I've already admitted the scoring system is flawed in some regards. However the 1st day adjustment has helped resolve a lot of it.
The bottom line is you are capable of obtainined FAR more points through victory than in defeat.
There's a maximum amount you can attain through losing (40), there is no maximum set for winning. The amounts given to the losing team aren't significant when compared to the amount given to the winning team in many cases (with the great exception being the 10 point rule where the losing team gets to keep 10% of their total points scored, but even then that pales in comparison to the winning team and their 25% of their total score).
An arguement, such as the one here can easily be made though. Teams do get more points for losing by 50 than if they lost by 20, I really don't see it making a difference in the long run. Say a team loses by 60, they earn 15 points. A team that loses by 20 earns 5. Does it necessarily make sense? No, I agree. However the big picture is the team winning is earning far more points, making the losing teams points insignificant in comparision. For example, say a team that loses gets 30 points. That's not a bad amount when not being compared to anything. However, in order for a losing team to earn that it means they lost by 120 - so the winning team just earned 120 points... does that 30 points really seem like a lot now?
If you strive to lose thinking you'll earn enough points to compete for the most overall points, I believe you'll find yourself mistaken and dissapointed. The points in place to the losing clan are participation/effort points to reward those who are active, regardless of the outcome so I feel they are necessary in that regard. After all, my main focus of putting this together was to promote overall activity within our community. My apologies for this flaw, but I wouldn't spent too much time worrying about it.
I will definately try to brainstorm with people before I attempt any encores to this league regarding some quick tweaks I can make to the sytem in place to resolve this, but as I stated earlier in this post - I don't foresee it factoring into the "big picture" of things.