The rankings that got my dander up came when they rated the 2001 Rams about 20 places higher than the 2001 Patriots. Yes, the 2001 Patriots that beat the Rams on the field, the one place that we legitimately decide which team is better. And thus the ice skatification of sports continues apace wherein a bunch of guys decide that what they can derive from statistics and their own impervious logic is actually more significant in determining winners than the performance on the field of those teams that actually win.
My view on such a list is that the Super Bowl winners automatically claim spots one through forty. The losers, after all, lost in the biggest game where the winners did not. Doctrinaire? Sure. But I would defend my stance as also being right. I'm sure you will all have your own complaints and criticisms.
(Note that the link I have provided will take you to slots one through twenty -- at the top of the page you can go to the other groupings of twenty.)