The integrity of the rankings

[olderelk]

This really relates to all sport's (human) rankings.
Should the Lady Bears be ranked third (or even second) if you really believe they are the best?
http://www.wacotrib.com/sports/baylor/184224401.html
Is there such a thing as the integrity of the rankings?
I think there is, but that's just me.
In 1968 after UH beat UCLA in the "game of the century" I believed they (UH) deserved the no. 1 ranking even though in my heart of hearts I figured when (or if) they played again UCLA would win. My fears were realized in the NCAA semi-finals, but UH was ranked no. 1 until then.
I still feel the same way. I believe Stanford (but not UConn) should be ranked ahead of Baylor (even though Sims missed most of the game and the game was played in Hawaii) until Stanford loses, even though I believe Baylor is better.
Call me old school or just plain dumb, but that's how I feel.

 

[kbjoe1]

i will put in my 2 cents... early in the season it is all guess work but after a bit of working with each other . start at the top if the top 2 played 10 games how many would each win and then on down the list.
thats just how i look at it
i think it should be the same way in evaluating the players by the spots that they play,, has nothing to do if they were on a good team,, but it does in the reality of meetings

 

[olderelk]

I'm talking mainly about if #1 and #2 are undefeated and meet, whoever wins that game should be ranked #1 as long as those two teams don't lose any more games.
In my eyes it's kind of an honor thing.