As noted by many here, such "lists" and "rankings" of largely subjective topics get "clicks" for web sites (including this one).
The credibility of the list is only as good as you confer it. I think 40 years back or so, a list in say Sports Illustrated might have had some weight to it because SI was just about the only sports magazine extant. At least when I was young I viewed SI as some kind of "authority" on sports. Today obviously we have a profusion of sites and whatevers to rank everything under the sun competing for eyeballs and ad money.
It's possible some junior intern was asked to compile this list, perhaps by rank ordering career wins and then juggling a bit, kind of like how some grad assistant prepared the coach's poll and runs it by him for a minute and he says fine.
Such lists are fun to criticize of course, especially when they have some blatant misjudgments. At least they put Alabama in the top two spots, where they should have been in the playoff committee's ranking as well.
