It's hard to take seriously any poll in which 61 different schools were considered by somebody as one of the 25 best in the country.

I think these polls would be better if voters could only vote for schools they believe are in the top 15. Every year, the drop off after that cut off is sharp. But there are usually 15 schools who are listed on almost every ballot.

(08-03-2017 01:59 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  They really don't other than quick word of mouth from associates and SportsCenter highlights. Not to mention, I'd assume coaches have some kind of life away from sports and have to eat and sleep. Add it up and it's ridiculous they have a poll.

It impacts how the committee sees these schools, too. And, vice versa. Last year, Penn State was hardly a blip on the pollsters' radars, then beating someone of worth and then instantly considered part of the "relevant crowd." It's history now, but, one has to wonder if PSU was good on its own merit, or if the hype surrounding them finally sunk in and the team understood their potential. It didn't feel organic, though, and that's maybe one benefit the committee had over the silly polls, that had PSU within consideration; ignore that subjective human component.

Of the polls, though, I never had a beef with the coaches. The stink of the bias throughout the 90's from the AP can still be smelled. Such worship for the FL schools, the immutable favoritism for certain schools...no, the coaches get a pass in my book.

Actually, neither the Writers or Coaches polls matter anymore. The only poll of concern is the CFP Poll. They are used PR for TV matchups until the CFP comes out, then TV uses those numbers for teams. However, much like Bowls, the coaches poll will probably not go away any time soon.

At least when the BCS poll started, they took into account the Writers and Coaches poll with the computers. I actually prefer that over the CFP committee poll, it was more realistic.

The thing is, if you finish with 2 losses, you are going to almost always going to be within consideration. And the polls and the committee had Penn St at EXACTLY the same place- #5. And it's not like the polls had Penn St all that close to Washington at 4- 67 vote lead in AP(34 voters would have had to flip Penn St and Washington- out of 61 total)- and a 97 vote lead in coaches(49 voters would have had to flip Penn St and Washington- out of 58 total).

Are you making an argument, stever? Are you in favor of the coaches poll, or not?

(08-03-2017 11:37 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If anyone is curious on breakdown coaches per conference voting.

Row Labels Count of Coach
AAC 5
ACC 7
B10 8
B12 4
CUSA 6
IND 2
MAC 6
MW 6
P12 6
SB 6
SEC 7
Grand Total 63

That us a pretty good rep of G5 coaches. 29 which is almost have if the coaches. Not sure who the Indy coaches are.

(08-03-2017 02:31 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually, neither the Writers or Coaches polls matter anymore. The only poll of concern is the CFP Poll. They are used PR for TV matchups until the CFP comes out, then TV uses those numbers for teams. However, much like Bowls, the coaches poll will probably not go away any time soon.

At least when the BCS poll started, they took into account the Writers and Coaches poll with the computers. I actually prefer that over the CFP committee poll, it was more realistic.

It does matter.

A month before football starts we are talking about how teams are ranked. People talk about how teams are ranked at schools. People talk about how teams are ranked at jobs. Rankings are used to hype up the big match ups early in the season and whether we want to admit it or not that hype gets factored into the CFP poll.

Humans don't think objectively no matter how much we think we can.

(08-03-2017 03:55 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 02:31 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually, neither the Writers or Coaches polls matter anymore. The only poll of concern is the CFP Poll. They are used PR for TV matchups until the CFP comes out, then TV uses those numbers for teams. However, much like Bowls, the coaches poll will probably not go away any time soon.

At least when the BCS poll started, they took into account the Writers and Coaches poll with the computers. I actually prefer that over the CFP committee poll, it was more realistic.

It does matter.

A month before football starts we are talking about how teams are ranked. People talk about how teams are ranked at schools. People talk about how teams are ranked at jobs. Rankings are used to hype up the big match ups early in the season and whether we want to admit it or not that hype gets factored into the CFP poll.

Humans don't think objectively no matter how much we think we can.

Sorry but that's a load of bunk. I mean last year, if there were no rankings before the season, i don't think it changes a damn thing. Alabama would still have been the #1 seed. Clemson #2. Ohio St #3, and Washington #4. Penn St would still have been outside looking in.

(08-04-2017 08:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 03:55 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 02:31 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually, neither the Writers or Coaches polls matter anymore. The only poll of concern is the CFP Poll. They are used PR for TV matchups until the CFP comes out, then TV uses those numbers for teams. However, much like Bowls, the coaches poll will probably not go away any time soon.

