As TL numbers seem to have been decreasing range of sections has increased in order to maintain section size. This means that chances for two teams to clash increase drastically and also means that if looking for replacement players that most of them are cup tied to another team.

Examples from previous TLs where this impacted is for example in TL70 where a team in Fischer Section had to withdraw as they couldn't field a team.

In TL71 I had misfortune of having two teams in lowest section that meant that if a player couldn't make a game it was nearly impossible to arrange cover as players low enough rated to be added to team were unavailable as they were already in other team in that section while higher rated players would push team over section rating limit.

To give a realistic hypothetical situation if a team has 7 players and one player is willing to play 2 games a round with a couple of other players willing to cover in an emergency. Stronger team would be 1800 average and weaker team would be 1600 average. With a 200 point gap it's reasonable to assume they'll be in different sections and considering they both have 4 players available each week with a bit of cover both teams are viable. However if there are only 4 sections it's quite possible that both teams will be in same section. In that case player who was meant to play for both teams can only play for one team while cover is also instantly eliminated for same reason.

As a result of TL sections rating range being too wide in this scenario you either end up with a team being eliminated due to sections and 3 players potentially missing out on TL or captain has to scramble in a mad panic at short notice to get players out of nowhere with maybe only a couple of days notice.

I'll also be honest and say that while I'll enter 4 teams this TL season I have actually seriously considered dropping down to 3 even if it meant giving less games to players than they requested due to the fear of two teams clashing.

I also know of several players that play for different teams and especially for players in 1400 to 1700 range if average ratings happen to be close it can also cause problems when both captains think they have a player they rely on to fulfil fixtures and all of a sudden end up 1 short.

It might just be my opinion but I think TL would probably get more teams if sections were smaller. Whether it's a good idea or not I'll leave to other people to decide but I figured I should mention it along with my reasoning in case it turns out to be a good idea

P.S. Seems title can't be edited, only body of text but will check when I get home

Good point. I support 6 teams per section. That's still enough games for everyone. Given e. g. 30 teams, it will add a section, which is welcome.

6 teams/section means 5 rounds + playoff, so 6 weeks. While now each season lasts 8 weeks.

Means that either idle period between seasons is enlarged by two weeks and lasts the same 6 weeks at least (that's toooooo long!) or each year comprises 5 seasons!

What do you prefer? :)

Well just out of curiosity and to illustrate point I made a spreadsheet with all the average ratings of teams in TL72 and then calculated what rating gap between top and bottom team would be if there were 6, 7 and 8 teams.

Summary is that average gaps are as follows:
6 Team Sections = 138.8
7 Team Sections = 165.7
8 Team Sections = 193.6

Note these figures are averages so taking worst case scenario 8 Team Section model you get a massive 296.25 gap while getting best case scenario in 6 Team Section model you get a mere 73.75 gap although neither of them is likely even if it is possible

Section size does depend on numbers. For example with 26 it's hard to see anything other than 2x6 and 2x7 although with 24 it could be 3x8 or 4x6 and it's more in 24 game scenario where group size is an issue. An interesting thought is that depending on rating distribution if you were to get 28 teams while initial thought is that 4x7 is best depending on ratings it might be fairer to get 2x6 and 2x8

As far as time it takes for a season you can have something like:
R1,R2,Break,R3,R4,Break,R5,Playoffs or alternate it so that every round 4 teams play and 2 teams have a bye. Of course adding a 5th season is also viable although would mean TL admins have more work to do.

Thanks for creating the sections, smallblackcat. Good decisions taken in short time! Two ideas for a future tourney with 27 teams:

Idea A

5 sections with 5-6-5-6-5 teams per section, and a 5 round group stage, followed by a (slightly) extended 2 round playoff stage:

Rds 1-5: Single Round Robin
Rd 6: 1. vs 4. placed team; 2. vs 3. placed team; 5. vs 6. placed team
Rd 7: Winner (1. vs 4.) vs winner (2. vs 3.); loser (1. vs 4.) vs loser (2. vs 3.)

Idea B

7 sections with 4-4-5-5-5-4-4 teams per section. In the sections with 5 teams play as in idea A above; in the sections with 4 teams maybe a 6 round group stage, followed by a 1 round playoff stage:

Rds 1-6: Double Round Robin
Rd 7, Final: 1. vs 2. placed team

4-team Double Round Robins have been criticized as being unattractive
here, which must be respected, but exceeding rating differences within sections may be a bigger concern.

In either idea, Playoff draw odds based on group stage rank, as now.

