Maybe tou don't, but the thing is: the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
So if somebody claims that some change is a survival necessity, that person needs to prove that there is no possibility of survival unless the proposed changes are made.
That is a strong requirement to have to make, especially in the face of counterfactuals (tt has, in some or other form, one of the most played sports across the globe and has been for nearly a century) and competing approaches - there just might be other approaches to reach the same goal.
I actually think the kill zone and time limit don't do much harm, neither am I seeing much benefit, watching the last days worth of matches. But that's not the point.
I don't think the sport would go extinct if broadcasters kept up their longstanding disinterest. I certainly don't think any aspect of the sport I care about would suffer if it reamained relatively unsoiled and unspoiled by big money(tm). On the contrary. Less corruption is preferrable to more, I'd say.
