It's not like all 10,000 rounds have to be reviewed. You can spot check a few, and the "cheats" at any given club tend to be pretty well known. Local associations will often post the players scores FOR them in events, and clubs will do this as well. They will also often notice if someone plays frequently without posting.
IMO, vanity handicapping is more of a "problem" than actual sandbagging.
You can find the tables with exceptional tournament score odds. It's not zero, but it's not exactly high, either.
This is incorrect.
Every year. And, the course rating at a lot of the courses set up for PGA Tour-level major championship tests are approaching an 80.0 course rating anyway.
Well, cool, but you've not gotten a bunch of basic facts right.
The normal conditions of the course are considered, including stimp, slope of greens, rough height, width of fairways, etc. They're factored into green targets, etc.
Obstacles along the entire length of the hole are considered. A bit more so for the bogey rating, while obstacles within 20 yards of 250 yards (effective length) forward and back are considered a bit more heavily for the scratch golfer.
A true USGA course setup often doesn't have an actual course rating or slope. They're not the normal playing conditions, and because players in a major aren't posting to their handicaps… it'd be pointless to re-rate with those conditions. This year, the PCC will help the rare players who play those courses a week or two before a major, but… this is hardly what I would call a "big" issue.
Look, I've been a course rater for ~15 years, and captain of the course rating team for ~5. You can have an opinion, but I also get to question the foundation upon which that opinion is based. And, honestly, I find the foundation weak.