I hope that none of the cognoscenti at GCA think that I stole the idea. Geoff Shackelford certainly gets credit -- he discusses a "classic course ball" in his must-read "The Future of Golf."
When Geoff was still a junior at Riviera, Jack Nicklaus was talking about a "Cayman ball" for a short golf course design he was contracted for, and for possible use elsewhere.
The thing that I always pondered was a massive revolt by the very people that the USGA would logically count as its "base": The members at some of the oldest, most classic golf courses with the longest relationship as member clubs of the United States Golf Association. People like the members of Maidstone, Merion, the National, Chicago, Riviera, and a hundred other courses. People with some degree of influence, whose club-based relationships go back 70 or even 100 years with the USGA.
At least that might make some sense in theory. But elsewhere, I have written that I am always amazed at the apathy at those places with respect the USGA's [failed] regulation of technology. It seems that those classic club members are mostly interested in buying some extra length for themsleves (money is no object) or in obtaining for their club the cachet that goes along with hosting major national championships, regardless of the changes to their courses.
Some time ago, Frank Hannigan wrote a very interesting letter to Geoff Shackelford, published on Geoff's weblog, outlining the process by which a number of USGA member-clubs could nominate a rival slate of Directors, bypassing the usual methods. I never thought it to be likely, but it only highlighted the remarkable lack of pressure there seems to be among the memberships and leaderships of classic-course golf clubs who could no longer host a serious competition of elite players, without rebuiliding or altering their existing courses.