Good points.
If the APA wants a quick and easy way to fix their complete troubles, they need to change their philosophy on the 23 point rule and/or their rules on matching players. I believe that the rules that should be implemented are:
Teams have to field a team within a range of points, something like 21-25 points. This rule allows for no teams of all s/l 3/4 and allows more flexibility in having a couple of higher ranked players. Basically this means every team would have to have a 6 or 7 in order to be ensured of fielding a team. Teams with higher ranked players would still need a couple of lower ranked players.
Players in any given match have to be or play within one rating. This rule, especially when combined with my first rule, gives an advantage to teams with higher skill levels...which should be the case as it is in every other sport with handicaps. A player would never be allowed to play as a lower skill level, so teams with all low skill levels would have to play as if they were higher skill levels. So, if a team throws a 3 against a 7, that 3 would have to play as a 6...so a team would be stupid to do that.
I thoroughly believe that these rules would severely limit the sandbagging that goes on. There would no longer be as much payoff for staying at a 3 or 4. A team of all 5's could be fielded and considering that is basically the middle of the skill level range, it should be perfect. Being that there is a lower limit to the team fielded, there will inevitably be less reason to keep everyone at a grossly underrated s/l.
dld