My philosophy with the Rankings page(s) has always been that they are first and foremost a convenient way for the listed teams to find their daily rank in a variety of projects.
A minor secondary effort (and one I do only because there was interest) is to give some overall ranking. This is not based fundamentally on the amount of power a team possesses. At best one can only get a rough estimate of a team's power; although some have made the effort, the differences in client computing power between projects and the differences in performance due to O/S, CPU, memory, etc. in a given project make it an infeasible (IMO) measure. I had looked at using the total number of teams back when I started doing this, and it is also a relatively poor indicator of strength.
Instead I choose to weight each project equally (which tends to benefit smaller teams), and use a relative WU ranking (which tends to benefit larger teams). It is the only objective scheme that I have found that is easy to understand and that I can live with. I realize it won't please everyone, but when have I been known for trying to do that? Things should get interesting as it is unlikely a team can dominate in nineteen projects.
I will of course have a page of explanation on what everything means, this was just a format check, not a content check. But if you are curious, for each table entry. the bold upper left number is the official rank, the team project DCI is below, and the 1, 7, and 30 day official rank changes are shown from top to bottom on the right .