I'm not such a big fan of these rankings. I'm sure that yes, James Ruse did get the highest number of 100's and whatnot, but they had all smart people to begin with so it's not that big of a surprise.
I rather see rankings that look at improvements and such where they base merit on how high the marks are over the expectations of the students. And I'm not saying this because I'm bitter that my school didn't make it into the top 200 or whatever (my school did come 14th this year). It's just the rankings seem slightly superficial and is rather "be all and end all" where it depends solely on the marks students get without looking at the students themselves.
Before those in the top twenty schools start hunting me down, I just want to say that I am not trying to take away from the fantastic UAIs that those people achieved. I just rather see ranks that reflect how good the system is at the school. Like Chatswood made such a huge improvement it is obvious that their secondary system is really good etc., etc. Even if it is a separate list, it'll be interesting to see which schools improved the most and so forth.