I think that it boils down to style and character of the toon-a-mint. As the Masters continues to be a grind like the US Open, I really believe the viewing audience will get thinner.
I think that the demands of the U.S. Open are traditionally the grind, and the historical allure of the Masters is the event that gets the sap running each spring. That whole flavor of the first ritual event of spring has been part of the Masters from the begining, because the course was always marketted for the "northern" crowd, in memberships and sports writing.
Thus the aura of the most brilliant greenery, like Easter Lillies is part of it. It has its own style, and I don't think you can really separate the aura of new spring, golfers fancy coming out of winter and turning to that fresh spring, and a sparkling and exciting tournament with all your old favorite golfers in contention.
Why even hold on to all the tradition of inviting all the past champions back to compete with the new young guns, if not to give them a course where they don't embarrass themselves into not being able to play it competitively? That is all the Master's really markets at the end of the day, 'tradition of the Masters'. It is practically their by-line and logo.
Can anyone deny that some of the most compelling and exciting Masters were the ones that a +40 year old could compete and contend. Only Jack '86, Crenshaw, '95, O'Meara '98, Singh '00, were over 40 years old in the modern era. Doesn't that keep the viewers and lovers of the tradition coming back... to watch old favorites still compete on a course where crafty clever play can still prevail?
If it continues to be a grindfest, I believe the allure of the "traditional" Masters will wane. It won't get the sap running in the spring anymore. It will be just another tough championship that only a small handfull of strong top players can really contend, and the rest of the field will be made to look like foozlers and hacks...