There is an increasing problem with misleading ratings based on stars. Teams add high rated players, but offset the high stars by keeping (or acquiring) low star players. Thus, when you challenge a team with a star rating similar to yours, you discover they are loaded with players with much higher rating than you would expect for a team with the rating they display. I understand that I could do the same, but then what us the purpose of the team rating system? I believe it would be fairer to restrict the roster size, so that the posted rating would reflect the actual strength of the team.

You are right! There are many "sheeps in wolves" clothing out there so to say. However, you can get a pretty good picture of a team's strength simply by looking at their schedule and their game log history against other teams. If they are winning big, you know what to expect (and ditto if they are losing big). I also like to look for common opponents if you can find any and rate your game scores against whoever you are scouting and their game scores. These things will give you a good idea of what type of opponent you are looking at.

And, if all else fails, nothing beats a good old friendly to do the true litmus test of where you are against your prospective opponent. But...you are exactly right. The rating system really means less and less the more you start to figure it out. There are plenty of teams that are both weak looking but extremely strong and titans that turn into kittens on the playing field. Part of the fun is figuring out who is who!

Its part of a strategy to deceive you and if you don't scout your opponent its entirely your own fault for being deceived. Star rating doesn't count for everything anyways, a good strategy with average players trumps a bad strategy with good players

Just a thought for you: My best players are often the ones with lower star rating. The five RBs I use are maxed in every stat I care about for a RB (80 for me right now), but are generally rated at half that or lower because I ignored the less useful stats (ratings in order from highest to lowest: 42, 34, 31, 30, 30). Seriously, those guys are rated at 80 instead of 30-40 when using my custom RB rating formula Meanwhile, I have several RBs rated at 44, several more above 35, but would never consider starting them over the weaker rated guys.

There's also something to be said for strategy- I routinely beat guys with higher stat caps than me because I'm using custom plays built to attack common weak points and cover the edge better than the default defense.

That means that putting a roster limit would do literally nothing to correct what you see as a problem (and I see as a reason to understand the game and check opposing players instead of just mindlessly pressing buttons). In fact, if you limited my roster, my overall star rating would probably drop without affecting my starting lineup at all, achieving the exact opposite of what you hope.