"Wayne,
You should stop saying #18 at Rolling Green is a "horrible" par five. It may not suit your game , but for many golfers it is a great finishing hole. If you want to keep calling it that then at least tell us what you mean by "horrible".
Many par 4 1/2 holes get people to scratch their heads. I think it is better to study that hole and discern what gives it its "threeshotedness" and preserve those principles as you change it to adapt to the modern game. Simply moving the fairway to the left may solve your whole problem.
Within the overall routing of that particular course the 5-5 finish works extremely well. It follows a challenging stretch and often lulls the player into thinking "No problem now; I'm finishing with a few birdies", only to be punished for a wayward tee shot when one tries to be too aggressive.
I think you would enjoy the hole more if you changed your attitude."
I choose not to stop calling the 18th at Rolling Green a horrible par 5 if you don't mind. You might understand the dysfunction of the hole if you studied holes more carefully (in general and Flynn in particular--think of the great par 4 finishes on Flynn championship designs) and with a deeper knowledge base.
But just so you understand my feelings, though I've mentioned them to you many times, I do not think it is a horrible par 5 hole from the members tees for the average player. I've never said that. I said it is a horrible par 5 from the new back tees for low handicappers and tournaments. Tell me why the US Am did not use the tees but instead played the hole as a par 4 from the member tees. By the way, for complete disclosure, why didn't you mention that the tee happened to have been built within a few feet to the NORTH of a large tree--so the agronomic implications of the tee are plain stupid). The sole inspiration for the construction of the new tee is added length. This becomes an excellent example of architectural disconnect.
The 18th hole is played from an elevated tee to a landing area that slopes right to left against the turn of the dogleg right. There are too many trees along the right side, especially after the turn beyond a bunker complex. From the middle tees, the hole plays 484 yards and plays 300 of those yards downhill then 184 yards uphill to a large green that slopes severely back to front. There is a large bunker short of the green with the rear edge of the bunker about 40 yards short of the middle of the green.
For an accomplished player, the hole plays very well as a par 4 from the middle tee. A good drive (downhill) can be either faded into the hillside or hit straight over the left edge of the bunker complex which starts about 235 yards off the tee and ends about 270 yards off the tee and falls to the left opening up a shot to the green. So a good drive by a low handicapper not named Tom Paul will get you past the bunkers leaving a long iron to a large elevated green. It is a challenging finishing hole after the very easy 17th (where the difficult stretch is already broken up), a hole where a stroke can easily be made up by the low handicap player coming into the demanding finishing hole. You would rather have 2 easy par 5s back to back to finish the round?
From the new rear tee, only a handful of players can get beyond the corner and have a shot to the green. For nearly every player on any level, the only play is a driver and 2 medium irons, for better players it is an 8-iron, wedge. There is nothing to consider on the tee with this singular strategy that is built into the hole. What is the point of being aggressive from the new rear tee when there is nearly a zero proabability of reaching the green in two? I'd hit 3 or 5-wood along the left off the tee to take the bunkers out of play and leave a better angle for a 7-iron and lob wedge. Even if I push the ball to the right, I'm hitting 8-iron, 9-iron. Talk about BORING! This is the 3-shotedness you want? If so, you should not get your wishes. It is better as a par 4.5 that plays to a par of 4 and tempts players to go for it in 2 shots rather than a 4.5 that plays to a par 5 finish that will tempt nobody because of the architectural disconnect.
From the member tees, the average member cannot get past the bunkers and they can play their two iron shots to the green. There is no way the average player can reach the green in 2 so it is also an easy type of par 5 for them and makes them feel good but doesn't test them. Not that they would ever do it, but it would be better for them to play from the forward tees as a par 4, but I know that will not happen. Mike, get with the program as this is the last time I will hold your hand through the thought process. Otherwise I will have to abandon you and your club to your delusions.
You would rather tempt players to try and play beyond their capabilities and identify better thinkers and executions of strategy. There is no mental test as the hole is set up from the back tee and it is boring. Honestly, I cannot figure out why this is not obvious to you. So you want to move the fairway to the left and you think that will help? Please refrain from trying to redesign the hole.