Here's my two cents.
Points systems: rewarding attendance is hard to balance. They favor those in tournament-heavy areas. So those who have to travel to get recognized would suffer severely. I used a system like this to do seeding for Gainesville tourneys. It had skewed rankings due to the fact that we were rewarding attendance.
The one posted by 2link is cool, but it doesn't account for people who stop attending. It's hard to have a fair system that rewards people for travelling and not have a bias to those who didn't have to.
I think an arranged triannual PR can be done. April, August, December, or something like that. Maybe you can drop people to "inactive/travelling PR" tier if they miss a whole trimester of tournaments. Or two semesters if you do a quarterly system.
The main problem with PR's: they take too much time and there aren't a lot people that care about them. The main people interested are those "on the bubble" of the PR. Either they are trying to keep their PR spot, or trying to make "Top X". And expanding the "Top X" to a greater number only dilutes the bottom and makes it harder to determine and therefore waste more time. See: NCAA Tournament expansions.
TL,DR: Points systems are hard to implement fairly. PR's just take too much effort, and not enough people care about them to put in said effort.