TEP, Tom Doak, Jim Kennedy, et al:
Thank you for an enlightening discussion about I&B matters- it is the best one I have encountered on this site. I hope Frank is right in his assertion that we've reached practical limits on distance under the rules as they are currently written. What I mourn more than distance increases is the lost art of ball manipulation caused by big headed drivers and perimeter weighted irons. Nick Price has made this point well and repeatedly. However, as time passes, assuming no new, large jumps in distance, and as the return to strategic design continues, these skills will find their way back into the game and players will demand equipment which permits them to manipulate the ball.
I recall that two major manufacturers- Callaway and Taylor Made, have stated that they will not produce non-conforming clubs in the future. I have not heard a similar statement by Titleist, though I thought Uhlien's statements in Golf World a few months ago were helpful. As TEP states so well, and Thomas's comments reinforce, compliance with I&B rules is voluntary.
Unfortunately that fact does not insulate the USGA from lawsuits. These actions are never about whether or not the USGA can make its own rules, but rather whether those rules have had the effect of damaging a firm's ability to do business in the golf market. They are anti-trust cases. And although the USGA has never lost such a suit (two have been settled, and I would argue that the USGA fared as well as the other parties) they are incredibly expensive just to get to the summary judgement stage- well over a million dollars in some cases. That doesn't sound like much for an organization that is worth 150mm, but that's a mil that could be spent on developmental courses, or turfgrass research, or improving the USGA's I&B testing abilities, or whatever else that USGA does for the good of the game.
Please accept that the manufacturers can and should act as consultants and advisors on B&I- that's an ongoing feature of the I&B program. It is on of Dick Rugge's primary responsibilities. But they can never be part of final decision making, for obvious conflict of interest and USGA fiduciary responsibility reasons.
I would hope that the other major organizations- the Tour, the LPGA Tour, the PGA of America, the IAGA, the GCSAA, the AAGCA, etc. would publically support the USGA's I&B role, even to the extent of offering financial backing against the possibility of lawsuits. Why would they do so? Out of recignition of the need for a strong, independent body dedicated to the health of the game, which comes from its challenge and its traditions.