Since there is an inordinate amount of complaining/fear/discussion about PGAs, a possible solution is to create an alternate scoring system based on a random tournament style structure. Users could enter the "tournament" and would be randomly assigned to a table regardless of rating. The current rating system would still be used, but it would be calculated separately from games where you can pick the table you sit at.

The benefit of this system would be that all players would get a chance to play against each other, and one could get a true measure of rank without the impedence of graduated tables. In theory, more skilled players should be able to win more often against low skilled players. One wouldn't be able to build a huge ELO lead, but by keeping track of score points, a fairly static top 25 should be attainable. In order to avoid massive score fluctuation, the ELO formula would need to be tweaked to reduce the amount of points gained or lost in a game.

The cost is that one wouldn't be able to play with one's friends, but by keeping the current system alive and separate, those who want that could still get it. Another cost is that the community of higher ranked players wouldn't continually play with each other--but this could be a good thing--a way for them to prove their skills in a different way.
Another cost is that newbie and disruptive players could sabotage games--although surviving this is a skill in itself.

The "tournament" could either be a fixed length with a winner and a score reset, or ongoing.

I know this should have been on the ideas page, but I thought it was pertinent to the ongoing PGA discussion.