The Peter Principle (Sorta)

A few of the OGs will recognize the post title. Back in the last millennium--no not the European tournament series--The Peter Principle was a popular fad in the business community. It posited that good employees were promoted to their level of incompetence. Every promotion was earned on merit until that good employee was no longer capable of doing a good job because eventually nearly everyone reaches the limit of their abilities. But it's impossible to tell when that limit will be reached because their past is filled with success.
This post, btw, is the year's first overtly devoted to the deficiencies of the (nearly) universal classification system employed by APPA and supported by the PSP. (Or vice versa. Whatever.)
The prior post published entitled, 'One Undeniable Truth About Paintball' was an introduction for today's post (and in case you failed to pick up on it was about so-called sandbagging. Now go back and read it again. Puts a different spin on things, doesn't it?)
Not so long ago there was a robust national scene--until there wasn't--while competitive paintball at the local level was frequently a free-for-all. Within this time frame the national level format was changed dramatically, a competing league evolved, the industry hit a brick wall and the turn out for traditional 5-man began eroding at the national level.
Within that environment the original classification system was introduced. It was considerably cruder than the present version. As most of you well know it not only classifies players but also engages in the redistribution of talent by formulaic determination of where a given player can or cannot play. It does so based on team rosters and team results. It does not--because it can not--evaluate and rate the player's performance. That means if a team rosters 12 players and 6 or 7 of them play most of the points all 12 are treated identically by the system.
By the numbers somewhere around 15% of a divisions competitors will be moved up a rank by season's end. Given however that multiple scores are required the teams that compete more frequently are effectively ranked up at a rate greater than 15%. The result tends to diminish the standard of competition in that division from year to year and elevate some teams and players who prove unprepared or unable to compete at the next level--and the end result of that is a significant attrition rate among teams and players.
(The gist of the counterargument is that teams and players quit everyday regardless of division of play and the life cycle of a competitive player is around 4 years so it's important to keep the up-and-comers motivated and with places to go.)
However even assuming all of that is correct shouldn't there be a focus on and an effort made toward retaining as many players and teams as possible while upholding a standard of competition that makes the divisions meaningful tiers of accomplishment?
For a league, an industry and current players everywhere concerned the sport is in decline isn't it rather foolish to be actively driving away players who want to play the game in the name of a formulaic fairness?

Next time, All Paintball Is Local.