Here are how I think the new rankings should look, but I must add the disclaimer that it's very unlikely this will be what's put up on Tuesday. The last national rankings were a joke, and the future rankings will probably continue to be trash. I don't see Schwarz and Browning ridding themselves of their blatant bias anytime soon. These are not power rankings, so they rely purely on results and not gut feelings (sorry Williams).
1. Middlebury
2. CMS
3. Cal Lu
4. Cruz
5. Amherst
6. WashU
7. Emory
8. Carnegie
9. Kenyon
10. Hopkins
11. NC Wesleyan
12. Chicago
13. Trinity (TX)
14. Bowdoin
15. Williams
These rankings were not easy, and a lot of head-to-head results conflict. For example: Bowdoin beat Salisbury, Salisbury beat Kalamazoo, and Kalamazoo beat Chicago, so Chicago should be behind Bowdoin, correct? Not exactly: Chicago beat DePauw who has both lost and won to Kalamazoo, and Chicago beat Mary Washington who beat Salisbury. To confuse the rankings even more: Bowdoin lost to Trinity (TX), who lost to Redlands, but Bowdoin beat Redlands head-to-head. Obviously, this is a pretty good example of how difficult creating these rankings can be. In cases like these, a judgment call had to be made that decided whether a team's solid wins outweighed their bad losses. Also, it's important to note that an emphasis was put on more recent results (fall results were very de-emphasized).
