Arpad Elo said rating chess players is like trying to measure the height of a cork bouncing up and down on the surface of a stormy ocean.  Everyone's performance fluctuates from day-to-day, hour-to-hour.  That is the nature of the beast.  A rating is just a summary of an individual or a team's past performance, and doesn't always correlate with their actual skill or potential.  If a team has trouble getting their best players to join the games, that would have an impact on their performance and thus their rating.

From one perspective it can seem ridiculous to rate vote chess teams when individual members will change from time to time. On the other hand, a VC team is not so different than in amateur and professional sports. If you consider the Miami Dolphins - how many of them are really from Miami? Is that really a reflection of Miami's ability to play football or the quality of it's citizens? Players get drafted and traded and that changes individual members and thus the performance of the team.

Ratings are an approximation. That's all they can or ever should be and yet everyone is obsessed about 'more acurate' rating systems, bringing in things like the RD factor which rewards activity.

The c.c method rewards VC teams for activity as much or more than for performance. In sports - they rank teams according to performance, regardless of which team members may have missed the most recent game.

In sports all teams play the same number of games during the season. In VC that's not the case. So I think a rating system like Elo is a better indicator than the c.c method and over time will display the team's overall performance level.

It is a rating for the team, so it doesn't matter who plays for them in any particular game.  The results of the team are what matters for the rating. 

Makes sense...