Obviously, the "godly rankings" (hint no capitalization of the word) was sarcasm. It's not that I think your rankings are awful, it's just I see no reason why some are set the way they are. Before you ask me to give criteria for why I think that, give me some for why you have chosen to give certain people criteria over others with no head to head. Example, both Blair and Madl lost to Dozier. Neither of them lost any other matches all season. Both state champs, Blair's second. What gives Madl superiority over Blair? Should they not be co-champions such as Maple and Napier were before their head to head? And now that there is a "prize" involved in reaching the apex of your rankings, why would it not be argued that some others may deserve one too?