Mike Nuzzo and Lou Duran,
I do know statistically that committees really end up favoring one presentation greatly, maybe two. No matter how much work goes in, the frame of reference gets narrowed up quite a bit. And it is winner take all, so they aren't concerned with win-place -show.
Some of it also has to do with timing. Maybe Gary was just the third pro in a row to expound on his future contributions, and it struck them as very ho-hum rather than a strong point.
I think Gil was pretty early in the process from memory. Once they were wowed by his, who ever went before him was out the door, even if their presentation was 99% of what Gil's was - its an all or nothing deal. In any two day process, only one team moves forward from day one, and I have been told the film crews or other observers there said Gil was the only guy they wanted from day 1. So teams 4-6 are basically interviewing against Gil, and then, team 4 had to be better than Gil, and team five had to be better than either Gil or team 4, whoever was the winner. In any case, team six was still going against one team, not five others. Of course, that is by consensus. I am sure there was a holdout juror favoring one other team, or at least, there usually are. In the end, the majority must rule.
I made my comments about Tom's presentations based on his comments here, and also from memory. He may very well have been down when he posted (I seem to recall a few, "yeah, we covered that, too) type comments. Allowing for post interview depression, (believe me, it happens) and knowing he worked very hard I suspect he was in the vicinity of 90-99% of Gil's. As Lou says, they have all been to this rodeo before. Heck, he might have been 105% in your eyes or mine, but of course, only the committee eyes mattered. As Lester says, sometimes one just connects better than the others. Heck, not sometime, every time in one of these situations.
I am sure all teams tried to cover the basic points. What I was trying to convey is that Gil obviously covered them in a way that intrigued and satisfied the committee better. Sometimes, only a slightly different twist is all it takes (or, from my experience, making it a simple and clear point.) For example, saying you will save the frogs (or whatever) and posting an earth day poster isn't nearly as effective as showing a pond (and frog) from their site while explaining what you will do.
Committees are all different, but they in general go on about the big picture and some little, unpredictable details. Sometimes, they internally want you to spend 40% of your time on one hot topic, and 30% on two others, and you pick the wrong one to expound on longer. The difference is just that small. Gil could go to the next one, say the same things, and lose by a mile because it wasn't what that committee wanted to hear, and he just didn't connect with them the same. It's a real crapshoot, and of course, blaming politics is just easier than admitting maybe you guessed wrong, didn't quite do enough research, made the wrong call, etc. Don't ask me how I know this.....
So, they probably all made very good presentations, but by definition, the other five top out as triples, not home runs. It's a funny process, just not one that is funny enough to laugh at, especially for the five losing finalists.