Some NBBA ratings from the more recent games you linked (to prove people used outside tactics) are not exactly telling though. You wouldn't have made the finals in other nations with those ratings.
Besides if you read again Brambauti's point, he claimed that LI and inside tactics were never broken, they were more expensive to build back then. However at the very top level where these constraints are looser, you can see that outside tactics did not dominate the scene and you could perhaps make the opposite case. You can argue that the LI dominance has also been caused by the way salary is determined, with IS free on guards, but that is only part of theproblem. If outside tactics were good enough to win, although with a higher price tag, someone would have succeeded that way at least for a stretch.
Where do we go from here? IS on guards is going to cost something, but that only means that LI becomes a little more expensive, not less effective. I don't know what the imbalance was at the beginning of the game, but the current imbalance is caused by inconsistencies in the GE and unusable or indistinguishable tactics. At this point I'm unsure whether just lowering the impact of OD would result in more balance.
I think the only way to do this without redoing the GE altogether is to both lower the impact of OD to some extent (which presumably also will naturally increase the number of mid-range jumpers and 3 pointers for all tactics) and revise some key parameters for the least used tactics (e.g. bump the bonus to outside team rating for higher JR in outside tactics). Unfortunately, since I started playing this game, Marin has never been very keen to touch anything to do with the GE, so I don't think he will, but I hope I'm wrong.