"champ x is the bar we compare all others in that role to, and where we would like to see others brought to. BUT, we won't do anything to make any progress towards that goal for 9 months."
I have only ever seen this used as far as fighters are concerned and they have been admitted to be in a bad state and notoriously difficult to balance without killing. Please provide a source or you're just using statements out of context, which is manipulative and already a bad way to start an argument in my book. But that's me nitpicking at a personal pet peeve.
Overall I kiiiinda like the idea of additional bans but it isn't a solution to your problem. I think you underestimate the playerbase. We will find a way to stagnate champion and composition diversity, simply because we gravitate towards what we know works. Now this changes over skill range and over time, as it does now, and yes increased ban options will mean a greater chance you'll have to adapt, but I can easily see nothing really changing and the same 6(+2, +4, +6) bans being relatively consistent and 'standard' comps being derived from the remains.
There is also the fact that Red StrikeO did very well to point out. If you though Kass's ban rate was bad, imagine what would happen to the champs that are deemed insta bans. I doubt anyone at Riot and the majority of the playerbase not wanting to have 1,2, or even 3 champions banned for the majority of every game (except maybe Teemo, but that's Teemo). And before anyone says "well then that means they're OP and should be balanced", whether these unfortunate sods are OP or not doesn't matter, it's the fact that they are popular. Poppy is technically the strongest champ in the League gameplay wise, but isn't inherently popular and therefore not banned. Insta-banning =/= OP, insta-banning = popular.
