking for Chicago alternatives, but what about Olympia Fields? Sure, it yielded lots of low scores the first two days, but besides the top 2 finishers, its resistance to scoring was not atypical of recent Opens, and certainly better than Medinah. Does anyone out there really think a Rees-a-fied Dubsdread would be a better than Olympia Fields as a US Open course?