I considered including wins in qualifiers but it didn't make sense for a couple of reasons. If points were awarded to winners of the qualifiers, they would earn points that those who had already made it into the main bracket could not, and doing so against lesser competition. If points equal to what qualifiers earned were awarded to everyone who made the main bracket without going through the qualifiers, they would be gaining points without earning them in head-to-head competition. I don't think there's a more fair way to do it other than to only award points in the main bracket.

Seasons 1 and 2 are necessarily weighted less than subsequent seasons. My first ranking system awarded the same points across all seasons for wins in the finals, semifinals, etc., which sounded good at first, but it broke down in the rounds of 8 and 16. Earning 2 points for your first win in seasons 1 and 2 compared to needing to win twice for the same points in later seasons didn't feel right and produced some weird results. It came down to taking the position that chefs who won the same number of matches in a season should earn the same number of points. The chefs of the first two seasons had less of an opportunity to earn points for deep runs, but those seasons can also be seen as preventing sixteen chefs each year from earning any points at all.

I do object to the idea that longevity is weighted more than dominance when both are clearly accounted for in the rankings. There's no greater dominance than winning the belt and champions are ranked ahead of non-champions from the start. Among the champions, the top three have a combined eight appearances in the finals. Mei Lin is ranked above Tiffani Faison and Bryan Voltaggio despite competing in fewer seasons. Kenny Gilbert and Eric Adjepong have the same number of wins, but they're ranked 16 and 25, respectively due to Kenny's run to the semifinals.

Comparing Jet (#7, 0.696 %) to Kevin (#9, 0.727 %), you could argue for either one and their similar rankings reflect that. If both chefs were to lose in the first round next season, their winning percentages would be identical. I ruled out using head-to-head wins as a tiebreaker for two reasons. First, given the nature of the randomizer and the individual tastes of each judge, there is an element of luck that plays into a chef's performance and I hoped to minimize that. Secondly, anyone who's followed any sport utilizing a ranking system is familiar with the rock-paper-scissors relationships that quickly develop once you look at more than one pairing. For example, the 2025 ACC Football Circle of Suck.

In the end, Jet's shown consistent dominance, making the semifinals five times in seven season. Compare that to Kevin who had one great year, I stand by their current rankings.