http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3123246109 - #1
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3123036188 - #2
A bit of math for the front page:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An699vGZwDtZdHVzVWhIYnhqQmxfaTZYQUsyRk1qNWc&hl=en_US#gid=0
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3123036188?page=1#8
We didn't particularly want a lot of these items in circulation, so that's partially intended. We really do want to keep legendary weapons legendary, and Dragonwrath ended up being more readily available than we were comfortable with.
Nonetheless, we should have recognized that the completion rate was faster than we wanted, and taken action, sooner.
I don't think that's the point most (reasonable) people are trying to argue, though. Every single legendary churned out to date has come from 25 man raids. Some have 1, nearly 2; some have 2, nearly 3.
10 man-focused raids have zero. There are literally no 10 man raids with a finished legendary. The furthest-progressed ones are just starting the Essences grind (last week or this week) and if those guilds were killing 7/7 heroic, on the previous drop rates, at best they'd have their first legendary by the beginning of October. As well, with the Cinders drop-rates, those same guilds clearing 7/7H would still not begin the Essences portion of their second legendary until 2-3 weeks after finishing their first.
It's all well and good to want to stymie the flood of legendaries in the market and no one's arguing it inexcusable to nerf 25-man drop rates (though some are understandably put out that it took this long to ninja in said nerf, well after the best guilds have already finished 2) to accommodate this desire. The Sturm und Drang you're seeing is purely because the nerf impacted 10-man raids as well, in a way that doesn't jive with the reasoning of "too many legendaries spoil the raid". 10-mans don't have any legendaries to spoil the proverbial soup!
So that's the concern. It isn't that you shouldn't fix drop rates; it's that you should fix them in the raid level that's actually causing the issue.
[Continuation post borrowed from Texaporte]