This is going to sound really self-serving since I and players like me would benefit from it. Anyhow, does anyone else think the freeroll ranking system would be a better measure of skill if it went by average number of points earned per tournament over a statistically significant number of tournaments rather than just total points accumulated?

I say this because looking at the standings now, the vast majority of people near the top have played in well over 100 tournaments this year. I'm not saying these folks aren't good players, but for people like me who can play in one or two tournaments a week tops, we have no realistic shot to get near the top. I've gotten to play in 32 tournaments so far this year, and I did some quick calculations and figured that I would have more total points than the current freeroll ranking leader if I had played in the same number of tournaments as that person and earned the same points (on average) per tournament.

Anyone else think a formula that looks at average points per tournament over a minimum number of tournaments (with that minimum increasing as the year goes on) would be more fair? Or maybe one like the Pokerstars TLB which looks at your best results over a number of tournaments?