I'm interested in establishing several principles before we debate 
the merits of any one individual point scoring system. Once the 
principles are in place (and agreed to) then it makes sense to 
evaluate the alternatives against the principles.

Seems to me that we need to decide lots of things....
 
1)  How many players should score points towards team point totals?
     No one debates the role of the Regional/National Collegiate 
Championship in crowning the best individual competitors, but what of 
teams?  What makes the best team?  Is it depth?  Is it selected great 
team member accomplishments?  
     I think I know what I don't want the best team to be:   neither 
a team of 1 player, a "ringer" who by winning every event earns 
enough points to win the "team title"; nor a team of 30 players, each 
of whom win one round in the consolation event but cumulatively 
outscore all other teams on sheer volume.  
     Somewhere in between is the answer.  With the USBA developing 
"gender equity" initiatives to increase the size of Collegiate 
Badminton teams to 5 singles, 5 doubles, perhaps no more than 5 
singles, 5 doubles, 5 mixed teams ought to be eligible to score 
points?  Or, perhaps fewer point scorers should be allowed.  Of 
course there will always be the argument, which has significant merit,
 that we should still be encouraging maximum participation, so every 
team member's efforts should count.  What do you think?

2)  Just what is the role of a Consolation Draw?
     Is it to provide consoling activities for those players who lose 
in the first round of the main draw?  Or is it to provide additional 
competition for the less experienced players, allowing them to fight 
it out for tie-breaking points to put their team over the edge?  Or 
should we just acknowledge that 1/2 of the entrants lose in the first 
round, and that if the 1/2 that lost were to play off against each 
other each of them would legitimately earn points for their team and 
against their opponents' teams.
     Before one discounts the consolation round's merit, one should 
consider that IBF (International Badminton Federation) and USBA (US 
Badminton Association) regulations require that draws be conducted in 
a truly "random" fashion.  This means that in a draw of 16 players, 
only 2 may be seeded (based on results, etc.).  ALL of the remaining 
players must be randomly placed in the draw.  This could result in 
the 3rd best player facing (and losing to) the #1 player in the first 
round.  On what basis would you claim that this "3rd best player's" 
points should count less than other player who get "good" draws in 
the main draw?
     There are tournament "systems" such as the Tempere, or the one 
used at the US National Closed Championships, which allow players who 
lose to progressively feed back into various consolation draws, until 
virtually every permutation has been played, and all players are 
statistically certified to have finished in a certain place in the 
draw.  After playing in one of these events, besides being tired, one 
has a very good feel how they "stack up" to the others in the draw, 
irregardless of "bad luck" in an early round.  Given such systems, it 
is entirely possible for that "3rd best" player who lost in the first 
round, to have a chance to fight through several consolation rounds, 
and to get a chance to beat the semi-final loser in the main draw 
(and in so doing, establish his or her legitimate "3rd best" status).

     Having said this, all of the players who lose in a first round 
and move to consolations, usually are less likely on average to fit 
this unusual coincidence just described.  So, I feel that consolation 
wins should count less than the main draw.
.... to be continued....