I'd like it a lot better if there were some max # of games. Say, 60. That makes 1 game per day. You can still play more for the ladder, with different teams... but having people with reasonable records and 100 games played take precedence over people with brilliant win records, but "only" enough time to play 50 matches in 2 months? That does not seem like a sensible idea to me.
Depending on what exactly you consider "reasonable" and "brilliant" records, I think you may be overestimating how much of a bonus just playing more games gives with this system. As an example, a team with a 25-25-0 record, is essentially unbeatable (within 2 months) by someone with a 50%-0%-50% record, as they'd need more than 600 games. Even if you drop the "brilliant" record to 25-12-13 the half win half loss record still needs 240 games to pass them.
As an even more extreme example, if this theoretical half win half loss team wanted to beat a 50-0-0 team in the rankings, they would need more than 36 thousand
games. Obviously no one expects to see any 50-0-0 teams in just 2 months, but I hope the example demonstrates my point.
One last example, going in the opposite direction. Let's say we have a team with a 34-34-34 record (which, incidentally, works out the same as just tying 102 games, because math.) I'd say that's about as close to a standard for a "reasonable" record as you could get while being around a hundred games. They're going to have a ranking of about 9.55. A team with a 100% win rate will pass them (with 9.56) at 23 games. Half win and half draw team will pass them at 38 games with 9.551. Half wins, one quarter each draws and losses would pass them at about 57 games with 9.6.
I think we all agree you have to factor number of games played into the ranking somehow, otherwise a 1-0-0 team is going to be above a 60-1-0 and that's plainly ridiculous. The question is how exactly, and to what extent. The system they've gone with for this update prioritizes teams with more games, but with diminishing returns for each additional game, while still putting a lot of weight on having a strong record. I think that's pretty much on the mark for what they need to do (i.e. encourage and reward good / skilled play while also encouraging people to play a lot to keep the ladder healthy.)
Also, I'm obviously not affiliated with Cyanide in anyway and I haven't seen their code so I can't be positive, but I'd imagine it should be very simple for them to tweak the numbers to adjust things if need be. Without even changing the formula at all they have 8 numbers they can fiddle with, 10 if you count the points for concession wins/losses.
Also, in the end, there's not going to be a system that does not, to some extent, reward people with more time to play more matches. That's just the reality of having a system based on an open ladder. You could limit number of games per team, but that just gives you what we had in the WC ladders, were people grind out the most perfect win rate they can manage in that many games, constantly restarting teams. You could limit the number of games per coach, or teams per coach (possibly combined with limiting games per team) but that's going to kill the MM environment.
Ultimately they are running a competitive online game, and those tend to live or die by how easy it is to find a match at any given point of time. If all the most dedicated coaches stop playing two weeks into the season because they've capped out their game quota, that's not good at all. Especially with the relatively small player base BB2 has to begin with. Of course BB has leagues as well as the ladder, but I wouldn't expect those alone to keep the servers paying for themselves.
Finally, if whatever level of free time rewarding the competitive ladder ends up with is just too much for you, then you do still have private leagues to fall back on. There'll always be people who prefer leagues and people who prefer the ladder, with varying degrees of playing in the other environment. The ladder has to be designed to be the best ladder it can be, not to be the best emulation of a league in ladder format. Rankings need to have different priorities than they would in a normal league environment.
And it's not like they're abandoning private leagues altogether, either. We all know the management tools need work of course, but I think giving community run leagues a (pretty sizable iirc) portion of the control over who gets into the world cup shows that they definitely care about them.
This turned into a much longer post than I originally intended, so thank you to anyone who actually bothered to read it all.