Seems like everyone is trying to re-invent the wheel here. The WPBA and UPA both use a system similar to the ranking system used for tennis. In tennis, won-loss records do not matter, only finishes for tour tournaments. Points are handed out based on finishing position. Bonuses are awarded for beating seeded players and for winning a major event. Points are cumulative, with a running total for a year. In tennis, Clijsters and Justine Henin-Hardenne were both injured and out for an extended period. For the first few months, their ranking was protected, but after that protected period, their rankings fell due to their inability to defend the points they had accumulated. As their points totals fell, so did their rankings. Now they are both back on tour, and although they technically are unseeded players, nobody can possibly say they aren't two of the best players in the world. It will take a little time, but they'll both be back in the top ten shortly.
Ok, back to pool. The problem with the UPA rankings is that not everyone accepts the UPA rankings because not all pros play all UPA events. Until there is a truly unified tour (someday, I keep telling myself, someday....), that could be a problem with the UPA, NUTS, or whomever. One possiblity for a ranking system is something like golf's Sony rankings brought up earlier, which applies rankings to multiple tours. The data which needs to be collected for such a ranking system is pretty bare: ranked players beaten, position in which the player finished, and whether or not the tourney was a "major." Multipliers can be used to differentiate between quality of play from tour to tour. Obviously, in the beginning of such a ranking system, players will have to be seeded based on educated guesses, but after a period of time, rankings will even out and "ranked players beaten" will begin to mean something. Now, to put something like this into practice requires deciding which events will be included in the points (and which are majors), but once that's done, anyone with basic gazinta skills and access to the tournament brackets could figure up the rankings.
-djb
Ok, back to pool. The problem with the UPA rankings is that not everyone accepts the UPA rankings because not all pros play all UPA events. Until there is a truly unified tour (someday, I keep telling myself, someday....), that could be a problem with the UPA, NUTS, or whomever. One possiblity for a ranking system is something like golf's Sony rankings brought up earlier, which applies rankings to multiple tours. The data which needs to be collected for such a ranking system is pretty bare: ranked players beaten, position in which the player finished, and whether or not the tourney was a "major." Multipliers can be used to differentiate between quality of play from tour to tour. Obviously, in the beginning of such a ranking system, players will have to be seeded based on educated guesses, but after a period of time, rankings will even out and "ranked players beaten" will begin to mean something. Now, to put something like this into practice requires deciding which events will be included in the points (and which are majors), but once that's done, anyone with basic gazinta skills and access to the tournament brackets could figure up the rankings.
-djb