No respect, I tell you

I don't understand the FIFA world rankings. I know they're supposed to take into account pretty much every major play by the senior team of a nation, but sometimes I wonder what exactly is going on. For example, here are the top ten rankings in August of this year:

1. Brazil 837 points
2. Argentina 782 points
3. Netherlands 780 points
4. Czech Republic 777 points
5. Mexico 770 points
6. USA 768 points
7. England 743 points
8. Spain 739 points
9. France 737 points
9. Portugal 737 points

So that seems fair enough, right? Now, here's what's happened with those teams since then:

Brazil - 5-0 win over #73 Chile that qualified them for the World Cup
Argentina - 1-0 loss to #35 Paraguay that likely owed itself at least partially to the fact that Argentina had already qualified for the World Cup
Netherlands - 1-0 win over #120 Armenia; 4-0 win over #134 Andorra
Czech Republic - 2-0 loss to #31 Romania; 4-1 win over #120 Armenia
Mexico - 2-0 loss to #6 USA; 5-0 win over #77 Panama that qualified them for the World Cup
USA - 2-0 win over #5 Mexico that qualified them for the World Cup; 0-0 draw with #59 Guatemala
England - 1-0 win over #83 Wales; 1-0 loss to #116 Northern Ireland
Spain - 1-1 draw with #49 Serbia and Montenegro
France - 3-0 win over #126 Faeroe Islands; 1-0 win over #14 Ireland
Portugal - 6-0 win over #155 Luxembourg; 0-0 draw with #29 Russia

Now, based on these results and on the previous rankings, you might think the following things:
1. Argentina might drop, but probably not much since FIFA would understand they had little to play for
2. The USA would pass Mexico
3. England would likely drop out of the top ten
4. The rest of the rankings would probably stay more or less the same

Now. Three of those are essentially correct. One is not. Can you guess which one it is? I'll give you a hint: study the new rankings, released today, carefully.

1. Brazil 839 points
2. Netherlands 785 points
3. Argentina 778 points
4. Czech Republic 777 points
5. Mexico 771 points
6. France 770 points
7. USA 768 points
8. Spain 750 points
9. Portugal 743 points
10. Sweden 740 points

Now, FIFA claims to weigh a lot of factors. Let's look at their own words for this one:

"But by contrast to normal league championships, for the World Ranking a team's points for a match do not depend solely on whether they win, lose or draw. Also affecting the total for a match will be the number of goals scored and conceded, the venue and the importance of the match. In addition, the strength of the opponent is considered, so that a win over a weakly rated opponent will earn fewer points than one against a strongly rated one. This means that a win will not simply bring two or three points and a draw one, as would happen in a national league. The calculation is more complicated since it incorporates the factors mentioned above."

So let's see. The United States beat Mexico in the most important qualifier of their season (since the winner would have no more work to do) and then sent a second team to Guatemala where they held for a 0-0 draw against a lower-rated but still decent squad that was desperate for a win. Grand total of accumulated points: zero. Mexico, on the other hand, lost to the U.S. (but on the road, ooooh), then put the wood to a Panama team that was even weaker than Guatemala and did it in Mexico. Grand total of accumulated points: one.

The message I'm getting here is this: FIFA, like a college football poll, loves it when you run up the score. If the U.S. had beaten Guatemala 6-0, do you think they'd still be behind Mexico? I understand that Mexico shouldn't be devalued too much for losing at the United States, but what I'm getting from the fact that the U.S. didn't even add points is that drawing in Guatemala when you have absolutely nothing to play for and sent a second-string team is a negative occurrence, because surely beating the #5 team in the world, even if you play them in your backyard, is a positive one. What I'm also getting from it is that Mexico actually benefited from the U.S.'s previously high ranking; had the U.S. been ranked in the 30s like Paraguay, whose match against Argentina was at home, perhaps Mexico would actually have lost some points. Or maybe defeating a team ranked in the 70s at a home stadium where you almost never lose is just that impressive?

What we've learned is this: FIFA does not seem to care about whether a game is important or not. If you want to rise in the world rankings, the most important thing is to beat up on teams much worse than you. A 2-0 game between the world #5 and world #6? That's not so important. What really matters for next month is how those teams play when one is on the road against a #50ish team in a game they don't need to win and one is at home against a #70ish team in a game they do need to win.

Okay, yes: the U.S. team did not look very good in the Guatemala game. But again: second-stringers! They didn't need to look good! What happened to considering the "importance of the match," FIFA? What I'm hearing is that if the U.S. had scored one goal, just one, that probably would have been enough to keep the #6 spot, maybe even move up. But no.

Eh, whatever. We're in the World Cup, and ultimately FIFA rankings don't mean all that much. Either we're going to do well (I sure hope) or we aren't. Still, you have to admit this is a little annoying.