(12-07-2014 09:37 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:29 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:19 AM)panite Wrote:  Baylor has already been hosed by it's own conference. ESPN showed the B-12 bylaws on TV on Championship Saturday. It specifically stated that the conference champ is the winner of head to head competition if the top teams are tied. The B-12 is trying to run a 2 for 1 scam to place 2 teams in the play off without a Championship Game if TCU wins and one of the other top 4 schools comes up with a loss with their CO-CHAMP DECLARATION. The B-12 is also trying to keep TCU in the top 4 over Baylor since TCU is already there despite their loss to Baylor in head to head competition with out a Championship game too. After Ohio State's smashing victory in their Championship game yesterday they should leap frog any B-12 team anyway.

I believe that by-law was misread. It talked about a "representative." That is talking like the BCS or for the Sugar Bowl (in years it is not a playoff bowl), where a tie breaker is necessary. The actual championship could always be shared like it has been in every other conference that does not have a CCG. Granted, I guess the Big 12 could have awarded championship to both, but only presented Baylor to the committee.

I agree the Big12 is trying to game the system by presenting both teams as equals given they have a head to head result. Shameful imo. Another symptom of what's wrong with CFB.

Exactly. Form follows function. That is why if you want to eliminate gaming the system (whether a school or a network) you need a structure that yields a field free of manipulation. If the function is fairness the form (structure) needs to reflect that. The current system has been predicated upon the ability to manipulate the match ups. Hence we have the structure (or lack thereof) that we do.

(12-07-2014 09:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:37 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:29 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:19 AM)panite Wrote:  Baylor has already been hosed by it's own conference. ESPN showed the B-12 bylaws on TV on Championship Saturday. It specifically stated that the conference champ is the winner of head to head competition if the top teams are tied. The B-12 is trying to run a 2 for 1 scam to place 2 teams in the play off without a Championship Game if TCU wins and one of the other top 4 schools comes up with a loss with their CO-CHAMP DECLARATION. The B-12 is also trying to keep TCU in the top 4 over Baylor since TCU is already there despite their loss to Baylor in head to head competition with out a Championship game too. After Ohio State's smashing victory in their Championship game yesterday they should leap frog any B-12 team anyway.

I believe that by-law was misread. It talked about a "representative." That is talking like the BCS or for the Sugar Bowl (in years it is not a playoff bowl), where a tie breaker is necessary. The actual championship could always be shared like it has been in every other conference that does not have a CCG. Granted, I guess the Big 12 could have awarded championship to both, but only presented Baylor to the committee.

I agree the Big12 is trying to game the system by presenting both teams as equals given they have a head to head result. Shameful imo. Another symptom of what's wrong with CFB.

Exactly. Form follows function. That is why if you want to eliminate gaming the system (whether a school or a network) you need a structure that yields a field free of manipulation. If the function is fairness the form (structure) needs to reflect that. The current system has been predicated upon the ability to manipulate the match ups. Hence we have the structure (or lack thereof) that we do.

Yep, and the Big12 can solve all of that by going back to a CCG (even with 10 teams, if allowed, else expand to twelve teams)

(12-07-2014 08:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 03:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 03:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  People are watching games they wouldn't otherwise watch to try to work out who is going to go, and the top two are going to be included in the four, no matter whether you figure "top two" by "undefeated, then best of one loss" or "teams that look like the two best right now".

So it makes the media money people happy.

Gosh, its like having an election every four years, and every four years for over two centuries electing the Presidential candidate with the most money. In other words, its the American Way.

(PS. WOOT! Go Pokes!)

It's not grass roots America's way, it is the Wall Street way. The two are diverging. Real Americans like fair play and an opportunity to decide their own fate. Corporate America likes the hedge that money buys and the need to control. It's a question of character Bruce.

I tend to agree that this is a question of character. We - that is, a large segment of the American public - believes the system we have now is flawed. I agree with that. But not for the reasons you might think. We are a major part of that system, not just spectators on the outside looking in. And the biggest flaw in the system is in our character. We Americans have an obsessive/compulsive need to rank things - even things (like college football) that are inherently unrankable.

We don't value excellence as much as we value winning. We have an almost pathological need in sports to identify a single team as the WINNER, and require that every other team must be LOSERS to satisfy that need. Somebody has to be declared "BEST" at the end of the day. Nothing else will do.

Then, on top of that, we want to superimpose our American notion of "fairness" on the process, losing sight of the fact that college football is part of the entertainment industry, in which fairness has nothing to do with what amuses us.

So my answer to what the solution to the problem of identifying the teams to participate in a playoff is not to have a playoff at all. Go back to the days before the Bowl Alliance and just let everybody enjoy a holiday bowl trip in which the season ends with 38 winners instead of just one. We will still have our need to rank teams after the last game is over - that's a character quirk I doubt we'll ever fix. And we'll still argue about why this ranking or that is wrong, or unfair, or the result of some conspiracy against dear old State U.

