The big controversies within Dispensationalism are a traditional dispensational position versus what is called Progressive Dispensationalism. I’m not going to even try to go into it as it is difficult to get the scholars to pin down exactly what defines their views. Safe to say that Progressive Dispensationalism is a bridge between a more Reformed or Covenant view and often people eventually slide down the slope to move to eventually embrace the Reformed or Covenant views.
My personal views are Historic Premillenialism which is a not stict Dispensationalism and is more aligned with a post-trib or pre-wrath rapture understanding. I prefer this position and I think it satisfies quite a literal hermeneutic and prophetic understanding as I understand it and feel the Spirit reveals.
I think it is somewhat of a false dichotomy to present the only alternatives as either classical Dispensationalism or Reformed/Covenant theology.
How a person believes God deals with Israel and the Abrahamic Covenant and whether it is still in effect is a major issue between the two. Replacement Theology/ Supercessionism is kind of the often unspoken issue at the heart of the conflict at least today. Obviously, there are other issues but they center more around what aspect theologically does the Church emphasize in its understanding of systematizing and interpreting scripture and how much weight is given to tradition and man-made conferences. During the time of the Reformation Ecclesiological and Soteriological issues ruled the day and very little was said about prophecy or end times views. But that was their day and generation and different aspects affect this generation as it should be.
I agree with the above assessment.