I have said for a while that 'Tiger-proofing' courses by just making them longer is the most stupid decision ever. Lets make courses longer so that the long hitters get even more of an advantage ...
I don't think that there should be a roll-back on equipment; I think that is a dangerous path for golf to take as the problem really doesn't affect the vast majority of players. And equally, who really cares if the pros shoot 20 under par at some obscure new course in Oklahoma. I agree completely with Bushy's comment that no-one wants to watch the US Open each week.
However, I do think that there should be a more significant penalty with missing the fairway with driver on some of the classic older courses (i.e. St Andrews etc), but not to the ludicrous levels seen at US Opens. So the simple solution is to narrow the fairways at 300+ yards, and let the rough grow into a genuine hazard at that point. Keep fairways wide up to that point, but make the pros actually decide whether the reward of a shorter iron is worth the risk of potentially having to hack it out sideways. There are no significant costs associated with this change (i.e. re-routing holes, adding bunkers etc), and simply involves changing the mowing patterns a bit.
One of Greg Norman's great strengths was not just how far he hit his driver - it was that he hit his driver both long and straight. If pros are able to hit their drive 300 yards+ into a 20 yard wide fairway, good luck to them. But make it back into a genuine 'risk/reward' consideration, rather than the current 'reward/reward' scenario.