In short, this isn't fixable, at least not in the way many of us would like it to be.

Damn, that might be the most well written post I have read on these boards, ever.

Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

What if instead of Ohio State it were Northwestern, and instead of TCU/Baylor it were Texas/Oklahoma?

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

What's sad, if so, the Big 12 was likely the second best league this year and TCU and Baylor's lone losses are not as bad as OSU's.

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

I haven't watched it but it sure sounds like if E$PN has any say in the matter they want O$U - they were pushing them last night too. I wish they would go back to just reporting sports rather than being a special interest group.

Also, Wisconsin was ranked #13? In OOC they lost to the one good team they played, LSU. They beat Western Illinois and Bowling Green by a lot and beat USF by 17. After that they beat up on a not-as-good Big 14 this year. They even lost to Northwestern. NIU also beat Bowling Green by a lot and beat Northwestern. Big deal. And this is the team that they're using to try to vault O$U into the top 4.

(12-07-2014 10:26 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

What if instead of Ohio State it were Northwestern, and instead of TCU/Baylor it were Texas/Oklahoma?

ESPN would be pushing hard for Texas (they own more of them) and they would push for Oklahoma but just not as hard since they are a national brand that would command more advertising dollars but then they are also more committed to FOX than to ESPN. Northwestern wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt either, nor would a Vanderbilt, or some mid tier ACC school, or even an Utah.

(12-07-2014 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:26 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

What if instead of Ohio State it were Northwestern, and instead of TCU/Baylor it were Texas/Oklahoma?

ESPN would be pushing hard for Texas (they own more of them) and they would push for Oklahoma but just not as hard since they are a national brand that would command more advertising dollars but then they are also more committed to FOX than to ESPN. Northwestern wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt either, nor would a Vanderbilt, or some mid tier ACC school, or even an Utah.

That is what I thought you would say. So the question for today's purposes is how much influence ESPN has on the selection committee?

(12-07-2014 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:26 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

What if instead of Ohio State it were Northwestern, and instead of TCU/Baylor it were Texas/Oklahoma?

ESPN would be pushing hard for Texas (they own more of them) and they would push for Oklahoma but just not as hard since they are a national brand that would command more advertising dollars but then they are also more committed to FOX than to ESPN. Northwestern wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt either, nor would a Vanderbilt, or some mid tier ACC school, or even an Utah.

Think it's fair to say that ESPN is culprit/puppet master behind this mess? Or is it equal share ESPN/school presidents?

(12-07-2014 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  We've had every kind of speculative thread you can imagine about the Playoff Committee. At 12:30 tomorrow (well now today) there will be six qualified schools who each have a deserving argument as to why they should be included in the 4 team college football playoff. Everyone thought that going to 4 would change things. Did it? Or do we still just have a glorified beauty pageant controlled by corporate interests and which still fails to give us an on field champion?

So, should we boot out Florida State as the only undefeated team in the nation simply because they continued to win ugly?

Should we boot out a 1 loss Alabama who won what was arguably the toughest division in college football?

Should we boot out a 1 loss Oregon who humiliated the only team to give them a loss this year in a rematch Conference Championship game?

Should we curb kick T.C.U. for a having a stellar year when their only loss came to another top 6 school on the road and following arguably a tough call by the officials?

Should we exclude a resurgent Ohio State because their only loss to Virginia Tech now seems to be the worst loss among the top 6 and simply ignore their total destruction of what was a good Wisconsin team that had a proven defense prior to being run over ruff shod by the Buckeyes third string quarterback?

If we consider 1 loss teams with a non quality loss like Ohio State how can we kick out Baylor when they lost to what would likely be a superior team to Virginia Tech and actually won their head to head game with T.C.U.?

Or do we finally admit that 5 power conferences is one too many, push to condense to 4 and resolve this B.S. with a champions only model? Hmmm?

It is the only way to resolve this crap on the field, rid ourselves of the polls and committees, recognize that in any given year it is difficult at best to determine the relative strengths of the conferences, and give the fans a system that produces their own champions, as decided by the kids themselves, and places 4 champions into a truly national playoff where after having won their conferences they decide it on the field instead of behind closed doors and on behalf of the bowls and corporate interests.

For all of the rationalizations I've seen posted around here for a few years I ask you do you really want this stuff to continue as is, or do you want a structure that is fair that yields results that are fair? I'm not talking about whether we have 64, 72, or even 80 schools in those four conferences. I'm simply talking about a structure that gives us the 4 schools that will play it off and decide it on the field. IMO all arguments to the contrary equal support of the status quo which later today will snub two schools whose futures should be decided on the field.

