One point that hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread, but which I have made before, is that the last 10 years of technology appear to have had the perverse effect of widening the gap between elite players and recreational golfers. No less an authority than Jack Nicklaus agrees, as strongly as he can, with that reality.
I don't presume that a rollback would be easy, but I do think that it is important and essential.
Two arguments that I want to reject and refute in the strongest possible terms are the ideas that "course lengthening concerns only apply to the tiny fraction of courses that host elite, tour-type events," and that anybody who wants to play a retro game should just go ahead and do that on their own."
As to the latter argument, it is as thin as it is stupid. What we are talking about here is a debate over the rules of a game, for the good of that game. I could just as easily say, "If you are someone who wants to play bomb-and-gouge golf, just go get yourself a High-CoR driver and a couple dozen Bandit balls and flail away. And don't worry about the rules." It is not a question of individual choice or personal preference. It is a debate over how the game's rules should be crafted for people who want to play by the rules. I would no more use a ridiculously old retro retro driver or golf ball, disadvantaging myself under the rules, than I would use an illegal ball or 16 clubs in a match.
The old argument that goes, "If you want a ball rollback, just go get yourself some old Spalding Dots," is an argument that should be consigned to the dustbin forever.
The other former argument, that if the concern about technology is really a concern over what the technology is doing to golf courses, is a much better one that demands careful analysis, because it has some truth. But I don't see how anyone gets around the basic notion that golf is great because we all play by one set of rules, and because we can play many of the same great championship courses that the elites play. As a ball rollback proponent, my sole concern is with the golf courses, and not in denying championship victories to long-hitters or trying to help short hitters. I think we should regard courses like The Old Course and ANGC as coal-mine canaries, that are telling us we need to go in a different direction in terms of elite play, because the last 10 years have created a distortion with the one good clear measuring device that we have, the classic championship courses.
The other arguments about how equipment manufacturers will be hurt, or the USGA will be sued, or how recreational players need the psychological crutch of the hope that equipment will give them more distance, are all pure bunk, at least on their merits. (Yes the USGA might get sued, but it is a battle that they should win, and should welcome in order to assert their role as Legal Guardian of the game.)
By the way, let us also dispose forever of the argument that a "ball rollback" means a Luddite retreat to an older design. Not for a minute would I suggest that we go back to balata. I favor new specs that will continue to allow for OEM reserach and development, competiion and new ideas. (A Toonamint Ball for Augusta is a nice idea as a political threat, but it is a non-starter as a general policy for golf administration.) I'd like to see new ball specs that simply reverse the situation in which tour players have picked up 25, 30 or 40 yards with new equipment and recreational players have picked up 5 yards. It might mean new regulations on spin, or ball size, or weight, or composition or materials. I leave that to the technicians and the engineers. But from the perspective of sound management of the game, I don't know how this argument can be resisted.