Generally, I have a feeling that under the current circumstances 4/5/6 teams per section might make for better play than 3/7/8. 7/8 teams per sections were good when there were 60 teams in total.

Ok, found a way to post here at last.

Systems with 4/5-, or 5/6-team sections work and are flexible, but the problem is that 5-team sections aren't a lot of fun in my opinion. Either you only get 4 rounds of play (with 1 bye) or 5 rounds including a 'position round', which traditionally was 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 sits. If you then go with a playoff you are faced with two teams meeting each other for the third time in a season.

I suspect the future is a mix of 6, 7 and 8-team sections as appropriate. I took some liberties with the format this time, mainly because Singularity and Piazza.degli.Scacchi_Alta have the same average rating and so needed to be in the same section. Pchesso is right: the current format was introduced when we had 50+ teams, and worked well in such circumstances. I remember thinking at the time that the beauty of the 7/8 sections was that they worked for almost any number 28 or more...I didn't really expect to be looking at only 27 total entries. I suspect a serious re-think is in order.

If you strongly oppose to 5-team sections (and I see your point), there are workarounds:

24 teams: 4-4-4-4-4-4
25 teams: 4-4-6-7-4
26 teams: 4-4-6-4-4-4
27 teams: 4-4-7-4-4-4
28 teams: 4-4-4-4-4-4-4
29 teams: 4-4-7-6-4-4
...

I suspect 4-team sections beat 8-team sections in terms of closer ratings, but 4-4 could still be made 8 in some cases.

Note, it's just ideas. Given 24 teams, I wouldn't know if I preferred 4x6 or 6x4 teams. But looking at current rating gaps, I am sceptic about 3x8 teams. Or is that paternalistic? In soccer, up to 20 teams compete in 1 section - "rating" gaps being cosmic there, obviously, and noone complains. Would be interesting to learn how Alekhine section players and captains feel about facing competition 150 points their higher; the outcry in the Fischer section thread was quite clear.

Well looking at sections this time round I think it's pretty well done with gap not being too big especially with constrained choices

Fischer - 145.5
Spassky - 94.5
Kasparov - 143.5
Alekhine - 151

One thing I'll add is that in a 4 team section it could be a double round robin where you play each team home and away so if playing same player would have a game with black and white. Drawback is playoff would be a repeat of original match. Maybe a hybrid approach is possible where is you get 5 to 6 teams then it's 5 rounds + playoff while if a 4 team section is running simultaneously it would be 7 rounds with placing determining rankings.

There was a conscious choice to try to keep rating deviations to a minimum, but a lot of it was unplanned, eg. I didn't count on two late entries.

Having a hybrid of section sizes brings us closer to what we had with rigid rating caps (u2000, u1800) etc. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but if we're considering such options, I feel a discussion about returning to the old sections should also be on the table.

@smallblackcat:
Returning to the old section system might produce (e. g. 28 teams total):

Open: 5 teams
U2000: 9 teams
U1800: 11 teams
U1600: 3 teams

Does not solve any of our problems, while adding one.

@KRMCHESS:
I disagree with your assessment that 150 point rating gaps within a section are "pretty well done". This is not well done, not at all. It's the 4-player average, so it's a 600 point gap overall! It gives an enormous losing probability to the teams on the lower end. It keeps some 1300 rated players from joining Teamleague, and some captains from inviting them, both is detrimental to the league. See how The Rangers fared in T71 in Alekhine.

And no, smallblackcat, adding a U1400 section will not address this properly, as U1550 attempts have shown a year or two ago.

The question remains: How do the respective players and captains mostly feel about it? Do they perceive a 150 (=600!) point rating gap as fun, challenging, and a learning experience? Or as frustrating, senseless competition?

Well it solves some problems and causes others. The 150-point gaps likely wouldn't be there for one thing. Anyway I'm not advocating changing back, simply saying that it's an option.

To add my two cents over rating gaps: while a difference on average of 150 points is likely to make itself felt over a 7-round tourney, in individual games it is quite reasonable. In OTB tourneys, I've found myself playing sub-1400 players and 2300+ players in the same event, and a 600-point spread in opponent's ratings is very common. So from the point of view of how competitive and (presumably) enjoyable individual games are, we do quite well. It obviously does deter people at the lower levels though, and that is a problem that we've not been able to adequately solve.

