Why are ANY of these people receiving votes?

Texas 38 (29th)
Brigham Young 18 (32nd)
Southern California 5 (39th)
Kansas State 3 (42nd)
Boise State 2 (43rd)
Utah State 2 (43rd)
Boston College 1 (46th)
Rutgers 1 (46th)


While undefeated, it is difficult to make a case for votes for Michigan State (74 votes ... 26th), Arkansas (16 votes), Bowling Green (3 votes), Tennessee (2 votes)

I've said over and over the coaches don't have the time to do any research. So they are clueless and simply go by names and conferences - if they do it. Most simply turn it over to a graduate assistant, who's even more clueless than they are...

This is why all the voters' rankings need to be public. If these guys were accountable for goofy voting, they would either start doing their homework or give up their ballots.

When you've had the consistent success Rutgers has had you get the benefit of the doubt.

(Or Kyle Flood has a vote this year.)

(09-08-2013 12:43 PM)justinslot Wrote:  When you've had the consistent success Rutgers has had you get the benefit of the doubt.

(Or Kyle Flood has a vote this year.)

(09-08-2013 12:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Why are ANY of these people receiving votes?

Texas 38 (29th)
Brigham Young 18 (32nd)
Southern California 5 (39th)
Kansas State 3 (42nd)
Boise State 2 (43rd)
Utah State 2 (43rd)
Boston College 1 (46th)
Rutgers 1 (46th)

I can see an argument for BYU. I know they lost, but it was cross country in a close game and then they annilated Texas. I'm not saying they should be, but I can at least understand that one.

Yeah, how does Mich State have any votes... we have NO offense...

By default the Vols have to get support.... you know, for being just one of two SEC-East teams that is still undefeated.

(09-08-2013 12:52 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Yeah, how does Mich State have any votes... we have NO offense...

I think they're just giving y'all some sympathy votes. Once conference play starts, it'll be another story...

Week 1 Bowling Green defeats Tulsa(11-3) by 27 and East Carolina beats Old Dominion by 14 and they each get 1 vote in the Coaches poll.

Week 2 BG beats Kent State(11-3) on the road by 19 and ECU beats FAU(3-9) at home by 18 and the Coaches give ECU(6) twice as many votes as BG(3).

on what planet does that make sense?

(09-08-2013 12:43 PM)justinslot Wrote:  When you've had the consistent success Rutgers has had you get the benefit of the doubt.

(Or Kyle Flood has a vote this year.)

Definitely the latter and Schiano did it too when he was a voter. Basically as long as we are .500 or better Flood/Schiano always voted us 25th, if we were undefeated deep like last season they'd vote us higher. I see no issue with this as it underscores how screwy the system is.

Anyone who gave Texas a vote, ought to have to disclose where they voted BYU.

BYU lost to UVa. UVa was then blasted by Oregon.

It's another version of "Hide the Sausage". Makes the league SOS look better when league play starts. Ranked teams throughout the year look good when it comes time to bid out the Bowl placements. even if say MSU gets blownout come league play you could always point to the fact They were ranked at one point. The computers won't remember they skimped by early on.

Well 5 of our In-Conference games consist of Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and Minnesota. Come December we may be the least deserving 7-8 win team going to a bowl game.

(09-08-2013 12:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While undefeated, it is difficult to make a case for votes for Michigan State (74 votes ... 26th), Arkansas (16 votes), Bowling Green (3 votes), Tennessee (2 votes)

The case that any voter can make is "well, that's just my opinion". E.g., a voter could justify voting for USC on the grounds that I think they really are one of the 25 best teams and just played one lousy game against Wazzoo. Poll voters are like Supreme Court justices - they don't have to explain their opinions to any higher authority, they just have to sign them.

Now *I* wouldn't make that argument, but someone else could. Which is exactly why we need a method of deciding a national champ that is in no way dependent on the polls. At least the 4-team playoff has that going for it.

(09-08-2013 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  This is why all the voters' rankings need to be public. If these guys were accountable for goofy voting, they would either start doing their homework or give up their ballots.

The final coaches vote is public, and that's the only one that counts (determines who plays in the BCS title game).

(09-08-2013 04:23 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  It's another version of "Hide the Sausage". Makes the league SOS look better when league play starts. Ranked teams throughout the year look good when it comes time to bid out the Bowl placements. even if say MSU gets blownout come league play you could always point to the fact They were ranked at one point. The computers won't remember they skimped by early on.

The writers and coaches don't pay attention to the late games. You will see it nearly every week.

(09-10-2013 10:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 04:23 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  It's another version of "Hide the Sausage". Makes the league SOS look better when league play starts. Ranked teams throughout the year look good when it comes time to bid out the Bowl placements. even if say MSU gets blownout come league play you could always point to the fact They were ranked at one point. The computers won't remember they skimped by early on.

The writers and coaches don't pay attention to the late games. You will see it nearly every week.

This problem was actually much more acute before the internet era, when information on west coast games that finished after midnight in the east was difficult for even pressers to come by before they voted. Nowadays, every coach and reporter knows the scores of all games before they vote Sunday morning, or at least have no excuse not to.

Now having watched the games to apply an eyeball test, well that's a different manner. E.g., anyone who didn't watch last night's Eagles/Redskins game and just saw the final score would think it was a close game, maybe a thriller, when in fact it was an easy Eagles win.

(09-10-2013 10:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  This is why all the voters' rankings need to be public. If these guys were accountable for goofy voting, they would either start doing their homework or give up their ballots.

The final coaches vote is public, and that's the only one that counts (determines who plays in the BCS title game).

But all of the earlier votes are "sticky" in that nearly all voters base this week's rankings on minor deviations from last week's rankings. A team that is wrongly underranked is unfairly penalized for the whole season, and a team that is wrongly overranked is unfairly rewarded over more deserving teams. Those problems start early in the season and don't get corrected. Full transparency, in every week's rankings, is needed to flush out goofy votes that are uninformed, biased, or whatever.

(09-10-2013 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 10:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 04:23 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  It's another version of "Hide the Sausage". Makes the league SOS look better when league play starts. Ranked teams throughout the year look good when it comes time to bid out the Bowl placements. even if say MSU gets blownout come league play you could always point to the fact They were ranked at one point. The computers won't remember they skimped by early on.

The writers and coaches don't pay attention to the late games. You will see it nearly every week.

This problem was actually much more acute before the internet era, when information on west coast games that finished after midnight in the east was difficult for even pressers to come by before they voted. Nowadays, every coach and reporter knows the scores of all games before they vote Sunday morning, or at least have no excuse not to.

Now having watched the games to apply an eyeball test, well that's a different manner. E.g., anyone who didn't watch last night's Eagles/Redskins game and just saw the final score would think it was a close game, maybe a thriller, when in fact it was an easy Eagles win.

Texas was ranked in 1997 and lost 66-3 to UCLA in an afternoon game in Austin. They were still ranked in one of the polls after that loss. Next week they beat a fairly good team and received no votes in either poll. Just because they can get the scores, doesn't mean they do. Texas is rated ahead of BYU is both polls and really should have no votes. But I'm guessing all those people who voted for them didn't pay attention to the later scores. If Texas had a bye week, you would probably see the votes go down to zero. But they are playing Ole Miss and a win will get them some additional votes while a loss will obviously reduce their votes.