First, there are really good arguments on both side of this because there are people on both sides of this. Each SBMM and CBMM is great for some people and sucks for others. There's no way around that. But this is an argument I don't hear brought up and it's an argument uniquely pro-SBMM. SBMM is objectively the better environment for players to get better. The best learning environment for anybody is engaging about 10-15% beyond current capabilities. It's called the ZPD, or zone of proximal development. This is the academically accepted educational theory. It's backed by peer reviewed studies and it's the way curricula are developed across the world. People say that you should just play better people to get better or be thrown into the fire to figure it out, but that's only true to a degree. People who get good against players way better than them do it [i]despite[/i] their circumstances, not [i]because[/i] of them. Putting players against people in roughly the same skill bracket allows for development and improvement. Until some kind of compromise between CBMM and SBMM is figured out, there will always be some people happy and some unhappy... I just wanted to share this angle since I don't usually hear it.