Rankings - an American sporting quirk?

One of the things that puzzled me most when I started watching College Football was how some teams wouldn't be called by their name but would have a number attached. For example, Florida were 'Number 1 Florida' or Michigan would be 'Number 22 Michigan'. But then most of the teams didn't have a number. Why was this? This lead me into the peculiar and very American world of rankings.

It's something that doesn't really get used in the rest of the world because they all play what would be called in the US a 'balanced schedule'. Take the Premier League for example, every team plays each other twice, once at home and once away. Every team plays the same schedule and so it is clear who is the best at the end of the season.

In American sports, however, there is an unbalanced schedule in all sports. As a result it's not always obvious who the best team is and so there are the rankings as an attempt to decide it. Unfortunately (to me at least) these are very subjective. They are often a vote as to who's the best team and so will inevitably be influenced by the biases of the voters.

In College Football we have had just a single game and already the rankings have been released by AP (see here) but this is on top of pre-season rankings. How can any conclusions be reached after a single game is difficult to work out.

But for me the biggest problem is that at the end of the season, the rankings will basically match the records of the teams, with ties decided by the perceived strength of the conference they are from. This discourages teams from playing difficult opponents out of conference as a single loss can see them fall in the rankings even if they were expected to lose. Take the fate of Michigan this week for example. In the pre-season poll they were ranked 8th, and their opponents Alabama 2nd. So according to the polls they should have lost, which they did, suggesting the poll was right. But in this weeks poll after the game they have fallen to 19th, punishing them for scheduling a tough game.

So if the rankings will just reflect the records, why use them? And is there a better way? Personally I think there is and that's to take the subjective voting element out. The official BCS rankings include a computer based ranking. I would use something like this. And there is a precedent for this that is used in the UEFA Champions League.

The UEFA coefficient is a ranking system used for two main purposes. Firstly to decide how many teams from each country enter the Champions League, then to decide on seedings for the individual teams (but not for deciding the winner in this case). The system is open and relatively simple. Teams get points for winning games, and for progressing through the competitions. Everything is open. Of course there is some arbitrariness about the exact details of the formula but it has been running for some time now. Could College Football use something similar for the rankings?