I really don't care what dogs people are breeding to an extent. I would rather see a breeder with F1 crosses that is health testing, taking good care of their dogs, and breeding/placing their dogs responsibly than the asshat with his 5 purebred Labradors that he purchased purely to send away for training, make them "good dogs", then breed them for $$$$$, all while not doing any basic upkeep on them, they live in kennels, they have heartworms and intestinal parasites, they're all shells of themselves due to the training environment they're in (robotic dogs because they're terrified, much?), and letting one of their "kennel founding" dogs get bred at 10 years of age and then when her puppies all die two weeks after being born they think maybe something is wrong and the dog's entire mammary chain is just full of puss and her uterus is, too. (And don't forget the heart failure, because, heartworms). Oh, and it's okay to euthanize, because "he can just get another one".
THAT is what I have a problem with. The fact that breeders like him aren't immediately seen with a red flag (and honestly, his front is probably very good, it is because we see his dogs for veterinary care that we know what goes on behind the scenes) bothers me. Bad breeders come in every size, shape, and breed. They shouldn't be villanized based on the "breed" they're breeding, but on the health of their dogs and the quality of their breeding program.
Breeds come and go. I find it kind of ironic that the breeds that were created back in the day were just fine to create because they were being created with "a purpose". Even if that purpose was companionship or to be a scary looking dog that would personally defend you against threats. But if you want to create a breed in today's climate that is a great fit for a suburban family with kids and a busy schedule, you're told, "You don't need a new breed for that, just find one that's already around or adopt".
On that note, I also think breeds evolve. And while everyone is always going to want to preserve what they remember the breed to be, I don't have any issues with people "changing" the breed (color, coat, size, temperament) - so long as they don't spout their dogs as "true" X breed, or "better" X breed, or "rare" X breed. No. Say you started out with X breed, but wanted certain traits, so you bred towards those. Because that is the truth. Whether those traits are "better" or "rare" or "more true" than other traits depends on who is seeking out your dogs, not the dogs themselves. If that makes sense.
As for a breed I'd like? A Cynder-esque breed. Medium sized (25-35lbs), solid, athletic, off leash reliable, quiet, low activity in the house, does NOT need exercise to thrive, but loves getting out, short double coat (wash and wear), polite/friendly with all other living creatures (NOT boisterous), not aggression or anxiety prone. Only add moderate toy drive, moderate food drive, and a love of water and we'd be set.