Good morning and Merry Christmas everyone.

I’d like to suggest introducing tournaments with fixed team rating ranges, to make them fairer and more attractive.

For example:
0 – 55
55.01 – 60
60.01 – 65
65.01 – 70
70.01 – 75
75.01 – 100

Currently, very wide ranges (like 54–100) strongly favor high-rated teams, making it almost impossible for lower teams to compete meaningfully.

With fixed and recurring ranges, more managers could find suitable tournaments every day, increasing participation and overall appeal.

Looking at the current tournaments:

Day 25 – Tournament 1 [0–52]
Day 24 – Tournament 11 [0–62]
Day 24 – Tournament 10 [0–70]
Day 24 – Tournament 9 [0–57]
Day 24 – Tournament 8 [54–100]

In the 54–100 tournament there are currently only 3 registered clubs, all with an overall of 80+ (80–82).

This effectively excludes a large portion of managers in the 70.01–76/77 range, who have no realistic chance to compete.

Considering that tournament registration costs money, entering such a wide range tournament makes little sense for most teams.

Creating fixed 5-point rating ranges would make tournaments much more balanced, allowing fairer matches and encouraging more managers to participate on a daily basis.

Obviously, the exact size of the ranges (3, 4, 5 points, etc.) can be discussed.
The numbers above are just an example to illustrate a new system that could be more functional.

I agree to this. I almost stopped participating in tournaments as 54-100 is the only tournament my team can participate and all 80+ avq teams will be the majority in that group.

Setting a max AQ to exclude stronger teams is necessary, but setting a minimum to exclude weaker teams is dangerous, as you would exclude potential interested participants.

Months ago, I had a lower AQ and used to play in the 0-67 and also 52-100 tournaments. I can't do it anymore but there are still many teams doing the same. I'm not against raising the max AQ thresholds, or maybe adding a few categories, but the minimum should still be 0, to make it more accessible

I agree with the minimum thresholds, so that it's a conscious choice to compete with the strongest, even for tests if desired. So the fixed range could be:

0 - 55

0 - 60

0 - 65

0 - 70

0 - 75

0 - 100