So, EITHER dispensationalism is not important, OR ALL adherents of Sola Scriptura are dispensationalists.
FOR
if
Sola Scriptura comes down to no one should be required to believe anything that cannot be proved by Scripture,
then either
a) dispensationalism is required to be believed and therefore can be proved by Scripture,
or
b) it cannot be proved and therefore is not required to be saved.
If (a), and Scripture's plain wording is enough, then how do you account for the sola Scriptura people who disdain dispensationalism?
If (b), then what's the big deal?
If my analysis is wrong, how is it wrong?
The only thing wrong with your analysis is thinking that one person could speak for everyone else. I couldn’t tell you what everyone else thinks about either a) or b).