Just a suggestion but here's a simple formula that might be a solution for the 308 vs the hot rod cartridges debate.
I'll call it the "Ballistic Coefficient Muzzle Velocity Factor" - BCVF
It's easy....BC x FPS divided by 1000.
Cartridges equaling a rating of 1.5 or less go into what amounts to 308 or ballistically similar cartridges. Over 1.5 go into the ballistically superior cartridges category.
Examples...
223 with 77 grainers. .4BC x 2850 fps divided by 1000 = 1.14 BCVF
308 with 155 grainers at 2900 fps divided by 1000 = 1.334 BCVF
308 with 168 .47BC x 2700 fps divided by 1000 = 1.269 BCVF
308 with 175 .515BC x 2650 fps divided by 1000 = 1.364 BCVF
243 with 105 - .545 x 3150 = 1.71 BCVF
260 with 140 - .6 x 2800 = 1.68 BCVF
7-08 with 168 - .62 x 2750 = 1.705 BCVF
6.5 SAUM 140 .62 x 3100 = 1.922 BCVF
7 SAUM with 180 - .67 x 2900 =1.942 BCVF
I have been advocating this method of estimating cartridge comparison for about 2 years no except I didn't bother to divide by 1000. I just ran the number as is (1140, 1335, etc). It makes a really nice way to compare a "band" of performance where very little is gained or lost by changing a few hundred points (or in this case, a few tenths of a point). I like the approach for a ballistic comparison and if a performance handicap value is needed then this makes a lot of sense numerically.
From a perspective on rules and creating a rule book I have seen a lot of rules gyrations after years spent in motor racing and competitive shooting and athletic sports. The more restrictive the rule book becomes the more that arms race heats up because without the freedom to innovate on a grand scale the costs for seemingly inconsequential gains escalates quickly. I've tried to point this to a number of MD's that are experienced in only shooting sports and frankly, shooting sports are cheap. Try open-wheel racing where a 12 race series will cost $1/4M for just consumables, those kind of expenses show the pinnacle of "rule parsing" and costs escalating to gain an advantage.
This is because people are competitive, a "competitive shooter" is naturally competitive and will seek an advantage through all means. Those that want to espouse the moral high road about competition like that are not innovators or leaders, they're followers that will perpetually be chasing someone else's innovations and someone else's wins. The sport here is big enough that even for little local matches there's a group of shooters that perpetually show up that are damn good shots and the ballistic advantage of a 6 vs. a 6.5 on a match that's dominated by <800yd shots is easily absorbed by the better shooter.
There are some guys on here that I could go up against with my regular match rifle and they're "handicapped" to a 308 and yet I am pretty sure that I'd be hard pressed to beat them on a multi-day event because they're damn good at what they do.
The more someone attempts to squeeze out innovation and imparts restriction the more the competitors will work to eek out single-percent gains in performance and slip through their fingers.
"The harder you attempt to squeeze, the more they will slip through your fingers"
For that reason we need to keep the rules simple and open. The only thing I really see as a benefit to imparting ballistic restrictions is target damage. Speed/impact velocity kills steel plates, impact energy from big calibers going slow doesn't hurt the steel, it hurts the target supports. Again, another reality based exercise that's backed by simple engineering concepts but "I've been shooting steel for years, kid" MDs don't want to hear it.
Again, this is a Pandora's Box full of rules that once opened and approached leads back to the statement I made above: The more you seek to restrict in the sake of costs and "fairness" turns into an arms race for miniscule performance gains and escalating costs. I have seen matches attempted where it is "308 only match, bring your gun, the match fee includes the ammo, everyone gets the same ammo"
Well, then that immediately opens the door to guys complaining of 2 things:
Ammo is too expensive and I load my own, I can't go because the cost is too high
My rifle doesn't like that ammo and the match was biased because some guys had rifles that loved the ammo, but my $x-thousand dollar rifle doesn't like that ammo.
Again, something to bitch about, something to turn people away.
An open rule book that has minimal restrictions on calibers and scope magnifications and all of the other "cost cutting" measures will be the best thing for the sport I think. There are a lot of local matches around the country that are still ranking 308 shooters in the top spots because get this: THE GUYS CAN SHOOT.
OK, rant over... but some parting words:
I like what Frank's opened up here for discussion, I like the idea of a sport-growing rule book that's relatively open for the sake of inclusiveness, and I don't particularly like the way that the PRS model has turned from what we're discussing here and now to what is has become here and now.
The life-blood of the sport is new shooters, not the guys in colorful shirts. Building a rule book that is simple and easy for new guys to understand and absorb will push the sport's acceptedness more than a 350 page GCR with clauses and legal-ese.
, 