Actually I was thinking of suggesting fixed caps but also had different cut offs. I was thinking

Open, U2000, U1850 and U1700 might get more balanced entries as in current TL cycle that would give 7, 8, 4, 7 from first 25 entries I had data on. I'll add that if you get enough entries you could in theory have U2000a and U2000b

Actually reason I said 150 point gap was well done is simply because way teams fell I didn't really see much alternative or a way to realistically lower it. For example for Fischer Section there is an 84.25 point gap 6th and 7th highest rated team. Assuming you take 6th highest team as end of Fischer that's a 144.5 gap (unavoidable). For Spassky you have 2 teams with same rating so if you had them both in group it's an 8 team group so you're either forced to have a 8 team group with huge range or cut it down to 6 again.

Ideally I would like gaps of around 50 points that to me is quite competitive. As pchesso says a gap of 150 points is often unsurmountable although occasionally a team punches above it's weight.

Actually another issue is that I find that 1600ish players are hard to reasonably field in another section other than Alekhine so for 1300ish it's a lot worse

in individual games

As a player, I like to play against hopelessly strong opposition. As a captain, I don't.

It obviously does deter people at the lower levels though, and that is a problem that we've not been able to adequately solve.

I believe that my proposition (4 teams at least in the lowest section) is a step towards solving the problem adequately. A U1600 section cannot do that nearly as efficiently. The current system needs to be reformed, however, because it is setting wrong incentives that amongst others result in discouraging players <1400.

Basically, I would have submitted the following RW_Verde team: Wapid, Lionskins, mrtnnbr, Areckx. Average rating 1615. But submitting a 1615 team in a 7/8-team Alekhine section would have been suicidal. And see, rating cap now is a whopping 1759. Anticipating this correctly, I decided I should right from the beginning swap at least 1 pair of players between RW_Rojo and RW_Verde, and I picked Lionskins and myself.

If the lowest section had 4 teams, submitting a 1615 rated team would have been fine, and I would have done so. There would have been strong competition between 4 teams ranging 1580-1630: Rangers, Piazza, RW, and Mysterious Moves (the latter team was in that range initially). More players <1400 could have been added during the tourney.

4 teams in the lowest section would be a good incentive to recruit players of all strengths. Ratings would get pushed down at the lower end, over the course of a couple tourneys.

smallblackcat, I agree with you that a balanced 7/8-team section is more fun than a balanced 4-team section. But our sections are not balanced any more, and in particular the lowest section pays too high a price currently. A balanced 4-team section is better than an imbalanced 7/8-team section - unless, I am repeating myself, the involved captains and players like the competition as it is now.

I am one of the captains there, and I don't like it. But, I'll have to remind myself, I should be silent for a while, and listen to what other players and captains think.

Where we are at it, thanks KRMCHESS and smallblackcat for sharing your much appreciated thoughts.

To begin with, I am fine with 150 point rating gaps within a section. I prefer sections with 6-8 teams in order to have a variety of opponents. Especially in Fischer section you meet the same players on the top boards every season and that is why I prefer playing six or seven of them instead of the same three opponents twice a season.

I would like to add a new point to the discussion. Compared to season 59 when I joined TL, the rating gaps within a team increased dramatically. For instance, there is a team in Karpov section where board 1 and 4 differs by about 750 points. I think it is a disadvantage for the team, since experience has shown that the most balanced team is often rewarded. Nonetheless, we should not forget that it leads to players facing hopelessly strong opponents (e.g. OzymandiasZayin - yoyoman means a 550 points rating difference; yoyomans expectation is 6.25/7 this season). Therefore I would support a rule that states that board 1 and board 4 should not differ by more than 400 points (would affect 6 teams this season).

Thirdly, no matter how big the section size is there will be some sections with a (huge) rating gap. Even with just 4 teams section, it is possible to have 3 very strong and one weaker team especially in the highest and the lowest section. We had several seasons in Fischer section with just 2 teams really competing for the title (for instance Bibbusuqe, Schachbjm, Triarius, Elery, Nightfury, ThatDay had 2350+ average rating one season and the next highest rated team was not 2200 average).
Fixed rating caps may lead to an imbalance of teams per section as pointed out by pchesso above.

To sum it up, I do not really see a good solution for the current issue, however I look forward to innovative ideas by other players :)

P.S. I would really like to have one swiss-system TL once a year with a rating cap of about 1950. This would allow us players to meet players from other sections and to break fixed team structures. Lower rated players could profit from comments by their team mates and instructions about preparation, game strategy, ... . There are many friends here on FICS, I would like to play in the same team, however it does not make much sense in the normal league.
Just recently, a 1900+ player was surprised that he may challenge me to a friendly game :)
So, when you see me arround, I usually take the challenge no matter how strong you are (there are no easy games in chess).

