strategery about who to play

I didn't really get much chance to face strong opposition while playing scholastically, so I didn't get much of a chance to fill out my chess knowledge in high school. Perhaps I should have been more diligent about seeking out strong opposition. Look, for example, at my history here (and, if you want, subtract the stuff from the last year): Player History


Note how much of my opposition was rated below 1200: almost all of it. I was rated around 1200-1300 for much of that time and didn't go up. This is not a coincidence. There are two problems here: it's impossible to go up much in rating if you're toward the top of the rating list in a tournament and it's impossible to become stronger if you don't play people stronger than you. The rating range I needed to be playing, if rated 1300, was probably 1200-1600, not 900-1300 with occasional games against a 1600. The range I'm playing right now (see last 12 months) is pretty much the right range for my current rating (almost 1500), though I should be dropping some of those lower rated players soon and adding more 1700s. It's no coincidence that I'm adding lots of rating points as I'm playing stronger players (and, I think, getting stronger, too, they aren't the same).

EDIT: This is obviously an economic problem. If I'm going to spend my time and money on playing chess, I'm going to spend the time and money playing strong opposition. I wouldn't refuse, on principal, to play in the Chicago Class this weekend because I'd only play players in my (former) class, but I'd refuse because, in combination with that, it's also more expensive and more time-consuming than an alternative. Going back in time, I wouldn't have forgone scholastic events, I would have added other events, of which there were and are surprisingly plenty given the relative emptiness of the state of Iowa.