I think thats probably a little of the issue here, people are arguing towards different, underdeveloped concepts of what a perfectly balanced game would be.
Is a balance game a game where every single character has an equal chance to beat every other character on any given stage? To do that you must minimize character identity. Consider Warcraft II any of you who know the game. Sure, it was pretty balanced, but it was because 95% of the "Human" buildings and units had the exact same stats / build time / speed / abilities as the Orc equivalients, the only differences coming to mind were in their caster's spells (which were comparable but different) and one upgrade difference on the archer/troll. Obviously its an extreme example, basically in attempted balance everything was a clone. Still, to achieve that type of balance in brawl, non matchup specific equal opportunity fights, there would have to be drastic cuts in speed difference, weight classes would have to become only a minor difference, everyone would need about the same grab range, each character would have to have the same number of potential ceiling KO moves as well as the same number of horizontal KO moves... You get my point, and I don't think any of you truly want that if you think about it.
Another alternative would be the Rock Paper Scissors mentality, where it is heavily match up specific. However that would require learning a larger number of characters, which would decrease your skill overall with any individual character. Not to mention we'd be playing with completely different blind pick rules. Sure, every character would have defined strengths, weaknesses, and draws. This is balanced in an interpretation, say Fox is great against 10 characters, terrible against 10 characters, even (which would be kinda like the last paragraph between even characters) against 14, and have 1 mirror match, obviously even as well. However this would mean theres only 2 types of games worth watching, where equal opponents picking blind achieved a "draw" scenario, and a good game followed. Recall though neither character would be quite as good with that character, as the game would strongly push being good with multiple, more than smash games so far. The other fun games to watch would be pros beating up scrubs against the balance of the game, but that would only be fun because of the upset, which is bad when a pro is upsetting a scrub, thats not representation of skill if the scrub is favored. We'd just be developing mind games of our blind picks. Rock paper scissors is a great game, full of mind games, but they are all played up until you choose your character, nothing happens after but taking score. In summary this option sucks too.
So now were at least narrowing down options, thinking what it means to be balanced, lets try a less extreme method. Balanced defined as nothing existing that knocks the game from the teetering off the peak of all our hopes for a game able to create a competative challenging arena where skill experience and innovation triumph. Imagine with me here 35 sided shape ( a pentatriacontagon if you will) platform balancing upon this point, on each side is a character, and for each strength weight is added, and for each weakness its taken off. This is what most, if not all of us are looking for in a balanced game. Interesting thing about physics though, is it doesn't have to be absolutely level to remain balanced, and even more interesting, the exact same amount of weight doesn't need to be added to each side to maintain balance either! No one side (character) can be too heavy, or it fall (assuming random positioning of each character side maintaining balance a high percentage of the time). It is still balanced, but not necessarily even across the board.
I challenge you to go one step further with me. Lets pretend that our pentatriacontagon is representative of not the entire game, but what about if it was a specific character and all the possible matchups? Now were talking, here we don't need to assume random character placement. If you have one side thats got all this weight it seems compared to the rest of the cast in the general game balancing platform analogy, it can be offset in this matchup analogy. Say on the other side of the board, you have a number of characters who are superb counters to the character in question. Sure, he may be quite strong (heavy) against 10 or 15 solid characters, but because his weaknesses are easily exploited by the characters across the platform from him, the platform remains balanced. Apply this to every character, as obviously none of the counter characters can also be very heavy weights against most the cast and without counters of their own, and you'll probably end up with this incredibly complex system of weights and counter weights that maintain and protect this so called "balance" thats created such a stir here.
So, thank you if you read all this, I'm sure many won't but I do appreciate those of you who do. More importantly though think about this when arguing whether or not a game is balanced. SSBM was teetering, none of us deny that, there were counters but raw potential was perhaps worth slightly too much, giving us the tier list we have now. If any of you can claim to know the details of every match up well enough to know that potential overcomes counters in Brawl, congrats, your either wrong or very VERY advanced at the game, and clearly you need no words from me. If not, I suggest you try exploring a little more, looking for advantages and disadvantages, finding character match ups that fall one way more often than another, on an even deeper level consider stage implications. Just because FD seems completely neutral doesn't mean it does not favor projectile characters. And for good measure heres a nail to ram through any projected pentatriacontagon platforms you've applied appropriate weights to, how will techs discovered/developed in the next few months affect the weights you've got laid right now?
This isn't just a bogus long too soon to tell post. Just something to think about. Define what a balanced game is, then tell us if you think Brawl is closer to level than Melee. Truth is in the end we'll be playing Brawl either way as long as it doesn't fall off our peak of competative expectations, but comparison isn't bad to see progress or a lack there of.
-True
kick him out for Roy! 