Best regards
schachbjm

Firstly I'll note that pchesso brings up a good point about RW_Verde team since I'm actually in the same position where I have 2 players in 1500s and 3 in 1600s. Ideally I would like to have them all in one team. Problem is that it would lead to a team average in low 1600s and in a U1759 section is far from competitive. This means I'm forced to try to mix it with team above. Problem however is that assuming I don't want clashes I'll have to put a couple of players I would have wanted in lowest section in one above and that's a U1939 section and on boards 3 and 4 many teams are fielding 1800s so again it's not really ideal


I'll note that Schachbjm has brought up how one of my teams has a huge rating gap from 1st to 4th board. This is not by design and actually partly as a result of what I described in first paragraph but I actually posted an explanation (link is to left) in the bottom post of this thread so you can see how it happened. The reality is my team had a 1636.5 rating in a U1939 section due to clashes etc and I figured if I parachuted a couple of strong players to play a few games it would make it slightly more competitive although chances are Yoyoman and gubbengraa will only play when their main team in Fischer or Spassky has a bye

Having more teams would be the ideal solution, but the decrease in the number of FICS players has also had an effect on TL. Many months ago I talked to the captains of teams TsC and Polar Bears: they were very receptive and it seems like their absence is mostly due to life getting in the way, but especially the former looks forward to a comeback.

In evatuating the current season, I think you're forgetting that quite a few teams can still do adjustments. pchesso, the siuation in Alekhine has actually improved from T71: the cap went from 1833 to 1759 and the teams at the bottom can still come much closer to the top ones. Also for the U1600 players the situation seems better than in last season, which of course doesn't mean the problems are solved, but, given that the overall number dropped yet again (and below 30 for the first time since T32), I'd say the result is good.

I've always thought that sections with 6 or 5 teams were to be avoided in a 7-round system, but I have to admit that the two 6-team sections provided some benefits at the cost of fewer games for the players there. Yes, sections with 7 and especially 8 teams are better, but I was also thinking of a point that KRMCHESS made: the possibility of having smaller sections (when appropriate) may encourage captains to have additional groups of players, which would automatically increase the total number of teams.

Sections with 5 teams still look bad to me. Four is much better thanks to a double round-robin, but, as schachbjm pointed out, there's the disadvantage that you don't get a variety of players. I agree with sbc that "the future is a mix of 6, 7 and 8-team sections as appropriate". It's hard to please everybody, but the efforts towards that are clear.

schachbjm, having a wide rating spread within a team is either a strategy or a necessity (those may be the players available at the moment, or even the only ones on the team), so I like the idea of freedom in forming a team, only the section cap serving as a parameter.

Thanks for your input.

I would really like to have one swiss-system TL once a year

schachbjm, a technical challenge with Swisses is, matches have to be decided by the end of the week, in order to create pairings for the next round. That interferes with TL's policy of allowing extensions. But it is nothing serious; practical solutions would be found.

quite a few teams can still do adjustments

Adjustments? What adjustments, kurumim, what do you want me to do? Remove a 1300 player who I have invited to my team, from the roster and replace him with someone 1700? Just because our league offers incentives that result in the lowest section being U1759?

I should be silent for a while

Yes, pchesso! :)

@pchesso: For example, schachbjm pointed out the gap between boards 1 for Mysterious_Rook_Moves and TheRangers_Mavericks in Kasparov, but the latter team can include a higher-rated player on board 1. And in general I'm referring to vacant spots and possible adds, not removals. We don't want people to leave. :)

I agree with you that the scenario is particularly unfavourable to U1400 players, and that's because there're just two of them playing. One idea would be some captains agreeing on having one team each with that cap so that there could be a more balanced section for those players. In other words, it'd be a collective effort to bring back the Polgar section, which disappeared after T66 (when it featured only two teams). Well, actually Polgar was U1500, but I guess there could be a discussion on what's the best cap for it.

By the way, my mate on board 2 on NewBlood/Plasma in Fischer is also facing much higher-rated opponents, but we wanted to be there and of course were prepared for it. That's another positive aspect of T71 and T72: all the teams in Fischer aimed to be there, unlike what happened in previous seasons, when teams with averages around 2000 wanted to be in Spassky and ended up in the open section.

It is possible to add players to make team stronger but one of the reasons I don't want to get stronger players to play too much is that every game extra they play is one game less a weaker player plays and it's not fair to add someone to a team and then take all their games away from them due to their rating and sections.