And please don't give me the "expand the playoffs" argument because I dare you to come up with one that doesn't include at large teams which means back to the smoke filled rooms we go! Put your collective brains to coming up with a structure that decides it on the field. That is the only worthwhile change that can be made.

Do you really want 16 teams in the SEC? Do you want Auburn to play Florida and Tennessee less or drop the annual Georgia game?

16 is not a good conference size. Expanding the playoffs is a much better solution. Everyone who "deserves" to get in gets in. Yes, there is a beauty contest for the last 2 or 3 slots, but those teams aren't champions or co-champions except in a rare year where multiple conferences have ties at the top for their conference/division champ.

You still have arbitrary decisions in a 4X16. You have to decide division ties, like Texas/Oklahoma/Texas Tech in the Big 12 South in 2008 where each was 11-1. In 2011 had Arkansas upset LSU in the final game, you probably would have had 1,2 and 3 in the nation in the SEC West, all at 11-1.

(12-07-2014 10:34 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:26 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

What if instead of Ohio State it were Northwestern, and instead of TCU/Baylor it were Texas/Oklahoma?

ESPN would be pushing hard for Texas (they own more of them) and they would push for Oklahoma but just not as hard since they are a national brand that would command more advertising dollars but then they are also more committed to FOX than to ESPN. Northwestern wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt either, nor would a Vanderbilt, or some mid tier ACC school, or even an Utah.

Think it's fair to say that ESPN is culprit/puppet master behind this mess? Or is it equal share ESPN/school presidents?

If they're so blatantly pushing for O$U publicly, I can't imagine there isn't a lot of pressure behind the scenes also.

(12-07-2014 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  You still have arbitrary decisions in a 4X16. You have to decide division ties, like Texas/Oklahoma/Texas Tech in the Big 12 South in 2008 where each was 11-1. In 2011 had Arkansas upset LSU in the final game, you probably would have had 1,2 and 3 in the nation in the SEC West, all at 11-1.

Bullet the initial premise is about providing a structure that eliminates outside influence and is set up to yield the annual competitors. If it takes going to 16, 18, or 20 to accomplish that the number is an ancillary, albeit debatable, issue.

(12-07-2014 09:19 AM)panite Wrote:  Baylor has already been hosed by it's own conference. ESPN showed the B-12 bylaws on TV on Championship Saturday. It specifically stated that the conference champ is the winner of head to head competition if the top teams are tied. The B-12 is trying to run a 2 for 1 scam to place 2 teams in the play off without a Championship Game if TCU wins and one of the other top 4 schools comes up with a loss with their CO-CHAMP DECLARATION. The B-12 is also trying to keep TCU in the top 4 over Baylor since TCU is already there despite their loss to Baylor in head to head competition with out a Championship game too. After Ohio State's smashing victory in their Championship game yesterday they should leap frog any B-12 team anyway.

Final Four - Florida State (undefeated), Oregon, Alabama, and Ohio State. The playoff committee does not seem to like Florida State and they probably want an Alabama / Oregon final championship game so Alabama gets Florida State in the Sugar Bowl, and the Rose Bowl gets their desired PAC-12 / B-10 annual game with Oregon and Ohio State keeping both of those conferences and their fans happy. The GREEDY MONEY MONGERS then hope for BAMA and DUCK victories with both going to the Final Championship Game.

The Big 12 has, at least in the past 5 years, awarded co-championships. The tie-break is for bowls or advancing to a ccg.

(12-07-2014 10:39 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:34 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:26 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

What if instead of Ohio State it were Northwestern, and instead of TCU/Baylor it were Texas/Oklahoma?

ESPN would be pushing hard for Texas (they own more of them) and they would push for Oklahoma but just not as hard since they are a national brand that would command more advertising dollars but then they are also more committed to FOX than to ESPN. Northwestern wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt either, nor would a Vanderbilt, or some mid tier ACC school, or even an Utah.

Think it's fair to say that ESPN is culprit/puppet master behind this mess? Or is it equal share ESPN/school presidents?

If they're so blatantly pushing for O$U publicly, I can't imagine there isn't a lot of pressure behind the scenes also.

You have Alvarez and Osborne on the committee as well and the decision will be worth 1.5 million to their respective former schools. Archie Manning left this process early. From everything I know about the guy I doubt that his total reason was health related. He played hurt most of his career to accomplish goals. My suspicion is he got a taste of what this was going to be about and didn't want the taint of it on his name. But that is just my opinion.

(12-07-2014 09:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Am I the only one who believes that the point of the playoffs is to determine the best college football team in the country, and that therefore it's okay to hose Baylor or TCU or Ohio STate, because nobody seriously argues that any of those is the best team this year? Would anyone favor any of those three to win the national championship?

Essentially, we went from 2 to 4 because, in a number of different years, there were strong arguments for 3 teams. This is one of those years, with Alabama, Oregon and FSU.

