I don't think this idea will work. The distinction between group and team is likely to confuse some people, and this may even cause some smaller groups to die off.
I don't like the current system as it is now. If I am a member of both groups competing in a Team Match, I'd rather have the ability to choose which side to play for, instead of being forced to sit out.
I only like this if you can have 1 team. With 5, it's going to be just as fuzzy as it is now.
I think this is a good idea, people will always be confused and you cant do anything to stop this, if the info is there and they cant figure it out its there own fault.
If you did want to make it simpler you call they could all be teams and 2 types of member, normal members and playing members
One problem with having playing members and non-playing members is that this is dynamic - like teams themselves. I might have only played in one team match for a group, yet I would still be classified as a playing member.
The 5 favourite numbers schemes that some phone tariffs operate are very unwieldy. You have to keep juggling your 5 to try to get the best rate. Being restricted to 5 teams would cause the same problem.
chess.com could just put a star next to the groups in which you are playing a team match - or list them first - to give them more prominence.
The distinction between GROUPS and TEAMS is quite clear. A GROUP is a CLUB of MEMBERS. A subset of these members can dynamically form a SQUAD - from which a TEAM is selected for a specific Team Match (set of games). The Team is fixed before the Team Match starts.
With Vote Chess, by contrast, the composition of the team can change dynamically throughout the match.
These threads shed more light on the distinction between Groups and Teams:
first-come-first-served-team-chess
thanks for the comments!
Hi Chess.com, I have a possible improvement to Chess.com team matches.
The problem: Many players are part of 20-30 or more groups/ teams and hence cannot play in all of them. Some might even resort to play in none. I have membership in about 20 teams - but i only play in team matches of 3 groups. Currently there is no clear difference between "group" and "team".
The solution: a distinct line between groups and teams. In a similar manner to the collegiate intramurals and sport programs, we can redefine the concept of "team" as the playing elite, if you will, of the group. To do this, I suggest that there be a new feature of the home page (that replaces the "group and team membership") called "teams". This will be a list of a max of, for example, 5 teams that the player has committed to play team matches in. He/she will not be able to play in team matches for any other group - so the loyalty to the team is greatly distinguished. So anyone in the group could be part of that group's team - but they can only be a member in a certain number of teams.
For example: Let's say I'm a member of the Chess Spartans, The Dream Team, and the Power of Chess. I only want to play in team mathces in the Chess Spartans. So I would be a group member of the dream team and power of chess, but I will be a team member of the Chess Spartans (this would show on my home page).
Furthermore, each team will be able to have a roster of the active team members (the players who have committed themselves) - similar to an actual team.
I believe that this will make team matches more exciting - and more important to chess.com.
thanks for your time,
shuttlechess92