Currently, the leaderboard is skewed based upon how many games you have played. The better teams are teams that have played less games but win over 90% of them. With the rating list we would be able to see which team is really the best team.

I don't agree, teams who play once and get good rating will be on top and that doesn't mean you are the best!

Aparrently, not enought vote chess games are being played to give an accurate rating.

But, a ranking based on inaccurate rating is surely already better than one based on number of games played......

But better still, in my opinion, is to create a ladder system. If you beat a team higher up, you move up some, they move down some. The size of the movement determined by the relative positions on the ladder, I'm sure there are clever people out there who can devise an appropriate formula.

When I brought this up before, there were questions of where to fit current teams onto the ladder, well, we have to start somewhere, use the current ranking, it will soon sort itself out.

Obviously, new teams start at the bottom.

 I agree with Komoliddin07.

Is there any reason other than effort needed (Don't get me wrong, it's a very important reason. I don't want the staff having to do more than is already necessary) not to implement a rating system comparable to the one already in place for normal games?

Yes, apparently, see my post # 3.

Very few teams have enough games to give an accurate rating. Most vote chess teams probably have fewer than 5 completed games (this is a thumbsuck, I'm possibly wrong) so a Glicko rating would be very unreliable.

But still, can it possibly be more unreliable than the current system....?

Hah, didn't read that part correctly... Yeah, the ladder system looks good, just have to figure out an equation for how much you move per win/loss.

The winner moves up to the loser's former place. Challenging to a rated Vote Chess game should be restricted to be sent only to those teams within a limited amount of steps above the challenger in the ladder.

I don't know how multiple ongoing games issue would be addressed, though. 

We could have the ladder positions start with the current positions on the leaderboard as they will change quickly.

Yeah, that is what rooperi said, but, as I understand a ladder system, there can be only one game in progress per player (team) at any given time.