The New League System

The law of gravitational norms does dictate that, over a very significant period of time, eventually, the people who are at the top of the league system will actually represent the best balance of most active (most sparring-contributional opponents) and most skilled players out there; i would further wager that, regardless, you'll actually have serious chess player on your hands who actually do care about their rating points or getting better.  Not sure I too particularly object, outside of a few notes, i guess :

- if four people are tied for fourth (1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4), then the ranking of the next listed individual should be 8th, not 5th.

- there needs to be a rating floor for each league.  I'd wager, then a global trophy rating for the highest scorers in each league, regardless of division.  This would encourage people to not consider themselves as seriously getting into more highly advancing chess until they can actually substantiate a somewhat competitive mentality, which would be held for anyone in said league system.  I would say this rating floor could probably just be compared against someone's HIGHEST rating in either bullet, blitz, or rapid, in the past 365 days OR their LIFETIME HIGHEST FIDE rating minus 200 points or LIFETIME HIGHEST chess.com rating minus 400 points.

under such a mechanism of notions, i'd further propose the entry value for league competition could probably start in wood league at 800, and continue as follows : 

wood - 800

stone - 1000

bronze - 1200

silver - 1400

crystal - 1600

elite - 1800

champion - 2000

legend - 2200

... anywho, these are just my thoughts, ... hope others can appreciate the logic behind this

One of the points of leagues is thatt rating doesn't really matter.  

Regarding the ties, that was mentioned early on and it was decided to keep it the way it was. Not sure if that will change later. In the beta there initially weren't any ties at all.

rating has to matter, at least a little bit, if the objective is to actually promote a sense of actual quality games and/or people of all skill groups feeling incentivized to play more or get better and/or making it so there can be a sense of accountability on chess.com holding the notion that they care about their community not being driven by such low-incentivizing ideals as (just play more thoughtless games and get an ez return of misproportional relative to actual true ACTIVE skillstate potential) ... i'm just speaking my understandings on a lot of things, in wise understandings, given my various analyses of various ranking systems/league systems in the past.  plus, people should be able to say they're in wood league as a badge of honor that they've ascended to a state of skill proficiency of at least 800.  Then all the "lower" rated players would actually have something meaningful to progress towards and to want to feed more games into chess.com, anyway ... or, ... there could be one more league added, and that could be wood (<800) and a simple gold league could probably be added, after silver, to make up for the spreading out by one league...  in any instance, with where things are at, right now, i assure you, it is yet a step or two away from being an actually most generally beneficial system 

Your idea is basically a rating system and the site already has that. Leagues are a way for any player to be able to advance.  They're not going to add rating requirements for leagues as it was specifically designed to not matter.

you're genuinely a mildbit deflecting, bro; all i'm saying is that a pure "rating system" as elo currently has it or whatever isn't perfectly self accounting for incentivizing macro activity and growth in the sport of chess, also, the league system, by itself is also not going to incentivize anything in macroform, by itself, either, if done incorrectly, as it only just promotes more games, and only ACTUALLY rewards though who play ridiculously religiously nonstop;  ... both of these things are problems, by themselves, but a correct marriage of the two ideas would finally promote the general security and growth and prosperity always desired by essentially the whole chess community, js.

that is not the point!

also thats hyperinclusive

On chess.com/leagues it says "* Unrated [of course] and direct challenges do not earn trophies." What precisely means "direct challenge"? 

I wonder because I just won a few games in a club tournament and I'm still at 0 points. Is there some delay (next day?) to have such wins counted, or do club tournaments not count for some other reason? Why is there no link to some documentation on how this works on chess.com/leagues and/or maybe even on the individual player's leagues pages? Would be really helpful! 

They need to be arena matches, if i send you a challenge to play now it won't count as its direct 😁

One of the other requirements is that it has to be a standard time control and that event wasn't.

https://support.chess.com/article/3176-i-just-won-a-game-why-didnt-i-get-any-league-trophies

Standard time controls are the quick time buttons, excluding 30 sec, and nothing custom.

my points are a bit more expansive/deeply addressing than the current in-need-of-some-tweaking state of the current league system

are the people you're grouped in with random or is there a process they use to make the pool od players

It's based on login after reset, so relatively random.