I say Classic will boost Bitcoin price drastically. Everyone will be cheering that the scalability impasse has been bridged and that the era of centralized development is over!
At least we know your motivation for support of Classic. Success of bitcoin should not be measured by its price.
BTW, a static increase of block size does not solve anything. It is like changing size of an array on the stack, if you need to store more data, you have the same problem. A real solution would be to allow for dynamic size. The question is how to grow this size and how to build consensus of what the currently agreed (between nodes) max block size is. You need two algorithms: one to grow the size, another one to 'broadcast' what the new, to be accepted size suppose to be. If the system was centralized, solution would be easy. a central node would decide what the new size is, and inform all other nodes. But bitcoin is decentralized and more democratic, your node is as valid and needed as any other node on the network. So that is where the challenge begins.
What classic offers is hard forks every few months or years.
Not to take away Galvin's contributions to bitcoin, but his suggestions fall short.
I've seen too many times projects fail because they were deployed without proper testing. Just because the code change is easy does not make it right.
If you ever looked at bitcoin code, you'll not want to rush any new changes without extensive testing. Changing a header constant is not a solution, it is postponing it at the expense of a hard fork.