The ENORMOUS problem with your idea is that there's absolutely no loyalty. First off, you don't have teams from specific areas - no Boston team, no New York team, no San Fran team, just random teams. Also, since the main reason the players are doing this anyway is for team comraderie, which would basically be eliminated with your proposal, nobody would want to play. You definitely do make interesting points about league competitiveness, but I don't think that that's such a huge problem anyway (with the average rating rule, etc.) - and it seems to bear out, with no single team really seeming to be very dominant.
Here's how the USCL should be set up
Sort:
the league uses other measures to try to establish some parity. and it's also o.k. if there's some disparity. a team that is not the best can set other goals for themselves. for example, San Fran this year. we can't put out the very best lineup in the league. so instead we try to score 2.5 as many weeks as possible, and hope to get first place in the west in the regular season by outworking other teams.
There are some areas of the country where chess players tend to congregate. Team like New York can field four GM's while another team might have to go up against them with a IM,FM,NM and an Expert.
The USCL should have a draft.
The USCL could then have 10-15 playing sites with arbiters, spaced logically throughout the U.S.
Any USCL player could show up to any playing site. What would it matter if there were players from 5 different teams playing at one site?
Wouldn't this create better balance for the teams? And give players that live in lightly populated areas a chance to compete in the USCL.