You, /u/Bloodfeatisleman and /u/Pm-me-gift-cardz all said similar things, so I'll just reply to you all at once.

READ THE EDIT!!!

For more clarification, here's something else I just wrote

Here is the problem: The rankings have ZERO consistency right now. We don't know how they work, the people making them don't know how they work. The only truth is if you beat the champ, then you are the champ and are propelled to a higher status than the former champ. So, based on that being our single consistent thing, then why is it so hard to see Rogan's argument where if you beat the #8, you are ahead of the old #8 in the rankings?

But, all I want is for rankings to be consistent. Are they based on who is closest to a title shot, or who is the best fighter? If so, what is the criteria? Do we decide it based on last win, last couple fights, last couple MMA years? We need to decide these things. I'm fine with them taking more things into context, but we need to establish that rule. Again, the only thing we have right now is "if you beat the champ, you are the champ".