At least when the BCS poll started, they took into account the Writers and Coaches poll with the computers. I actually prefer that over the CFP committee poll, it was more realistic.

It does matter.

A month before football starts we are talking about how teams are ranked. People talk about how teams are ranked at schools. People talk about how teams are ranked at jobs. Rankings are used to hype up the big match ups early in the season and whether we want to admit it or not that hype gets factored into the CFP poll.

Humans don't think objectively no matter how much we think we can.

Sorry but that's a load of bunk. I mean last year, if there were no rankings before the season, i don't think it changes a damn thing. Alabama would still have been the #1 seed. Clemson #2. Ohio St #3, and Washington #4. Penn St would still have been outside looking in.

What point is a load of bull? Are people not already talking about where teams are ranked in the pre-season? There are already a ton of articles that have thousands of views. So the perception of who is good and who is not good is already being created.

Is it bull that rankings are used to create early season match ups? Look at the prime time slots the first three weeks. They tend to be teams who the AP and Coaches poll have ranked highly.

Yeah, these rankings have no impact on teams like Alabama who clearly who more talent than the rest of the teams. But it does matter for 10-25.......

(08-04-2017 09:19 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 08:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 03:55 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 02:31 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually, neither the Writers or Coaches polls matter anymore. The only poll of concern is the CFP Poll. They are used PR for TV matchups until the CFP comes out, then TV uses those numbers for teams. However, much like Bowls, the coaches poll will probably not go away any time soon.

At least when the BCS poll started, they took into account the Writers and Coaches poll with the computers. I actually prefer that over the CFP committee poll, it was more realistic.

It does matter.

A month before football starts we are talking about how teams are ranked. People talk about how teams are ranked at schools. People talk about how teams are ranked at jobs. Rankings are used to hype up the big match ups early in the season and whether we want to admit it or not that hype gets factored into the CFP poll.

Humans don't think objectively no matter how much we think we can.

Sorry but that's a load of bunk. I mean last year, if there were no rankings before the season, i don't think it changes a damn thing. Alabama would still have been the #1 seed. Clemson #2. Ohio St #3, and Washington #4. Penn St would still have been outside looking in.

What point is a load of bull? Are people not already talking about where teams are ranked in the pre-season? There are already a ton of articles that have thousands of views. So the perception of who is good and who is not good is already being created.

Is it bull that rankings are used to create early season match ups? Look at the prime time slots the first three weeks. They tend to be teams who the AP and Coaches poll have ranked highly.

Yeah, these rankings have no impact on teams like Alabama who clearly who more talent than the rest of the teams. But it does matter for 10-25.......

Where was Washington ranked last year preseason? 14 and 18. And yet, that didn't preclude them from making the playoff.

And would say that Oklahoma being ranked 3 preseason last year didn't help them make the playoff, now did it? Even though they were 11-1.

Your point would have a lot more standing if Oklahoma had made the playoff and Washington hadn't. Both wound up with only 1 loss.

(08-04-2017 09:27 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 09:19 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 08:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 03:55 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 02:31 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually, neither the Writers or Coaches polls matter anymore. The only poll of concern is the CFP Poll. They are used PR for TV matchups until the CFP comes out, then TV uses those numbers for teams. However, much like Bowls, the coaches poll will probably not go away any time soon.

At least when the BCS poll started, they took into account the Writers and Coaches poll with the computers. I actually prefer that over the CFP committee poll, it was more realistic.

It does matter.

A month before football starts we are talking about how teams are ranked. People talk about how teams are ranked at schools. People talk about how teams are ranked at jobs. Rankings are used to hype up the big match ups early in the season and whether we want to admit it or not that hype gets factored into the CFP poll.

Humans don't think objectively no matter how much we think we can.

Sorry but that's a load of bunk. I mean last year, if there were no rankings before the season, i don't think it changes a damn thing. Alabama would still have been the #1 seed. Clemson #2. Ohio St #3, and Washington #4. Penn St would still have been outside looking in.

What point is a load of bull? Are people not already talking about where teams are ranked in the pre-season? There are already a ton of articles that have thousands of views. So the perception of who is good and who is not good is already being created.

Is it bull that rankings are used to create early season match ups? Look at the prime time slots the first three weeks. They tend to be teams who the AP and Coaches poll have ranked highly.

