Yes, the USCL should attract the highest quality player and capping the ratings allows for top US players to play without punishing the rest of their lineup.
The only alternative I could see is to expand the number of boards to offset a super gm etc.
Horrible rule, especially since Naka is 2806.
Well, I think it is a good rule, in general, although it potentially allows the formation of super-teams. The St. Louis Arch Bishops are probably the closest to this kind of a Yankees-like lineup. However, this is counterbalanced by the fact that big-gun GMs might be unable to "make games" when attracted away by, let's say, lucrative or prestigious international tournaments.
On the other hand I think the lower boards are often the most interesting (and possibly the most important) in a given team match since managers have the ability to select a player's official rating from over a fairly wide span of time. Thus, for example, the Arizona Scorpions can list Amanda Mateer as a 2100 player, when she is probably playing at a level much higher than that.
Amy
Absolutely nothing wrong with this... Love the best players playing. Love the "hired guns". Bring it on!!!
Only possible restriction might be to keep this cap to only the top two boards. Just to prove a point however, even if this were the case, St Louis would still be able to field their 3-GM Line-Up (Finegold is 2589)...
I don't think it has proven to be too great a strategy anyway. St Louis is consistenly sacrificing their board 4, and no matter how good GM Naka and Shulman are, against other strong IMs and GMs (maybe not as good as them, but still good enough to hold) they will not always win.
If I had only drawn against Finegold last night -- let alone win with white, which I have against him before -- St Louis could have easily lost the match 2.5-1.5 or even 3-1... It is a risk to field these types of teams, for sure...
Didnt you guys win like all your games (Arizona)? Then last night you drew.. it shows how their strategy isnt so bad.
my personal opinion is that *even if* some team could field onischuk in place of Finegold and absolutely dominate, it would still be good for the league. now, it's still debatable whether this rule leads to total dominance-- it definitely converts some advantage. but even if it did, then you'd have a foregone conclusion as to who finishes first, and competitive matches between all the other teams. which is fine! we'd be interested in who finishes second. and other players in the league would get a chance to play against Naka, Yury, and Onischuk. meanwhile, these players bring a lot of extra fans and exposure to the league (relative to chess, ok, i'm under no illusion that it's more than 100 each, tops). and that's great!
For the League: I think that this rule is great for the league itself. The fact that St. Louis or New York can field three GM line ups is a plus for the U.S.C.L. It generates greater interest in the league. It gives chess players and fans of the teams something to talk about (this thread as an example). Also, having these strong players on the same roster does not seem to be stopping teams such as New England from dominating play. These top players have other events and obligations to attend to, so they are not available during the whole season.
For the Players: The players in the U.S.C.L. also benefit from this rule. Besides adding interest and strength to the league that they play in, it gives credibility to the other players (and teams) that face off against these types of line ups. They get a chance to play against some of the stronger players in the country, and perhaps this is one of the few chances that they would. These stronger players present a challenge to those that they play, which gives the other players chances to really test themselves in ways that they may not be tested by other opponents. Also, these star players are human and they can and will lose games. And in a team setting, how much more of a challenge is it to face such a strong line up as a group (and how much more rewarding when you tie, or even beat such a team!)?
For the Fans: The current set up is a bonus for chess fans. On a night when some of these teams field their higher rated line ups, fans get a chance to see multiple games from the league stars at the same time. With line ups such as those of St. Louis and New York, there are also expectations that are generated because of these players. If you cheer for a team with multiple "hired guns" you feel confident in your team's chances. If you cheer for a team that is not filled with such high rated players, you now find yourself cheering harder for your team to beat the rook out of the other team! Rivalries are built out of such rosters, just look at the many successful sports programs in the past that were constantly filled with the "elite" players. You either loved them, or hated them for it.
This is a winning situation for everyone, in my opinion. 
It doesn't make sense to me that Magnus Carlsen would count 1 point more than Ben Finegold in this system. With all due respect to GM Finegold, it's just ridiculous. I still want to encourage top players to play, so I would propose doing something like "After rating X, each rating point counts only 1/2 a point toward the total". I also don't understand why the number is 2590.
For example, let's say you picked 2500. Then a 2400 would count 2400, a 2500 would count 2500, a 2600 would count 2550, a 2650 would count 2575, etc.
an interesting idea...
btw, i think the 2590 number was picked by Greg after some calculations about what would allow a team to use one of the top us players (27-2800 uscf), and still have a reasonable player (expert level) on board 4, given the 2400 team average. he doesn't want board 4s to be below an expert level (so the games are still "respectable"), and he wants the 2400 ceiling (allows 15-20 areas in the us to compete with NY), and he wants the top players to be able to participate.
btw, historically, in year 1, it was 2600; year 2: 2590; year 3: 2580; year 4: 2590 and that's where it has settled for now.
i think you can choose that board order as long as players are within 50 points of each other. if the discrepancy is greater than that, you can't switch.
i think you can choose that board order as long as players are within 50 points of each other. if the discrepancy is greater than that, you can't switch.
Assuming all your 2590+ players have the same title ;)
Second topic from yesterday's "Pardon our Blunders:"
Players over 2590 only count as 2590 towards the rating cap in the USCL. Is this a good or bad rule?
PS- The show airs weekly on Wed at 1 pm pacific; and can also be watched on-demand.
If you are interested in more information about the US Chess League-- the only serious league competition in the U.S. (that I know of) check out the USCL group or the USCL homepage.