I don't see how Emory (narrowly) beating Washington at UAAs necessarily proves they are the superior team, nor does it prove they are better than the other 3 (Wheaton, SLU and MIT), nor does it invalidate my whole argument.
Firstly, saying that Emory had 4 guys in front of Washington's 2nd overstates their victory. Emory beat Washington 122 to 131. While it's true that Emory put 4 in front of Wash's 2nd, Wash put 7 in front of Emory's 5th. Secondly, Washington didn't run their 4th runner from regionals at UAAs (Brown). Thirdly, in a larger meet, Emory's lack of a tight spread, and lack of depth, would likely hurt them. So while its true that Emory beat Washington at UAAs (narrowly), I personally think Washington's stronger.
In the end, I'd be surprised if Emory or Rhodes finish higher than, say, 26th. It's not that they're worse than those other at-large qualifiers I named, it's that they just aren't better. And not finishing 31st and 32nd doesn't really prove anything (teams have bad days). When people say that Emory and Rhodes don't belong, they're not saying that they didn't qualify under the current rules, they're saying that they're not one of the best 32 teams in the country. Personally, I think those people have a point.
Either way, we'll find out tomorrow how good they are.