I think it's a matter of perspective. I never saw a problem with the rule as it had stood previously. We accept the rules that are in place because they are the rules. And the rules said that the winner had to show to win the pot. To someone not in the hand, watching it play out it, it's real simple, you have to show to take the pot. That's the rule. But when it's you in the hand, and you call another player's river bet and they muck, you realize that it doesn't really make sense that you have to show. After all, he mucked his hand, forfeiting the pot. If I don't show, does his hand get un-mucked? Does the pot get un-forfeited?
While I did accept the previous rule, I don't have any problem whatsoever with the change. In fact, it makes a lot more sense. To those who say that it make collusion easier, I really don't understand how the previous rule would have prevented it. If the player that was supposed to show first mucks, how does the second player tabling their hand prove that the first player didn't muck a stronger hand. The first player could show their hand, and the second player could muck a stronger hand. Neither the old rule or the new one would prevent either of these situations from occurring. Me showing my hand after my opponent mucks doesn't prove anything. The only way to prove there is no collusion occurring is to make both players show every time. If there are more than two players in the hand, then all of them would have to show. Is that what you want?