Actually what kurumin mentions about it being unfavourable to U1400 does potentially scale badly. Reason is that more U1400 players decrease then the more unfavourable it becomes to field them forming a vicious cycle. In same way it also extends to U1500 players of which there are only 5 of them (including U1400s). Potentially this then means U1600 and U1700 players have potential to be unfavourable and in long term bottom sections can get eroded.

Just out of interest here is breakdown of TL players this season (duplicate entries removed)

(2500-2599) 1
(2400-2499) 0
(2300-2399) 6
(2200-2299) 3
(2100-2199) 13
(2000-2099) 12
(1900-1999) 18
(1800-1899) 22
(1700-1799) 13
(1600-1699) 17
(1500-1599) 10
(1400-1499) 3
(1300-1399) 2

Well, I obviously meant adding players while keeping an eye on playing opportunities, and for teams with at least two squads this is quite doable. Also, even when there's no arms race, you'd normally add a 5th player to your roster as a safety measure.

Thanks for the table, KRM — it clearly shows us the rating ranges that concentrate players and helps to understand why the border sections (top and bottom) are prone to imbalances, whereas the central ones tend to be balanced.

Just looking at a solution I'd suggest following

Fischer - All teams over 2000 average rating. Looking at teams I think everyone agrees that only 6 teams wanted in it as you can tell by gap from 6th Fischer (2118.50) to 1st Spassky (2034.25). I had initially thought that over 2100 could work but I think over 2000 is better as otherwise a team with 2099.75 will be in Spassky. It also means that before all teams are entered a team captain knows that if team is rated 2000+ it will be in Fischer and under 2000 will avoid it.

Spassky - Currently we have a Spassky section with a 2118 limit when highest team is 2036.5. Combined with suggestion for Fischer it makes sense for it to be a U2000 section and I'm sure teams at 2030ish can juggle a bit to get under 2k if they want to avoid Fischer.

Lowest Section - In same way that Fischer section has a fixed cap I think same could work for lowest section. I'm not sure exactly what the best level but would guess something like 1650, 1675 or 1700 might be best. It would be similar in principle to Polgar section although with a slightly higher limit. Actually when I entered teams I wanted to enter a Polgar team when it existed but I didn't have enough low rated players to enter a team so it's important not to have it too low as that can prevent entries so balance needs finely tuned but teams it should be aimed towards is likes of TheRangers_Legerdemain and Piazza.degli.Scacchi_Bassa etc that find themselves consistently in unfortunate position of heavily outgunned in bottom section

The sections between these could in theory be done as present although potentially with smaller groups if rating gaps get big. Fixed groups at top and bottom could mitigate lack of players in those ranges while middle sections with more players can be more fluid.

To summarise it would be

Fischer - All teams 2000+
Spassky - U2000, Teams depend on ranges
Sections in between - As normal, maybe a bit closer in range but depends on numbers
Lowest Section (Polgar v2) - U1650, U1675, U1700 (unsure what figure is best to maximise numbers and lower rating.

Main advantages are as follows:
1. No team accidentally ends up in Fischer Section. I've previously nervously counted teams worried a team would be in Fischer section and delayed adding high rated players to ensure team is under limit when sections are formed. If one of 6 teams wanting in Fischer didn't enter it's quite possible in current system that highest rated team in Spassky would be in Fischer regardless of their wishes.
2. Assuming that Fischer and lowest section has fixed caps it's a lot easier to identify and avoid clashes. For example if a player is in a team rated 1649 and another rated 1719 as they're in different sides of cap you're 100% at submission there is no clash. Same would apply at upper half. It also means if when submitting a team you see someone in your team is already in same section you immediately know there is an issue and don't delay to change hoping sections work out OK.
3. If we make a lower section with a lower cap I think more teams can be competitive.

If we had used this system in this TL I think we would have got following:
6 Team Fischer Section
4 Team double round robin Polgar Section
18 teams probably split into 3x6 sections or a 6-7-5 for lower section differences

Unsure how good an idea it is in practice but thought I'd put it out here for consideration

I really like that suggestion KRMCHESS :)
Your idea combines the benefits of fixed sections and the flexible ones we have right now. This way we avoid Spassky teams accidentally ending up in Fischer section and we will have sections of same amounts of teams.

Prior to the start of this season at least two team captains messaged the Fischer Section captains, in order to find out whether their team may accidentally end up in Fischer Section. Looking at TL71, we had one Fischer section team which had to withdraw due to clashes. Looking at this, I am convinced that your suggestion will make life easier for both players and captains.

