coan.net and joshi tm: Ah, thanks for the explanation. Still about joshi tm post, yes, the pairing would be based more on luck, but in my perspective that would be better than you knew you don't have chances to win a team tournament, right? So, what's the problem?

I'm going give you some examples:
Goldfinger
The Chess Club had a very strong team and they only won 8-6 on final, because Grim Reaper and King Reza lost by time-out. Do you like to play these tournaments where everybody knows who will be the winner?

Another example:
Nov 2008 Taphephobia (Amazons)


Now, see that:
July 2009 Freddy Krueger Massacre Chess
My team won, because when this team tournament started, the game (Massacre Chess) was new on BK and the players position wasn't clear...many players didn't still have rating, so his position was random and that particularity allowed a "surprise".

So, with my idea would be possible create more surprises and interest for team tournaments.

But ok, we can keep the old format and go on with 2 or 3 strong teams and who know, in soon, you'll only see team tournaments with 4 or 5 teams (or worst, tournament doesn't start because there only be 2 or 3 teams). Many people prefer don't play, because they know they don't have chances to win, so why play? There's no funny, no competition...nothing.