Potentially, but some of those great class teams can be teams that win a regional with that great class with kids that are sophomore and juniors and then pop state the next year with that junior class that are then seniors. That first year a class up is what I was referring too about the "hangover effect." You have those seniors, especially if it's a big class, now that are the remnant of a "great team," but in Year 2, you are back to regular program status. In essence, that decision to keep them up is not based on them winning a couple of sectionals in two years in a new class, but instead on the single Year 1 data which is still, to an extent, an indicator of the "great class."
You are correct that most "great teams" burn through that greatness just getting to state in the lower class. It think that probably the vast majority of "great classes" that get bumped to the next higher class. there can be some outliers that make that next level and pick up a regional and that's it, and I don't think it's that hard to use a scalpel in determinations. I guess worst case scenario in not being refined in evaluation is that you get a hangover "great class" that ends up spending three years in the next higher class instead of two, but with a little extra scrutiny, it'd be fairer and representative of the idea of separating great programs from great class to use a little extra scruitiny.
In either case, I think you and I are both on the same side saying that 3-to-stay needs to go ... no pun intended. Good discussion.