Banning teams sets a dangerous precedent in the scene. Anyone with little knowledge of the scene knows who are the good ones around which so happens are the ones who put in the most hardwork to be where they are.

"Why train so hard to be top just to get banned in events that offers real prizes? "

Is this the message organisers are trying to send to the scene? From the list of "reserve teams" it is already not hard to foresee who will win the top 4 prize provided the brackets are placed accordingly.

If you start to ban players, the "next" best players will go on to win them and the process will be carried forward to the next tournament where the players who won the last banned-team tournament will get banned. This is unhealthy and totally our of sync with what tournaments are for, which is to generate interest for your sponsors, organisation and increase competitiveness of the scene.

If there is a concern where top teams will totally dominate the lower level competition, hence reducing participation why not make an innovative way to "shield" the other teams from them by directly seeding them into the top 16 or top 8 of the competition. Most international level tournaments do that to enhance grass roots participation and not denying real money to those who put the most into the game. It will both enhance the reputation of the tournament and also having the effect of "banning the teams outright" in participation fees collection.