Personally, I would prefer a rating cap of 2050 since the top teams in Fischer section usually line-up players with a FICS rating of about 2150 at board 4, which indicates that a 2000ish team will not be able to compete.

Concerning the lowest section I wonder whether disappearance of players or rating inflation leads to less U1400/U1500/U1600 teams.

P.S. KRMCHESS, I mentioned your team earlier as an example, since it shows my point without unintentionally offending a captain I do not really know, who may misunderstood my words.

As far as caps go they're flexible. I'd imagine that even if implemented caps might be adjusted in future. Actually while I think 2050 is OK from Fischer side I wasn't sure if it worked as well from Spassky side since if people are aiming to get as close to cap as possible then 2000 is a lot easier than 2050 although I don't know if WorldWideWolves would have problems dropping points as I don't think they have a second team they can juggle with. As cap is arbitrarily based on teams we have it makes sense to make sure where it's set works for most teams before implementing it.

As far as U1400/U1500/U1600 teams I think it's a vicious cycle where basically if we don't have a lot of players in that range then sections get pushed up and then that makes teams in that range even less viable meaning players in that range aren't easy to place in teams. If players in that range aren't easy to place in teams then they're less likely to be recruited making them even harder to place. According to my old data here are section ratings for Lasker when it was more viable to use them.
TL53 - 1642
TL54 - 1629.25
TL55 - 1707.25 (Polgar introduced so rating jumps)
TL56 - 1717.75
TL57 - 1703.75
TL58 - 1685.25
TL59 - 1704

Ironically enough you mentioned my team as an example after I'd posted it as an example of consequences of sections so wasn't too worried.

Thanks all for your input. It seems the discussion has come to an end. Consensus has been reached: We cannot leave things as they are, because we deter lower rated players from joining the league. No consensus has been reached on how to address this best. I suggest providing TL admins with a substantial range of opinions now so that they can decide on new rules (and, if feasible, publish them before inviting T73 team submissions).

To go ahead: I'm against any kind of fixed U???? section, as that idea has not worked out, on several occasions. If you want to create a U1600 section, I will likely not be able to submit a team.

Everyone seems happy with how the Fischer section got cut arbitrarily by smallblackcat for T72. He looked at the team's ratings and, using common sense, made it a 6-team section. A good solution, and exactly the one I'm hoping for at the lower end of the field also. I would welcome if smallblackcat used common sense to decide for every tourney anew, whether the lowest section will be a 4-team, a 6-team, or even occasionally a 7-/8-team section.

Note aside: Given rating ranges there, my feeling is, a 4-team section will make for fairer competition, more often.

Actually I think problem isn't that fixed sections is an issue but more that they're fixed at wrong level. For example Polgar at U1500 was too low so a lot of teams couldn't actually reach it.

Wouldn't more sensible approach be to ask at what level captains think they can enter a team at and then fix it there? For example we could set up a poll asking captains if TL created a section with a max rating of XXXX would you be able to enter a team for it with answers of Yes, Maybe and No to get a feel for right ratings. For example I might be able to get a U1600 team but it would be tight but I'm pretty confident a U1650 team would be no problem.

Common sense means different things to different people and occasionally in sections there are no good choices although a 4 team double round robin could be a decent new option to use.

The only real way to fix the teams issues while allowing for team entries by groups of friends are for more players and more teams to enter the league, automatically creating more parity within divisions and allowing for a wider variety in the skills of players while still being competitive within a division. Under the old Uxxxx system, there were several teams in several divisions under the same ratings cap, and playoffs actually meant playing the winners of other DIVISIONS within the same ratings cap. Now, we barely have enough teams to allow parity within a single division (on upper and lower ends). Moving back to a Uxxxx system won't help matters. Even when such a measure was attempted for the lowest rated section, we still only received a few team entries, making the division too small to really be worth it.

Unfortunately, there is no "great" solution to the problem. As more players exit FICS and move to places like lichess, and as our community will likely not find a way of recruitment, this league will continue to shrink and will continue to be less competitive in the highest and lowest divisions.

The only manner in which we could reach more equal team strengths would be for admins themselves to place interested participants in teams such that team members would play others of equal strength. I believe this is what the lichess 45/45 league does. That said... the whole point of the league is to play long games with team mates/friends. People you will cheer for and who cheer for you. Friends you train against and analyze with. People you play alongside for years. So that's not really an option I would advocate, either.