I'm not in the "rollback world" although I feel I am aware of certain negative implications of today's ball-flight distance.
For me, specifically it comes down to playing my home course 100-150 times a year and having to decide how to trade off teeing it forward versus not being able to reach several greens per round in regulation (both Par 4's and even one Par 5 that is not reachable in three strokes when I play back).
As it stands now I can reach every green in regulation with no more than a solid (average to slightly above average distance) drive and a solid 5-wood playing the course at about 5,750 yards. Move it back to 6,200 yards and at least two Par 4's and one Par 5 become layup hole. Go back to 6,500 and I'm laying up on half the holes on the course.
If the ball I play were rolled back 15-20% then I'd have to play at maybe 5,250 yards to reach most greens and all the way up at 4,800 to reach them all. I can only imagine how that would play out when I'm 62 or 72 years old instead of 52 or for that matter how it would play out on a 45F day with wintry wet fairways plus wind. At some point, I'd be moving up so far that the course ceases to have any meaningful features remaining from its original 1960 design which (if I understand correctly) was with the expectation of most play being from tees a bit over 6,000 yards.
That said I would rather play a rolled back ball than have a fundamental disconnect in the rules for "them" and "me" (for some values of "them" and "me"). At most I would be OK with the PGA Tour imposing a Condition of Competition that removes certain models of golf ball from play in their events. At most. Bifurcation would be the most fundamental change in the Rules of Golf that has occurred in Pat Mucci's lifetime, if not longer.