Cristan, don't want to annoy folks any further on the other thread. They can just choose to avoid this one if they like.
Thanks for being gritty and seeing this through.
I've tried to figure out exactly what my point is, and of course I will likely reveal my ignorance yet again (as I seem to have no shame in that regard).
I don't know if what you described last is the way I wanted things to be, or just the way things make sense to me. Like most fans, I tend to initially react to what helps my team or doesn't. In that regard, the biggest thing I think you've highlighted successfully is the change whereby the 3rd rankings still count. As recently as a week or so ago many of us were planning based on the possibility that teams might gain and/or lose wins and losses because of teams dropping out and coming in. You said that is for the foreshadowing, but for me that is kind of going halfway between "once ranked, always ranked" and going the other way to just using the final, final outcome (which would see to be the most reliable if not using "once ranked, always ranked" because the final outcome is the one of course that places teams in rankings based on the whole picture (or close).
And that last bit is what I was finding counter-intuitive and why I wasn't just admitting that I wanted a 5th ranking. I wasn't arguing for a 5th ranking, but rather decisions based on the 4th rankings. Up until then there is always a prior week and then a next week, but there has to be a last ranking at some point and that point I think you consider all of it. Sort of like the college football playoffs for D1 being based on the final week of action and not arbitrarily based on the week before the last week. Having a full data set and then not using it just seems counter-intuitive to me. Now, I may well have that wrong in terms of application, but that is where I am making the error if I am
For more you can check