From a business perspective...Not sure who "they" is, but if it's Cabot I would say the answer is clearly no. There is not only a brand quality which needs to be maintained, but no doubt the marketing buzz from a "reimagined experience" on the same site weighs into the business decision. Added to the difference in green fees for a new Cabot course vs Pine Barrens, the case for the former is pretty clear.
It's a fair question, although it could only be realistically posed before Cabot became the new owner. A product represents its brand, and Cabot in my view doesn't appear to be a brand that would embrace a 'pre-renaissance' architect as you term it, Brett.
A different ownership group certainly could've taken that restoration angle. But with Congaree, Gozzer Ranch, and other well maintained Fazio designs elsewhere, Cabot's decision to overhaul the course with a next-gen architect seems more appropriate for its brand strategy and customer base.
I've been thinking about the branding issue since Michael posted about it and Alex raises it too, so I'll give my take. First of all, I think I agree with you that from a PR guy perspective, reimagining the architecture of Pine Barrens in the mold of the other Keiser/Cabot resorts makes sense. People know those brands, the content is always good. They (the group of people who's in charge here) have had a successful product and when they've added to it, it's been well received and successful. Why mess with that?
Well, two reasons in this case I think. The first is
because of their strong brand. When you've created a strong brand, more than trust in the product itself, you've created trust in the people who produce it. You might say that what makes the Keiser/Cabot brand is a certain style of golf course architecture, but I'd give them more credit than that: the brand is great golf course architecture on great land, not a certain style of architecture (I'd doubt that most of the guys who go to Bandon know the difference between a Doak and a Fazio). The brand is these guys; they know how to pick 'em. Whatever they do, you know that it's going to be good because their batting average is about 1.000 in at least a dozen at-bats.
To me, that gives them the latitude to do something that's architecturally a bit different. Whatever they do, you can trust that it's going to be good because these guys have proven that they know what good is. And (2) I think that Fazio's Pine Barrens was an example of very good/great architecture and that restoring it would have been completely on-brand in this broader sense. I think it deserved their blessing. It would have added further architectural variety to their stable of courses and shown that their brand isn't just about a certain style or a small stable of architects coming from the same design tradition.
Now I wouldn't say that they should have made no changes. Adding some new back tees on the holes starting at the three-way intersection (2, 7, 12) would have shortened the walking distances. A few trees could have come down on 17 and 18. They
really should have lost the right green on 12. Maybe they could have made it a bit flashier in some of the flashy spots. But they should have retained the bones of each of the holes. The course was good enough to deserve it and I think it would have shown that their brand is broader than a certain style of architecture. It's 'Guys who know what a great course is.'