First of all, if you haven't seen the original fanpost by Ben, go look at it now, it's here:
I know that many people are interested and it's taking a hot minute to get the logistics worked out, so I'm going to spend a few words with some various thoughts I would like potential rankers to consider. Much of this is my opinion, so feel free to disagree with it. Hell, if you have a good enough reason, maybe you change my mind (or that of someone else). In fact, put your two cents down below, while you're at it
1) Rankings should be based mostly upon achievement.
2) Strength of schedule is a good caveat to consider.
3) Be open to thinking you're wrong
OK, the first point. Predictive rankings are bad. Almost stupid. You are not a fortune teller. It's great to be high on someone and think they're gonna be future champion, but if they've got a 7-3 record and lost two fights ago, then do everyone a favor and leave them out of your top three unless there's some spectacular reasoning going on. Rankings CAN be about whatever the hell the ranker wants them to be about, but many (most) people will mock you for being dumb/a fanboy.
Rankings generally should not also be about who you think would beat who in a match. Again, it's great to think that Francis Carmont will beat Michael Bisping, but as of this point in their careers, Carmont simply hasn't done anything in his career that would warrant him being ranked over the Count.
Please note: random specific example above is simply that - random. I'm not saying that someone said this and you should belittle them. I just chose two people in the same division at random. Same for the one I'm about to use.
Second point - there's been a lot of people bagging on having Frankie Edgar in their P4P rankings despite three losses in a row. Let it be known that I do not have a P4P ranking, but I can understand for those that do why they would add Edgar on that list. There's no shame in losing to the #1 person in the division. Losing to the #1 person in multiple divisions is also nothing to be ashamed of. It doesn't make one bad even, it just makes them not as good as the best. Not all losses are created equal (Guida/Hioki and Aldo/Mendes for example).
Third point... Keep an open mind folks. There are eight divisions in the UFC plus women and P4P. If you do 25 per, as I do for the eight, that's 200 names, and you're bound to make a mistake every now and then. Everyone makes mistakes, don't get uptight about it, admit it, fix it and move on.
Cub Swanson recently bitched that he was "only" ranked 6th on the UFC rankings. I scoffed at this and went and looked at my own '45 rankings and saw I has him 17th (all MMA, not just UFC). I stopped and thought about it and realized that his Strength of Schedule is pretty goddamn high. His only losses in the past 5 years have all been to fighters I have ranked in the top4 of the division. 17 is pretty damned low for someone who's a veteran and isn't losing to mediocre people. I bumped him up 3 spots already and will probably end up bumping him more before I've settled on what I think is a better reflection of where he stands.
Moving along, I've got some questions on what's happening here.
Are we doing top10, 20 or 25? Is each ranker allowed to go as deep as they please?
Are we doing UFC only or all of MMA?
Are we doing women's MMA? UFC only? What weight classes?