I think that the problem is with one underlying assumption which was made - that if someone wins with less than 90% of all points, that means everyone's scores are inflated. That is clearly not always the case, as this match shows, and as last year's Ont & PQ (almost) Provincials show too. What you have here are false positives. Everyone is focusing on the 'ohh, the winner wasn't consistent, so this can't be accurate', when the reality is that, consistent or not, the winner was still (slightly) better than another person who was also a highly ranked M/GM, who WAS consistent, and had a good match, and would have been enough to class everyone.
You know, this 90% rule would have made sense if it was applied under the old system, when we needed to have a GM and M, and we'd say the GM needed to win, with at least 90% - IF the match had only the 1 GM.
Once you throw in a bunch to shooter at the same level, all competiting for winning stages, with everyone winning some, it's not that difficult to get into a situation where this 90 rule will produce false positives.
To put it bluntly, there are some people (like, say, Burrell, Auger, etc) who are good enough to be the standard even if they aren't kicking ass on every stage in a match, even if they don't get the 90% of the stage points - this system is ignoring that, and treating all shooters/winner as if they were all at the same level, and all needed to have an overwhelming win, in order for the match to 'count.' It's unrealistic, in my opinion, especially in a division like production where there are a bunch of people at, most or less, the same level, leapfrogging each other on stages. Everyone is pointing fingers at me, saying I didn't have a good match because I was up and down on the stages. Maybe the reason I was up and down was because Jamieson and Kent were better on those stages? Why am I expected to win everything, isn't it enough I won the match? There are stages I never do well on, there are stages I always kick ass on it, I get pissed off at people who weren't even at the match telling me 'you screwed up', when the fact was I was pretty happy with my performance, except for 1 Mike and 3 Ds. That's the problem with looking at results and extrapolating match behaviour based on that, it not correct all the time.
People defending this are using the assumption of 'if less than 90 = soft' to drive their arguments, and are ignoring the fact that this assumption fell apart in this match.
Fine, fair enough, you do what you want, but don't pretend otherwise...
It's a red herring in this conversation...
to guarentee 14 solid Classifiers in each Division per year (rememeber...there's more than one Division...also rememebr...I'm not yelling) ...I'd sign it tomorrow...then yell my ass off 
