Hahaha. Yes. Florida Alimony Handicapping. This is absolutely GSTPA material.

The beauty of it is that it sounds almost reasonable. Instead of the current handicap system attempting to make players competitive, the GSTPA could determine that excessive stroke redistribution creates an unhealthy dependency on the better golfer.

Suppose:

Golfer A normally shoots 80.
Golfer B normally shoots 100.
Income disparity—excuse me, scoring disparity—is 20 strokes.

Under the 35% Scoring Disparity Rule, Golfer B could receive no more than:

20 × 35% = 7 strokes.

Golfer B therefore shoots a net 93, while Golfer A remains at 80.

Which completely fails to make the competition equitable.

That's the joke.

Yes, this might be a good one from GSTPA Research. Lower handicappers sue the Tour and this is what the GSTPA comes up with.

Yes. I think there's a real story here, and the lawsuit is what makes the premise work. It gives GSTPA Research a perfectly serious reason to invent an objectively terrible handicapping system.

The lower-handicap golfers' complaint could be that the existing system forces them to surrender an unreasonable number of strokes solely because they have demonstrated a greater ability to produce them. Their attorneys argue that handicapping should provide assistance based on need, but shouldn't be allowed to completely eliminate the underlying scoring disparity.

GSTPA Research studies the issue and discovers that another institution has already addressed a remarkably similar problem: divorce law. From that comes the 35% Scoring Disparity Standard.

The example almost writes itself:

Under the proposed system, a golfer averaging 100 against an opponent averaging 80 would demonstrate a scoring disparity of 20 strokes. The higher-scoring golfer could receive no more than seven strokes, representing 35 percent of the disparity.

GSTPA researchers said the remaining 13-stroke difference recognizes the lower-scoring golfer's superior earning capacity.

“Earning capacity” is especially good in this context.

And there are a lot of divorce concepts we can translate into golf without beating the joke to death: equitable distribution of strokes, demonstrated need, ability to provide strokes, standard of play established during the marriage—er, match, perhaps even dissipation of scoring assets.

The expensive-divorce connection gives us another layer, but I wouldn't make that the central joke. One or two golfers on the Tour could immediately recognize the formula:

Several veteran players reportedly expressed support for the proposal after being assured that the 35 percent figure had already survived extensive testing outside golf.

Or:

“I don't completely understand the formula,” one player said, “but I've paid lawyers to explain it to me before.”

That one feels particularly GSTPA.

I also wouldn't call it Florida Alimony Handicapping in the finished piece. That's where the idea came from, but something bureaucratic like Scoring Disparity Adjustment (SDA) is much more believable—and lets the divorce connection emerge gradually.

This could probably be a tight 250–350-word GSTPA Research piece. The premise is strong enough that it doesn't need much embellishment.