Hehe, no reason to apologize for disagreeing, at least if you can back it up with facts, rather than 'dragonsdemesne is an ass or something' :p However, it doesn't seem like you are actually disagreeing with anything I said, except the part where I claimed BL and CL probably have about the same variety in the meta.
BL is definitely easier to find matches for, but just based on what I see in chat when I'm looking for CL games, it's not that easy to find BL games, either, and while I saw a lot more updates on the BL thread earlier in the season, it's slowed down now so it's barely played more than CL. I cannot speak for anything in the BL meta last season (or BL this season, for that matter) as I did not participate. It is obvious, of course, that BL is slower, and this does mean that slower decks have more of a chance. However, on the flip side of things, it makes other decks weaker. I would probably never play an immorush in BL, for instance, because immolation into lava golem is quite a bit weaker than cremation into lava destroyer, but most of the good creature removal cards are still easily playable in BL, like reverse time, lightning bolt, and shockwave.
And yeah, Krach and Elo have problems, but I can't really think of better systems than either of those. We certainly can't go with games won, because that just rewards the most active and those who farm newbies, rather than those with actual skill. Win percentage removes the activity part, but you can still farm newbies, and it rewards inactivity as well if you get a high win rate early. You're also correct that as Odii plays games, his rating will drop. He's a top level player, but his true rating (if such a thing even exists) will be close to the other top players in BL, rather than the insane rating he has now. If everyone in BL had to play 1000 games, for instance, he'd most likely still be in the prize runnings somewhere, but he wouldn't have 2-3x or more the rating that everyone else does, for the reasons that you've stated.
If we played more games in a season, Elo would probably be a better choice. If we played way more games than we do, then only a small percentage would involve overestimated newbies, so the overall effect would be smaller. I used to play Scrabble online a lot with Elo rating, and that's what I observed there with the elo system. If 99% of games did not involve either overestimated newbies or underestimated experts just starting the season, the effect would be minor. With only a few dozen games each played between a small pool of people, a much larger percentage of games in Elo last season would fall under this category and skew the ratings.
Again, I can't speak to the BL meta, but the same kind of thing happens in CL. It's a rock-paper-scissors between a few themes, like SoFo, SoSa vs purify, discord, SoI, and a few other offenders. I still haven't seen a single shard of patience in CL yet, though, but that has to do more with how few slower stall type decks there are, and how even fewer of those are actually competitive.
For the bans... yeah, I can understand wanting to keep leagues 100% open; that's one thing that bugs me sometimes in some tourneys is how many banned cards they have. (depends on the week) It's been suggested before, but a deck size increase and/or card limit decrease, like 40 card decks/4 copies per deck, or perhaps a limited restricted list, like certain OP cards are capped at less than 6 copies (maybe 2 or 3) although the problem with those rules is that unless forced into code, we can theoretically cheat and use more copies.