large teams have a natural scoreing advantage over smaller team. so if all teams were scored by the average team players score, then small teams could compeat on an equil footing with the larger teams. this well permote the best talented and skilled teams, not just the teams with the most players.
Average score form top 10 players would be better imo.
Interesting idea, but it might fail in practice due to the following reasons:
Averaging the score of all players gives Top 25 players a strong incentive to become teams of one (or at least no more than a handful of people), which defeats the purpose of having teams in the first place.
Averaging the scores of only the top 10 players of every team doesn't work either, as that encourages the option of abusing the system by maintaining 10 accounts per person (which favors those who have the hardware to run automatic methods on 10 instances of foldit).
I agree that this is not an ideal approach.
Updating status.