Well I'll throw my $.02 in. First off, I don't love the system. The risk/reward system (as if there is risk or reward in seeing your name beside a number) is too harsh. The penalty for a high ranked person losing is not comparative to the reward of a lower ranked person winning. I understand the theory behind this being in favor of the lower player, but in practice it is far too unbalanced for a game that, one has to admit, has a decent element of luck involved. Here is my real life example:
At one point a few months ago, I had a good win streak. I think it was like 8 straight, or 2 months worth of weekend wins, all sanctioned. Obviously, I didn't get a heck of a lot of points per win, but they added up. Then came Legacy, and I tried something new. In the very first match-up I played one of the lowest ranked people in my state (ok ok, it was a little kid... this is going to get embarrassing). In about the third round he won initiative and critted me 3 times out of his 4 shots. Just like that, game over. Sure, hindsight is 20/20 and I shouldn't have been in the situation, but the truth is, stuff like that happens. Net loss? 15 points. Undid a whole 4 round tournament win the previous week. Next round, I get paired up against a mirror match, and in the end lost to gambit. Minus 10 more. Then the dreaded and unhelpful bye, followed by defeating a nobody as consolation for 2 points. Net loss on the day: -23. Though I hadn't lost in months, one bad tournament and some unbelivably bad luck (and I want to think it was unavoidable) resulted in nearly an entire MONTH of tournament wins being negated by two helpless losses.
I don't usually look at the numbers, but I was curious as to how I would be docked for this tournament. Upon looking at them and saw just how brutal the risk/reward system is at high levels, I realized that it's not a very realistic system in a game where one roll of the die can win or lose you a game. Furthermore, I realized that experimentation with squads isn't a very good thing to do in a competetive environment, which I feel hurts the game overall. One shouldn't be intimidated to try something on the fringe of competetive due to an arbitrary scoring system. At the same time one shouldn't feel that any ranking system, regardless of how arbitrary it is, reflects the caliber of one's play to others when you just feel like having some fun every once and a while.
And of course, you have some players who know how to play the game well, but aren't DCI ranked from the get-go (ahem, 2007 Gencon winner) and even though they are great players, they start off with a 1600, and will destroy a high ranked person's score if they lose to them. This also happens with people with multiple DCI numbers (yes it happens).
The point is, either the system needs to be more forgiving for a loss (maybe less points for a loss than the person gets for a win) or the scoring should not take ranking into consideration at all. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Taking into consideration how much someone plays will always factor in in any system, so that part is unavoidable. It may not seem as competetive or accurate, but they don't really mean anything anyways in a game where each region and LGS has different levels of gameplay, and in some cases, rules.
Ok, that was a little more than $.02.