As Billy has eluded to, drawing up divisions is good in theory but when carried out it's very difficult to actually maintain. There is no real 'correct' way to structure it as there will always be positives and negatives, that said imo the biggest hurdle with divisions is creating an incentive to keep teams together and in the system. For instance if say you have a pre-tournament in order to try and categorise teams into divisions, those that are on the borders of each supposed division and get put in the lower categories will undoubtedly lose motivation to play. Now that isn't speaking about every single player as there will always be individual differences that make certain people unique, however it's a necessary generalisation if you want to think long term. The same can be said if there isn't any divisions, for instance the more teams you have, the higher the likelihood that the skill range will broaden, leading to more and more lopsided games, which also result in a lack of motivation from the players involved (Again, a wild generalisation but for the most part it is true. If you put up a poll of which type of game players prefer "Close or a blow out", I would predict with quite a bit of confidence that 'most' would go with the close game option). I'm kind of rattling off into tangents but since I'm an undergrad in psychology, this kind of stuff (social psych) is interesting for me. Anyway, my main point is that going forward any decision made should be made with quite a bit of research (Eg: Who to assign as 'commissioner' (Billy hates 'TGMA' ) is a pretty big deal as he'll / she'll be the figure head of the league and as such should be very approachable amongst other things) and not on a whim, however a certain air of authority is needed otherwise people start pushing the boundaries / challenging said authority.
As Billy has eluded to, drawing up divisions is good in theory but when carried out it's very difficult to actually maintain. There is no real 'correct' way to structure it as there will always be positives and negatives, that said imo the biggest hurdle with divisions is creating an incentive to keep teams together and in the system. For instance if say you have a pre-tournament in order to try and categorise teams into divisions, those that are on the borders of each supposed division and get put in the lower categories will undoubtedly lose motivation to play. Now that isn't speaking about every single player as there will always be individual differences that make certain people unique, however it's a necessary generalisation if you want to think long term. The same can be said if there isn't any divisions, for instance the more teams you have, the higher the likelihood that the skill range will broaden, leading to more and more lopsided games, which also result in a lack of motivation from the players involved (Again, a wild generalisation but for the most part it is true. If you put up a poll of which type of game players prefer "Close or a blow out", I would predict with quite a bit of confidence that 'most' would go with the close game option). I'm kind of rattling off into tangents but since I'm an undergrad in psychology, this kind of stuff (social psych) is interesting for me. Anyway, my main point is that going forward any decision made should be made with quite a bit of research (Eg: Who to assign as 'commissioner' (Billy hates 'TGMA' ) is a pretty big deal as he'll / she'll be the figure head of the league and as such should be very approachable amongst other things) and not on a whim, however a certain air of authority is needed otherwise people start pushing the boundaries / challenging said authority.