Disclaimer: I'm a n00b so I can't judge this from my personal experience: I derive all what I know about the topic from what I read on different posts on this site.
So it would seem we have a meta. The meta is defined as The Strategy. Not a strategy; but The Strategy everyone shall follow, under the pain of provoking the fury of their teammates (who suddenly don't know how to play, since if one player doesn't follow the meta, then the meta has hereby been broken). And, of course, under the pain of loosing the game: since the meta is supposed to be the optimal strategy, the best strategy, the most efficient and most effective strategy; everyone who tries something different is, basically, shooting themselves in their feet. The meta is, therefore, essentially close to the solution of this game.
The above harsh statements are of course disputable. There are examples of people who break the meta and still be successful. Sometimes their ideas get incorporated to the meta. Also, the meta shifts a bit with each patch.
But this doesn't change the big picture: There seems to be a strategy that, in general, seems to be most effective.
This leads to a situation that, superficially, seems undesirable. **Everyone plays in the same way**. Matches are between teams who, essentially, follow the same strategy. This implies a sort of monotony.
It would seem that ideally, we would like not have The -One Strategy, but rather, many equal strategies. Some more mainstream, others more situational and niche; but, still viable, even in pr0 play. (Because, one would argue, mentioning Bronze strategies is irrelevant, as for a good player everything is viable there, even if clearly idiotic like Soraka mid).
The problem is that in such a case we would likely see a rock-paper-scissors-like situation. That is, assume we would have equal strategies A, B, C; then we would likely see strategy A trump strategy B, strategy B trump strategy C and strategy C trump strategy A. (As opposed to the current situation, when the meta seems to, generally, trump any other strategy). However, this would imply the situation which Riot seems to want to avoid at all costs: that is, games would be won or lost as soon as the picking phase would be over; as after the picking phase it would be clear which team follows which strategy; but one of these two strategies would likely trump the other one.
So, is the meta a necessary evil? Or can there be multiple equal strategies, out of which no two would hard-counter each other?
If the latter is true... Well, maybe it's time to stop adding more and more content and instead devote the following year maybe? completely to balancing well what we now have? So that that ideal would be reached? And also so that n00bs could stop posting complaints on these forums that the game is too fast, too punishing and too pr0 oriented, and likewise, so that the pr0s could stop posting complaints that the game is too slow, too tolerant for mistakes and too n00b oriented?