Rankings of any kind are by nature not exact. It is why we try to have a computer do it in college football and we know the impassioned debates that can cause. The "field of 64" in college basketball is always attacked by second guessers about what team didn't make the field. It is by nature OPINION.

Even if we had an "All Classification Tournament" and did final rankings afterward, we would still have some questions. What about a decision between even a ranking of 2nd and 3rd (if 3rd lost to 1st and 2nd lost to 1st and there is not a challenge opportunity)? This might create debate.

Even if there was an "All Classification Round Robin", unless everything fell in line such that #1 had no losses and #16 had no wins, and it fell out perfectly in between, there would still be conflicting outcomes. There would be wins and losses by more points here, less points there, pins that were "lucky" etc… and the debate would still rage.

Chief himself admitted that Schumacher was better than his #7 ranking. But you have to work as best you can with all the data you have at your disposal and then form an OPINION...and then, of course inevitably, address all the dissenting OPINIONS.