Just Say No to the Preseason Poll
The annual release of the preseason coaches poll or "USA Today Poll" ignites the excitement of the college football fan.
Immediate optimism or disrespect is felt based upon the opinions of coaches who spend every waking hour focused on improving their team, and certainly don't have the time to become experts on 120+ other FBS programs.
Nonetheless, because of tradition, and perhaps to give the media something to talk about in the agonizing weeks leading up to the start of the season, we continue to allow this to happen year after year.
I will attempt to explain why this is not only pointless, but ultimately detrimental to certain teams' chances of reaching the postseason destination they deserve.
I will admit, it is fun to look back at the end of the year and chuckle at the ineptitude of these "experts"' rankings from week 1.
With the annual turnover in college athletics, let alone the fact that you are predicting the outcome of teams whose fate rests in the hands of young adults who likely can't legally purchase a post-game brew, it is virtually impossible to know what to expect without having at least some sample size.
For example, let's just take a peek at last year's (2013 season) preseason and postseason coaches poll rankings.
The 5th ranked team going into the season, Georgia, finished the season outside the top 25 after an eventual 8-5 season.
The 6th ranked team, Texas ATM, finished 18th in the final poll and needed a miraculous comeback to beat Duke in a bowl game nobody watched.
Not only that, but they actually received one vote to enter the season as the top ranked team in all of FBS.
Meanwhile, the Baylor Bears entered the season not ranked in the initial USA Today poll before peaking at number 5, and settling in at number 13 to finish out the year.
Leagues who receive the benefit of the doubt annually (SEC), tend to be able to weather the storm of a loss, because, guess what, the team they lost too was also highly ranked.
It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
If you begin the season highly ranked, and only compete against other teams who have also been given that distinction, it stands to reason that you have a good chance of not falling very far in the event of a loss.
Furthermore, there doesn't tend to be much movement among the top 25 teams, unless one of them really goes our of their way to look bad.
Doesn't it make more sense to produce a ranking half way through the season, after we see how things shake out? There are literally dozens of teams who haven't even named their starting quarterback when the initial rankings are produced.
Does that make any sense to a logical football fan? There has been enough bitching about the BCS model over the past decade plus to finally convince the powers that be to expand the selection process into a playoff model (like every other sport in the world).
That is a nice gesture, even though it is assuredly seen by the NCAA as a way to make more money as opposed to any effort to crown a true champion.
I don't think there is any doubt we will see the playoff model expand in the coming decade to 8, and possibly 16 teams.
Doing so will be great for the only sport that currently has a more exciting regular season than postseason, but will only amplify the issue in question here.
Teams that are ranked highly in the preseason will have to do very little to remain in the top 16.
And those that aren't? I wouldn't lose if I were you..
Immediate optimism or disrespect is felt based upon the opinions of coaches who spend every waking hour focused on improving their team, and certainly don't have the time to become experts on 120+ other FBS programs.
Nonetheless, because of tradition, and perhaps to give the media something to talk about in the agonizing weeks leading up to the start of the season, we continue to allow this to happen year after year.
I will attempt to explain why this is not only pointless, but ultimately detrimental to certain teams' chances of reaching the postseason destination they deserve.
I will admit, it is fun to look back at the end of the year and chuckle at the ineptitude of these "experts"' rankings from week 1.
With the annual turnover in college athletics, let alone the fact that you are predicting the outcome of teams whose fate rests in the hands of young adults who likely can't legally purchase a post-game brew, it is virtually impossible to know what to expect without having at least some sample size.
For example, let's just take a peek at last year's (2013 season) preseason and postseason coaches poll rankings.
The 5th ranked team going into the season, Georgia, finished the season outside the top 25 after an eventual 8-5 season.
The 6th ranked team, Texas ATM, finished 18th in the final poll and needed a miraculous comeback to beat Duke in a bowl game nobody watched.
Not only that, but they actually received one vote to enter the season as the top ranked team in all of FBS.
Meanwhile, the Baylor Bears entered the season not ranked in the initial USA Today poll before peaking at number 5, and settling in at number 13 to finish out the year.
Leagues who receive the benefit of the doubt annually (SEC), tend to be able to weather the storm of a loss, because, guess what, the team they lost too was also highly ranked.
It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
If you begin the season highly ranked, and only compete against other teams who have also been given that distinction, it stands to reason that you have a good chance of not falling very far in the event of a loss.
Furthermore, there doesn't tend to be much movement among the top 25 teams, unless one of them really goes our of their way to look bad.
Doesn't it make more sense to produce a ranking half way through the season, after we see how things shake out? There are literally dozens of teams who haven't even named their starting quarterback when the initial rankings are produced.
Does that make any sense to a logical football fan? There has been enough bitching about the BCS model over the past decade plus to finally convince the powers that be to expand the selection process into a playoff model (like every other sport in the world).
That is a nice gesture, even though it is assuredly seen by the NCAA as a way to make more money as opposed to any effort to crown a true champion.
I don't think there is any doubt we will see the playoff model expand in the coming decade to 8, and possibly 16 teams.
Doing so will be great for the only sport that currently has a more exciting regular season than postseason, but will only amplify the issue in question here.
Teams that are ranked highly in the preseason will have to do very little to remain in the top 16.
And those that aren't? I wouldn't lose if I were you..
Source...