PhD admission model - some "waiting season" though

I contemplated this question a lot. in the B-school forum similar rejects for "high profiles" are dismissed for being "unlucky" or "pure random". i don't buy it, although i agree there is a certain amount of pure luck in the admission process... but i try not to reject claims without proposing alternatives - so i came up with a somewhat mixed qualitative/quantitative model for PhD admissions. here it is.... comments and opinions welcome.

i roughly classify factors affecting admission into 3 categories:
- competence (candidate's ability, potential for research etc...)
- fit (i.e. between candidates interests and abilities and the department and faculty research agendas)
- luck

competence is simply an estimation of your ability to study at PhD level and make valuable research and your potential to become a university professor. it is measured by your GMAT/GRE scores (and TOEFL if applicable), your undergraduate and graduate GPA, and to some extent, your work, research and teaching experience if applicable, LOR and SOP. the last two are used mainly as supportive evidence in my view.
it is hard to quantify this competence. different people value different aspects in a different way. so in estimating your "competence" level ask yourself how do the department you apply for value your competence. of course, your perceived level of competence depend on the "field", i.e. other applicants. so whil at a tier-B school you might be assessed as an extremely competent applicant, and ultra-elite may assess you differently.
another important aspect of competence is your career goals - your motivation and commitment to become a researcher.
trying to quantifying it - i think that competence level is responsible for about 40% of your application, or in other words if you try to give a score for each of your application, you can get up to 4 points in "competence" out of 10. dividing it further, i think 10% are earned by motivation and commitment and 30% are earned by academic and intellectual ability.

fit is even harder to measure. but let's divide it even further.
there is a "general fit" - how your broad research interests fit the department's "research agenda". by reading the department's website you should get a feel of what the fit is. do you agree with what they are writing? do the department have specific research centers or "research interest groups" that match, broadly, your interest. you should remember that fit is not measured only by the "subject matter" of the ineterest (i.e. "top management decision making"), but is also depend on research aproach and methodology (quantitative/qualitative) and scope (micro/macro/ interdisciplinary etc...).
there is also a "personal fit" - is there, or are there specific faculty members that match your interests more specifically? can you show this match? the "match" here is assessed not based on your broad interests and approach, but on a more focused research interest (and therefore you must have one, and state it clearly in your SOP). you shouldn't be too specific though, you should try to have a good personal fit with 2-3 faculty members. 1 is ok but may be too risky (see luck factor). 4 means that your interest may be too broad to create a good "personal fit". a good personal fit should be bi-directional. that is, the faculty memebr would think there is a good fit if they think that you, the applicant, has something to add for their research - a certain insight, special ability or experience, that can give added value to their work.
the last type of fit is "group fit" - here the pool of applicants is assessed as a group, and those who have something unique and different to offer stand out and gets extra points. unique work experience/life experience? a talent that can diversify the department? excellent....
quantifying all these i think that fit accounts for about 50% of your application strength, and again, each application may have different "fit". breaking it down, i think it is 20% general, 20% personal, 10% diversity.
scoring your application give upt to 2 points for general and personal fit and up to 1 point for diversity and special contribution.
the SOP is probably the most important aspect of the application in making this fit clear by telling a good story.

the last 10% are there for pure luck. if the faculty want to work with is overloaded with students, or get an application from someone which he knows personally (or knows personally a recommender of the applicant...)... all this can hurt your chances... but you can help your luck by communicating with potential advisors and get the "feel" for wether you are lucky or not. give your application 1 point if you are a lucky person.

so here we are -
3 points for academic competence
1 point for motivation and commitment to research
2 points for general fit
2 points for personal fit
1 point for diversity and group fit
1 point for luck...

how many points you need to get admittance?
i believe something around 8 is the minimum. and the super-elite may require 8.5 or even 9 (but remember that each factor is already "estimated" according to the school... so there shouldn't be much differences now).

this "theorizing" explains well my admittance to wharton and ding from kellogg:
not being too modest, i think that my competence gave me 3 points in both and the same points for comittment and luck. but the fit was different. while my application showed very good general fit with wharton (which i would score around 1.5-2), my kellogg application won't get more than 1-1.5. i also failed in the personal fit (i think i even posted something related to that in this forum, without mentioning kellogg specifically).
i estimate my wharton application at around 8.5-9 (depending on luck) and my kellogg application at no more than 8 if i am extremely lucky (which i wasn't).
according to this model i expect to be dinged by MIT (maximum 8 if i'm lucky), and might be accepted by harvard (i need all my luck to get 8.5).

am i talking complete nonsense here?