The last team in is mostly there this year to avoid giving someone a bye. So I can't get too worked up about a team that lost to Virginia Tech or West Virginia, or TCU losing their spot to the team that beat them. They all have arguments for why they're the rightful #4, but no one is even pretending that any of them is #1.

I think the point of expanding is to make sure the best team doesn't get left out. There isn't enough evidence to say any one of the 6 is clearly the best team. The SEC West's reputation is built on LSU beating Wisconsin, Auburn beating Kansas St. and Alabama beating West Virginia. Only the Auburn win was on the road and Snyder's team uncharacteristically blew up on special teams. The SEC West looks really good, but its pretty flimsy evidence. The same Georgia team that lost to Georgia Tech crushed Auburn and Arkansas (who gave Alabama fits).

(12-07-2014 09:45 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:37 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:29 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:19 AM)panite Wrote:  Baylor has already been hosed by it's own conference. ESPN showed the B-12 bylaws on TV on Championship Saturday. It specifically stated that the conference champ is the winner of head to head competition if the top teams are tied. The B-12 is trying to run a 2 for 1 scam to place 2 teams in the play off without a Championship Game if TCU wins and one of the other top 4 schools comes up with a loss with their CO-CHAMP DECLARATION. The B-12 is also trying to keep TCU in the top 4 over Baylor since TCU is already there despite their loss to Baylor in head to head competition with out a Championship game too. After Ohio State's smashing victory in their Championship game yesterday they should leap frog any B-12 team anyway.

I believe that by-law was misread. It talked about a "representative." That is talking like the BCS or for the Sugar Bowl (in years it is not a playoff bowl), where a tie breaker is necessary. The actual championship could always be shared like it has been in every other conference that does not have a CCG. Granted, I guess the Big 12 could have awarded championship to both, but only presented Baylor to the committee.

I agree the Big12 is trying to game the system by presenting both teams as equals given they have a head to head result. Shameful imo. Another symptom of what's wrong with CFB.

Exactly. Form follows function. That is why if you want to eliminate gaming the system (whether a school or a network) you need a structure that yields a field free of manipulation. If the function is fairness the form (structure) needs to reflect that. The current system has been predicated upon the ability to manipulate the match ups. Hence we have the structure (or lack thereof) that we do.

Yep, and the Big12 can solve all of that by going back to a CCG (even with 10 teams, if allowed, else expand to twelve teams)

Again, just have the Big 10 send Nebraska back. Big 12 could find an acceptable #12.

(12-07-2014 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:45 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:37 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:29 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I believe that by-law was misread. It talked about a "representative." That is talking like the BCS or for the Sugar Bowl (in years it is not a playoff bowl), where a tie breaker is necessary. The actual championship could always be shared like it has been in every other conference that does not have a CCG. Granted, I guess the Big 12 could have awarded championship to both, but only presented Baylor to the committee.

I agree the Big12 is trying to game the system by presenting both teams as equals given they have a head to head result. Shameful imo. Another symptom of what's wrong with CFB.

Exactly. Form follows function. That is why if you want to eliminate gaming the system (whether a school or a network) you need a structure that yields a field free of manipulation. If the function is fairness the form (structure) needs to reflect that. The current system has been predicated upon the ability to manipulate the match ups. Hence we have the structure (or lack thereof) that we do.

Yep, and the Big12 can solve all of that by going back to a CCG (even with 10 teams, if allowed, else expand to twelve teams)

Again, just have the Big 10 send Nebraska back. Big 12 could find an acceptable #12.

Except Nebraska has to want to come back. Last I heard, they were cozy in B1G land.

(12-07-2014 10:33 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:26 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given the level of stress that ESPN has placed on lobbying for Ohio State this morning, even bringing in Paul Finebaum to push the Buckeyes (an opinion to rent) I would say that those about to be hosed were likely going to be both T.C.U. and Baylor. I hope I'm wrong but we'll see shortly. It has been a shameless push by the Mouse in which Alabama, Oregon and Florida State have been declared by the pundits to be locks and that means if OSU gets in both Big 12 schools are out.

What if instead of Ohio State it were Northwestern, and instead of TCU/Baylor it were Texas/Oklahoma?

ESPN would be pushing hard for Texas (they own more of them) and they would push for Oklahoma but just not as hard since they are a national brand that would command more advertising dollars but then they are also more committed to FOX than to ESPN. Northwestern wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt either, nor would a Vanderbilt, or some mid tier ACC school, or even an Utah.

That is what I thought you would say. So the question for today's purposes is how much influence ESPN has on the selection committee?

I agree with JR. If it was Oklahoma instead of Oklahoma St. and Mississippi sT. instead of Alabama in 2011, they would have pushed for OU. I don't think ESPN has much influence, if any, on the committee (except through their day jobs for the ADs). They had a lot of influence on the polls.