Many of you seem to be confused about how I do my rankings. I'll try to make this as simple as possible...
It's very early in the season, we really don't have a lot of results to use right now. Therefore, I have to put heavy consideration on the results I do have. Let me use the example of Amherst, Kenyon and UC Santa Cruz for argument's sake.
Amherst beat Kenyon in the Fall. Players were missing, people were sick, it was 5 months ago. The only thing that I care about when it comes to rankings is "Amherst beat Kenyon." If Kenyon wants to discount that match, they shouldn't have agreed to play it. There are no excuses, only results. I can't move Kenyon ahead of Amherst just because I feel like they are a better team. It doesn't work like that.
Someone just made a comment that Santa Cruz shouldn't be #9 in the rankings, they should be top 5. If that's the case, why don't you tell me who they should be ahead of? They can't be ahead of Kenyon. They can't be ahead of Gustavus. They certainly can't be ahead of Amherst because Amherst beat Kenyon who beat Santa Cruz. Maybe they should be ahead of CMS? Wait, CMS beat Gustavus and Gustavus beat Santa Cruz so that doesn't make sense either. My point is stop making ludicrous arguments based on bias or hunches and take a minute to just look at results. In a month, when people all start beating each other, then you can start making arguments for your teams to move. Right now, the top 9 are very clear cut.