All they're going to give you is the "statistically you should get [xxxxxxxx]" arguments. The Elo-Rating System itself is just bad, even for chess in 1v1, and there are PLENTY of articles as to why the system lacks integrity (and if it requires HUNDREDS of games in CHESS to reflect the TRUE rating of someone who is rated WAY off their TRUE rating then it requires THOUSANDS in a 5v5 setting to do likewise).
The main issue has to do with the fact that points are based on what ratings you're playing against, and how it is actually NOT rewarding to play against similarly rated or lower-ranked players than you, because you're punished HEAVILY for losses, whilst perhaps only getting a HANDFUL of points for wins, and QUEUE-DODGING is how I "farmed" the LP I needed to stop being DEMOTED into fucking BRONZE (and THAT was ENTIRELY because of TWENTY fucking feeding teams in a ROW who FOUR-MAN SURRENDER-VOTED even when I was fed). TWO times this season for that matter (yes, DEMOTED into fucking BRONZE, MORE than ONCE this season, because SOME-HOW the match-maker decided that I should CONSISTENTLY be matched into teams who COULD NOT FUCKING STAY ALIVE FOR MORE THAN TWO MINUTES and would die 45x in less than 10 minutes followed by Four-Man-Surrendering).
The system of Elo is BAD and all of that Smurfing/Boosting/etc., has actually caused a DEFLATION in True-Rating Scores, resulting in a LOT of "strong" players inaccurately rated BELOW where they SHOULD be rated (and this IS admitted & described even from CHESS-Analysts who've SEEN these problems for themselves in the 1v1 version of Elo in Chess... THAT should say something about the INTEGRITY of using it in a 5v5 system).
https://www.thechesspiece.com/what_is_an_elo_rating.asp
