The Infinite causal regress is an important issue in dealing with the cosmological argument, especially the Kalam version, and the argument form final cause. It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause. The importance of this argument applies not only to the now largely abandoned notion of an oscillating universe, but to any finite causes of space/time. This is because in light of the impossibility it means that the ultimate cause of the universe must be a final cause, that is to say, the cause behind all other causes, but itself uncaused and eternal. These are two major issues because they indicate why the ultimate cause of the universe has to be God. Since arbitrary necessities are impossible, the ultimate cause cannot be something which is itself contingent, such as an eternal singularity. The ultimate cause, or "final cause" must be God, since God is a logical necessity.
I have been discussing this argument with Eric Sotnac on another thread. It really comes down to a standoff as he argues there is no formally logical self contradiction in an infinite series of cause since each event in the series is caused it's not something from nothing. I can't really show a formally stated reason why it is a contradiction, or logically impossible, except that it doesn't account for the origin of things. If we trace back the links (say in big bang, big crunch) toward the origin of things, we just go back eternally. We never arrive at an origin so we never have one. That is not satisfying, where did the universe come from that does not do it for me.
Moreover, I get the impression that since we never get to the origin there's no reason to assume ICR. That means It's warranted. Technically it may not be a contradiction but it's warranted as a solution either. There is a good reason not accept it, besides the fact that it doesn't deliverer the goods: It's an arbitrary necessity. By that I mean there is logical reason or even a physics reason for it to be. It's a contingency (naturalistic origin or the cosmos such as big bang) but over as a necessity (eternal necessary series of cause and effects) with not actual origin or reason for being. It's only real function is to avoid a God argument. Eric argues that it's not arbitrary but the arbitrary aspect is that it's a contingency with no real reason and never supplies an origin.
At this point we might look at it in terms of my brute fact tie breaker. We could look at the ICR as a brute fact. It just is, there is no reason for it we can't privilege belief and assume there must be a reason so that's all there is. But it's not satisfying because it doesn't really explain. When we compare this to the notion of being itself and Tillich's idea of being having depth we can contrast arbitrary no reason with purpose and reason. Being Por Soir gives reason (in religious parlance is love) to think there is meaning and purpose. Being has to be necessary and eternal since something can't come from nothing. Eternity might yield necessity in an ontological since because it would need no cause. But in choosing between purpose and brute act I think I would rather choose purpose. Granted, at bottom line that is intuitive.
Then there is an empirical reason not to accept ICR, or to see it as unwarranted. Atheist Philosopher Quentin Smith argues that the universe is both finite (not eternal) and uncaused. He gives good evidence that the universe is not eternal but can't provide good evidence that is uncaused, Thus he winds up sup-lying Good evidence for the Cosmological Argument. He argues for a finite past based upon the amount of radiation and entropy. Each new cycle would the universe getting bigger and longer thus as we go back in time it get's smaller and shorter. “This disallows an infinite regress into the past, for a regress will eventually arrive at a cycle that is infinitely short and a radius that is infinitely small; this cycle, or the beginning of some cycle with values approaching the values of this cycle, will count as the beginning of the oscillating universe.” The amount of radiation present in the universe Indicates a finite past.Infinite past would mean infinite radiation, but the radiation present in the universe is finite.  "The conclusion that the past is finite also follows from facts about entropy; if an infinite number of previous cycles have elapsed, each with increasing entropy, then the present cycle would be in a state of maximum entropy-but in fact it is in a state of relatively low entropy.” See my article about Smith's article. 
There are other theories such M theory, string theory on steroids. That is too complex to go into here. There is no empirical evidence for the theory. It is not certain it would provide an origin story anyway. There's self causation through quantum tunneling but that is self contradiction at it's core. That is answered by DC's "flashpoint," although I prefer "Crisis on Infinite Earths."
ICR is based upon circular reasoning, or something like it. They need the universe not to be created, they need a naturalistic cause. They need that cause to be eternal since a limited cause would need an explanation. So they loop the process back around. The premise the universe is a never ending series of beginnings and endings, rests upon the conclusion, that the universe is eternal.
Quentin Smith, “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe.” The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, (1988, Vol., 55, no. 1), 39-57.
 Joseph Hinman, "Universe is finite but is it uncaused Atheist Philosopher herlps." The Religiojs a priori, online resource, accessed 8/22/16 http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/03/universe-is-finite-but-is-it-uncaused.html