Yeah, these rankings have no impact on teams like Alabama who clearly who more talent than the rest of the teams. But it does matter for 10-25.......

Where was Washington ranked last year preseason? 14 and 18. And yet, that didn't preclude them from making the playoff.

And would say that Oklahoma being ranked 3 preseason last year didn't help them make the playoff, now did it? Even though they were 11-1.

Your point would have a lot more standing if Oklahoma had made the playoff and Washington hadn't. Both wound up with only 1 loss.

What? Oklahoma lost to Houston and then got blasted by Ohio st a few weeks later, they were 2-2 at the end of September last year.

Before playoffs and Bowls, UW was 12-1, Oklahoma 10-2...

I hate preseason polls.

Notre Dame LOL!

(08-04-2017 11:08 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 09:27 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 09:19 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 08:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 03:55 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  It does matter.

A month before football starts we are talking about how teams are ranked. People talk about how teams are ranked at schools. People talk about how teams are ranked at jobs. Rankings are used to hype up the big match ups early in the season and whether we want to admit it or not that hype gets factored into the CFP poll.

Humans don't think objectively no matter how much we think we can.

Sorry but that's a load of bunk. I mean last year, if there were no rankings before the season, i don't think it changes a damn thing. Alabama would still have been the #1 seed. Clemson #2. Ohio St #3, and Washington #4. Penn St would still have been outside looking in.

What point is a load of bull? Are people not already talking about where teams are ranked in the pre-season? There are already a ton of articles that have thousands of views. So the perception of who is good and who is not good is already being created.

Is it bull that rankings are used to create early season match ups? Look at the prime time slots the first three weeks. They tend to be teams who the AP and Coaches poll have ranked highly.

Yeah, these rankings have no impact on teams like Alabama who clearly who more talent than the rest of the teams. But it does matter for 10-25.......

Where was Washington ranked last year preseason? 14 and 18. And yet, that didn't preclude them from making the playoff.

And would say that Oklahoma being ranked 3 preseason last year didn't help them make the playoff, now did it? Even though they were 11-1.

Your point would have a lot more standing if Oklahoma had made the playoff and Washington hadn't. Both wound up with only 1 loss.

What? Oklahoma lost to Houston and then got blasted by Ohio st a few weeks later, they were 2-2 at the end of September last year.

Before playoffs and Bowls, UW was 12-1, Oklahoma 10-2...

getting old is a terrible thing. argh....

But still- Washington's preseason ranking didn't impact them much at all.

Kyle Whittingham gets a $15,000 bonus since Utah was in the preseason top 25.

(08-04-2017 11:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 11:08 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 09:27 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 09:19 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 08:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Sorry but that's a load of bunk. I mean last year, if there were no rankings before the season, i don't think it changes a damn thing. Alabama would still have been the #1 seed. Clemson #2. Ohio St #3, and Washington #4. Penn St would still have been outside looking in.

What point is a load of bull? Are people not already talking about where teams are ranked in the pre-season? There are already a ton of articles that have thousands of views. So the perception of who is good and who is not good is already being created.

Is it bull that rankings are used to create early season match ups? Look at the prime time slots the first three weeks. They tend to be teams who the AP and Coaches poll have ranked highly.

Yeah, these rankings have no impact on teams like Alabama who clearly who more talent than the rest of the teams. But it does matter for 10-25.......

Where was Washington ranked last year preseason? 14 and 18. And yet, that didn't preclude them from making the playoff.

And would say that Oklahoma being ranked 3 preseason last year didn't help them make the playoff, now did it? Even though they were 11-1.

Your point would have a lot more standing if Oklahoma had made the playoff and Washington hadn't. Both wound up with only 1 loss.

What? Oklahoma lost to Houston and then got blasted by Ohio st a few weeks later, they were 2-2 at the end of September last year.

Before playoffs and Bowls, UW was 12-1, Oklahoma 10-2...

getting old is a terrible thing. argh....

But still- Washington's preseason ranking didn't impact them much at all.

No worries Steve

(08-04-2017 11:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I hate preseason polls.

Notre Dame LOL!

Me too. I feel like human pollsters tend to leave teams that were ranked high in the preseason while teams who come from the outside who are surprises have to fight their way up.

(08-04-2017 11:13 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I hate preseason polls.

Notre Dame LOL!

They have to lose like 5 games every year before the pundits finally admit that they aren't as good as advertised and shouldn't be ranked so high.