My point harkens to the apocryphal (offensive) story of having now established “what kind of a woman do you take me for?” i.e. “we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.” Ultimately my issue is that the rank/stack purists love to claim that it’s fair(er) because it’s objective. When it’s simply subjective about other criteria. Criteria that they’ve decided is ok, or superior. When it’s not. it’s simply different. As these schools agree by and large 
By the way points systems like you outline seem appealing, but are also tricky. Not all alumni are equal right? Some do nothing at all or ever again after receiving their sheepskin. Some interview. Some interview 3 kids each year, others 10, or 20. Other still coordinate and assign hundreds or thousands of interviews. Some lead local alumni chapters. Some give money annually at the $500-1000 level, others at $5000-10000 (and yes of course at some point you cross the threshold from L → D). Tough to just determine them all to be equal-ish despite there being so many shades of gray.
And others might find that supposition, you know…offensive. Subjectivity cuts both ways
This might be a fun thread for you to peruse: