| 1. | Florida State |
| 2. | Florida |
| 3. | South Carolina |
| 4. | Baylor |
| 5. | Oregon |
| 6. | Kentucky |
| 7. | UCLA |
| 8. | LSU |
| 9. | North Carolina |
| 10. | Rice |
| 11. | Texas A&M |
| 12. | Stanford |
| 13. | Purdue |
| 13. | Cal State Fullerton |
| 15. | Arizona |
| 16. | North Carolina State |
| 17. | UCF |
| 18. | Virginia |
| 19. | University of San Diego |
| 20. | Oregon State |
| 21. | Mississippi |
| 22. | TCU |
| 23. | Arizona State |
| 24. | Arkansas |
| 25. | Louisville |
There is a brewing controversy surrounding preseason college football polls – mainly because where a team starts often determines how high it can finish. Just ask Auburn’s 2004 team, which was preseason ranked #17 (AP) and #18 (Coaches) but finished undefeated and #2 in both final polls after being shut out of the title game. Usually teams need a loss by a team above them or a spectacular win of their own to leapfrog others that got a head start in the preseason. Preseason rankings do matter.
Imagine if your favorite conference always had at least one team finish the year ranked in the top fifteen – but that top fifteen ranking was never extended to any of your conference’s teams in the preseason. Imagine if year after year the top teams in your conference had to fight their way up from a 20-25 preseason ranking – waiting, praying for the teams above them to lose so that they might have a shot at glory. Then, after they proved themselves one year, these programs were still ignored in the next year’s preseason polls.
It sounds ridiculous, but for fans of non-BCS programs, this sad story is reality during the BCS era. For non-BCS teams, the preseason polls can be especially brutal.
In examining the AP and Coaches’ Polls over the BCS era (1998-Present) there is a clear bias against non-BCS teams in the preseason. Looking at the ’08 poll – where the AP ranks only one non-BCS team, BYU at #16, and the Coaches’ add Fresno State at #25 – it’s safe to say that “the times they ain’t a changin’”.
Let’s look at some of the facts about the AP Poll for the 1998-2007 seasons. For simplicity, we’ll focus on the AP Poll, but the general trends in the AP Poll are very closely mirrored in the Coaches’ poll. We will still point out some relevant examples from the Coaches. However, please keep in mind that when we discuss team rankings, you can almost always exchange “AP” for “Coaches” without any significant difference. Harris Interactive doesn’t release a preseason poll.
The AP has never ranked a non-BCS team higher than #15 in the preseason poll during the BCS era. This is despite the fact that only once, in 2001, has a non-BCS team failed to finish the year in the top 15 of the final AP Poll (but Louisville was close, finishing at #17 that year in the AP and #16 in the Coaches’ Poll).
Non-BCS teams collectively get 508.6 poll points per year in the preseason AP Poll compared to 1,782 for the final poll; that’s an average increase of roughly 250% from the beginning of the year until the end! Imagine if the SEC was disrespected like that!
The average number of preseason poll points going to the highest ranked non-BCS team was 335.4 (usually putting them in the 20-25 range). But the top non-BCS teams receive, on average, 968.5 points in the final poll (equivalent, roughly, to a top ten ranking).
Average points going to the second ranked non-BCS team in the preseason poll was 154.5 compared to 568.1 in the final poll. Even worse, the average points going to the third ranked non-BCS team in the preseason poll was 18.7 compared to 181.3 in the final poll. So the gap between perception and reality widens once you look beyond that year’s anointed “non-BCS team-du-jour.”
The preseason AP (and Coaches’) Poll has ranked three or more non-BCS teams just once (in 2007: TCU, Hawaii, and Boise St. were all ranked). This is despite the fact that at least three non-BCS teams were ranked in the final AP poll 5 out of 10 years, and in both 2003 and 2004, five non-BCS teams were ranked in the final AP and Coaches’ Polls.
The highest ranking a non-BCS team has ever gotten in the preseason AP Poll was CSU at #15 in 1998 (the first year of the BCS). Second highest was Louisville at #17 in 2002 and third is Boise St. at #18 in 2005. However, in the final poll, the lowest ranking given to the top non-BCS team was #17 to Louisville in 2001 followed by #15 Boise St. in 2002.
The highest ranking a non-BCS team has ever gotten in the final poll was Utah at #4 in 2004. Other top ten finishes include Boise St. at #5 in 2006, Tulane at #7 in 1998, Marshall at #10 in 1999, and Miami (OH) at #10 in 2003. Despite these great finishes, non-BCS teams have never sniffed the top ten in a preseason poll.
Every single year the AP poll ranks a non-BCS team higher in the final poll than it ranked any non-BCS team in the preseason poll – and it’s usually much higher. For example:
In 2006 the preseason poll ranked one non-BCS team, TCU, at #22. But the final AP Poll in 2006 saw three ranked non-BCS teams; Boise St. at #5, BYU at #16 and TCU at #22.
2005 was the only year that only one non-BCS team made the final ballot – TCU at #11 – but this ranking was still much higher than the #18 Boise St. received in the 2005 preseason poll (and that #18 ranking is the third highest all-time preseason ranking for a non-BCS team!).
Clearly poll voters are using different criteria for ranking programs outside the big six conferences. They certainly aren’t ranking them based on where they finished the year before… or even where they have been finishing historically. Instead, it appears that the AP is forcing these teams to complete a grueling climb up the rankings each and every year without exception.
Why does this obvious and egregious bias exist? Why has it gone relatively unnoticed or at least without much fanfare?
The obvious answer is that the voters don't know enough about the non-BCS schools. These teams aren’t on national television as often, and they aren’t discussed as national championship contenders during the offseason. While this might be okay for the average football fan, it should not be acceptable for a BCS or AP voter. It should be the responsibility of the voter to be more informed than the average fan. Now that Utah, Boise St., and Hawaii have all crashed the BCS, voters should know who these teams are and what they can do. Their votes should adjust accordingly.
Another possible explanation involves simple geography: 73% of the non-BCS teams that have been ranked in the preseason poll are located west of the Mississippi River. Also, 60% of the non-BCS teams ranked in the final poll are located out west. However, only 25 out of the 65 AP poll voters hail from the west; that’s roughly 38%. The Coaches' poll and Harris poll also have a higher concentration of their voters in the east. Non-BCS teams could be suffering from regional biases. In other words, maybe they’re getting enough western votes to be ranked, but not enough eastern votes to crack the top 10.
For those still unconvinced, let’s focus on the non-BCS teams that are considered the elite -- teams that should be getting respect from voters on their preseason ballots -- Boise State, BYU, Utah, and TCU; all four hail from the west (and all but TCU are located in the sparsely populated Mountain time zone) away from the concentration of eastern poll voters. Now these teams don’t have nearly the consistency of say a modern USC or Ohio State or 1990’s FSU or Nebraska, but they have done enough over the last six seasons to compare them to some other ranked BCS teams:
|
Team Name |
Years Ranked in Final Poll |
Ranking in the Following Preseason Poll |
|
Boise State |
2006, 2004, 2003, 2002 |
2007 - 25 (AP), 23 (CP) |
|
BYU |
2007, 2006 |
2008 – 16 (AP), 17 (CP) |
|
TCU |
2006, 2005, 2003, 2002 |
2007 – 22 (Both) |
|
Utah |
2004, 2003 |
2005 – Unranked (Both) |
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas |
2007 |
2008 – 14 (AP), 13 (CP) |
|
Missouri |
2007 |
2008 – 6 (AP), 7 (CP) |
|
Texas Tech |
2007, 2005, 2004 |
2008 – 12 (AP), 14 (CP) |
So comparing the four non-BCS teams to the three Big 12 teams, you can see the discrepancy. The non-BCS teams have had similar or better consistency over the same period (all of them at least having back-to-back final rankings). Yet, in the 2008 preseason polls, all three Big 12 teams have been ranked higher than any non-BCS team has EVER been ranked in a preseason poll. Yes, Kansas and Missouri had great years in 2007, but so did Utah in 2004 – ranked #4 (AP) and #5 (Coaches).
In the past six years Boise St. alone has finished ranked four times, boasts two undefeated regular seasons, and has been to six bowl games including their classic Fiesta Bowl win over Oklahoma following the 2006 season. However, judging by the preseason polls you’d never guess that Boise St. had been so successful; they were dropped to #23 in the Coaches’ preseason poll and #24 in the AP following their undefeated season and top five finish. Still, it was better treatment than Utah received following their undefeated, top five finish in 2004; the Utes were unranked in the 2005 preseason AP and Coaches’ Poll. To be fair, both Boise State and Utah finished unranked in those years, but it is still a pretty grim conclusion to draw as early as the pre-season. There are plenty of teams that are highly ranked in the pre-season and drop out of the final poll completely. So you can’t pat the voters on the back for their preseason accuracy.
Whatever the reasons, the consequences of this biased voting behavior are devastating to non-BCS schools. Until voters adjust their bias we will never see a non-BCS team win a national championship in the BCS era (like BYU did in 1984). In fact, we probably won’t see them make a BCS bowl game without going undefeated. To make one of the BCS bowls, non-BCS teams must climb from the bottom of the preseason rankings. A single loss dooms any chance they have at a big bowl and a big payday. The pollsters need to recognize that their voters rank BCS teams differently than they do teams from non-BCS conferences and help educate them. Until that happens, it appears that college football is stuck in a caste-like structure with no end in sight. In the meantime, Pollspeak will continue doing what it can to help the education process.
Ever wonder how voters are chosen and what they’re instructed to do? Here is your chance to find out. We contacted officials at the Associated Press (AP), USA Today, American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) and Harris Interactive to find out how they conduct their polls and compare them to each other. In typical Pollspeak fashion, we even rank their answers in each category. Let’s see how they like it!
Conference or Geographical Quotas:
AP – Votes are based on how many FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) schools are in a state -- 1 - 3 schools equals one vote, 4 - 6 equals two, etc.
Coaches – Slots are apportioned by conference, with a slight edge in representation given to those conferences that were most successful during the previous season. Independents are also in the mix. How is success determined? Mel Pulliam at the AFCA uses a formula that generally reflects how conferences were represented in the final poll. It's not a major factor but it usually means there may be one more voter in the Big Ten than in the WAC, for example.
Harris -- Panelist slots are filled by conference, each represented equally and all randomly selected to be invited to participate from among its list of nominees. Eleven conferences each have 10 panelists and the independent institutions comprise the remaining 4, for a total of 114.
Pollspeak’s Take – The AP is straying from its own formula. Texas has 10 FBS schools and has 4 votes. California has 7 FBS schools and has 4 votes (so we can assume 7 – 10 schools = 4 votes). Florida has 7 FBS schools but only has 3 votes. Ohio has 8 FBS schools (6 in the MAC alone) and only has 3 votes (one of which is Kirk Herbstreit, who should be listed under National.). Illinois has 3 FBS schools but still gets 2 votes. There are more examples, but the AP needs to rework or stick to its own formula.
With Harris every conference has the same representation (although we’ll need to verify this after they announce the voters). The Coaches’ Poll has a more complicated formula, and they haven’t shared the details. The AFCA has not responded for comment (although the USA today has been very helpful). So we can’t verify if they’re following their own formula. However, we do know that the conferences are currently unbalanced. See our article on the Coaches’ Poll below. We also know that the intent is to give an extra reward to the conferences that do best in the polls. This means that if votes are unfairly balanced in the first place, this system will reward those already at an advantage. Basically, the rich are getting richer. While the AP may have made mistakes, at least the overall concept is fair.
|
POLL |
Rank |
|
Harris |
1 |
|
AP |
2 |
|
Coaches |
3 |
Choosing the Voters:
AP – The bureau chief, many in conjunction with the sports writer, select the voter(s) from their state/region. Some rotate the vote every year to give different members a chance, some don't. About half of the writers/broadcasters let the local sports writer or bureau manager know he/she is interested in voting; we also seek out writers/broadcasters. Usually we contact the individual directly.
Coaches – All 119 Division I-A coaches are eligible, though some decline to participate because of the time commitment necessary for voters to fulfill their weekly obligations. We contact the prospective voters (coaches, not universities) and ask if they are willing to take part and meet the requirements that have been outlined. Representatives of the USA Today and AFCA meet to review the proposed list.
Harris -- Panelists are randomly selected from among more than 300 nominations submitted by the conference offices and the independent institutions. On behalf of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), Harris Interactive constructs a panel of former players, coaches, administrators and current and former media who are committed to ranking the college teams each week during the college football season.
Pollspeak’s Take – The Coaches’ and Harris Interactive polls have a more structured approach to choosing voters at the national level whereas the AP delegates choices to the state level. This means different states can handle things differently in the AP. Some states might be constantly changing their voters while others never change. This inconsistency drops the AP to third. Harris edges out the Coaches’ simply because it has a MUCH larger pool of candidates to draw from.
|
POLL |
Rank |
|
Harris |
1 |
|
Coaches |
2 |
|
AP |
3 |
Voter Qualifications:
AP – They have to be involved in college football coverage locally, regionally or nationally.
Coaches – Most coaches have a lot of experience in the game, so we look for reliability and adherence to the basic guidelines.
Harris -- Panelists must be former players, coaches, administrators or current/former media who are committed to ranking the college teams each week during the college football season.
Pollspeak’s Take – All of these are pretty much equal responses – beyond the need to belong to the proper organization, they only need to have a pulse and know how to work a phone. We would have given the edge to anyone who mentioned a certain level of experience, a requirement to watch a voter training video or watch a certain number of games each week. We’ll call this a tie for third, since a tie for first would imply they’re all doing great.
|
POLL |
Rank |
|
AP |
3 |
|
Coaches |
3 |
|
Harris |
3 |
Turning Down Voters:
AP – We turned down a voter who was also involved in Harris Interactive or whatever it was called before.
Coaches – When reviewing the list of possible voters, over the years we have steered away from one or two who might have been shown a pattern for being late with their ballot. No more than one or two have not been invited back because of questionable selections.
Harris -- Harris Interactive communicates a set of principles with panelists which they are expected to adhere to. One principle is that they receive permission from their employer, if such permission is required. Many media outlets preclude their employees from participating in the Harris Interactive College Football Poll.
Pollspeak’s Take – OK, once again we’ve got a tie for third. These are all logistical reasons (or don't pertain to new voters). We were hoping for answers like, “yes, we turned down somebody who wrote in his bio that one of his all time favorite sports moments was ‘Every time Tennessee and Auburn lose a football game.’” or “We avoided a coach who let his Director of Player Development vote his own team #1 instead of Texas as they had planned.” etc.
|
POLL |
Rank |
|
AP |
3 |
|
Coaches |
3 |
|
Harris |
3 |
Voter Guidelines:
These are the instructions each poll sends to the voters:
AP –
· Base your vote on performance, not reputation or preseason speculation.
· Avoid regional bias, for or against. Your local team does not deserve any special handling when it comes to your ballot.
· Pay attention to head-to-head results and
· Don’t hesitate to make significant changes in your ballot from week to week. There’s no rule against jumping the 16th-ranked team over the eighth-ranked team, if No. 16 is coming off a big victory and No. 8 just lost 52-6 to a so-so team.
· Teams on NCAA probation ARE eligible for the AP poll.
Some ethics guidelines:
· Voters should have no professional or booster connection to the schools they cover. This could pose a conflict of interest.
· Voters cannot write for team media guides or even independent fan magazines associated with certain schools. This has the potential of compromising a reporter’s objectivity.
· Adhere to APME and APSE standards of conduct: We do not accept free tickets, deals, discounts or gifts, etc.
· Please be advised: "Homerism" will be challenged and could lead to dismissal from the poll board.
Also noted, “We vote for schools on probation.”
Coaches –
Before the preseason poll is conducted, all voters receive a letter from AFCA executive director Grant Teaff reminding them of what he and the newspaper expect each week. Basically, it's a ballot that's cast without fear or favor and delivered on time. It must be personally drawn up by the coach and preferably phoned in by him as well, though it is acceptable to have a staff member call if necessary. Failure to adhere to these guidelines can result in removal from the board of voters. The AFCA also reviews the guidelines in a letter sent out before the final regular-season poll:
· The coaches are told they can vote for any eligible Division I-A team. They are told that any team on major NCAA or conference probation is not eligible (if a team's status should change during the season, we do notify them).
· They are asked to keep their votes thoughtful, reasoned, consistent and fair throughout the season.
· They are reminded that no abstentions are permitted. If you commit to the poll, you commit to it for every week of the season.
· They also are reminded that, for the post-bowls poll, that the AFCA recognizes the winner of the BCS title game as the No. 1 team.
Harris –
· Panelists receive permission from their employer, if such permission is required.
· Each panelist agrees that ranking teams is a time-consuming process each week.
· Panelists agree that rankings must be based on their personal observations and analysis of team performance.
Pollspeak’s Take – Harris is basically saying that a well-prepared voter is one who knows how to use a remote control for long periods of time without complaining about carpal tunnel. The AP wins out over the Coaches’ poll because they give specific and useful advice and spell out the penalty for bias. The Coaches’ Poll is at a disadvantage here since everyone who votes in their poll is a school employee with an inherent bias.
|
POLL |
Rank |
|
AP |
1 |
|
Coaches |
2 |
|
Harris |
3 |
Monitoring and Replacing Voters During the Season:
AP – We monitor ballots on a weekly basis. They can call, fax or e-mail, and there's a human on the phone. Other than not following the guidelines, a voter may be replaced for “repeatedly failing to call in a vote promptly,” or for a “conflict of interest,” or “refusing to vote for a team on probation.” (Also) we evaluate all voters every year.
Coaches – - Votes are called in by phone and recorded. One of our college desk staffers then enters them into a computer. He follows up on any ballots that might be questionable. (This individual has been doing it for more than 10 years.)
We closely examine each ballot every Sunday. If we see something that seems the least bit out of whack, we contact the coach, with whom we can usually resolve the issue. Most of the time, it's over an inadvertent omission. If it cannot be resolved there, we will bring an AFCA representative into the discussion.
The only voters who have been replaced during the season have been a few who were dismissed from their coaching position and opted not to continue to participate in the voting. Our preference is that they stay on through the bowl games, and most have agreed to do so. Those who have declined have been succeeded by the coach who replaced them.
Harris -- Each week, Harris Interactive has rigorous processes in place to ensure that each panelist’s rankings reflect their intent. We utilize three methods for voting, including phone (live interviewer), fax, and online. (Also) if those members of the media who are panelists change employers either before or during the season, they may become ineligible for the HICFP.
Pollspeak’s Take – The AP earns top spot for taking action during the season for the way a person has voted. Coaches’ come second for at least replacing missing voters. Harris comes in third since it seems that clerical issues are the main concern. See last year’s Pollspeak Report to Harris Interactive - College Football 2007 which shows that Harris Interactive actually allows missing ballots during the season, seemingly without penalty to the voter during that season.
|
POLL |
Rank |
|
AP |
1 |
|
Coaches |
2 |
|
Harris |
3 |
Accessibility:
AP – The AP was completely open and very responsive. The people directly in charge of the poll were kind enough to answer quickly even from Beijing.
Coaches – The USA Today ranks right up there with the AP. Again, the right people answered quickly even while in Beijing. However, the AFCA was completely unresponsive. Like a 1-star recruit, they dragged down the Coaches’ Poll class ranking.
Harris – A very nice PR person acted as a liaison but no direct access to those in charge of the poll. Also, response time wasn’t as good as the AP or USA Today…and they lose a spot for not being in Beijing.
Pollspeak’s Take – We would like to thank all of the organizations (except the AFCA) for taking the time to answer our questions.
|
POLL |
Rank |
|
AP |
1 |
|
Coaches |
2 |
|
Harris |
3 |
Secret Ballots:
AP – Has no secret ballots. Every ballot is posted for every voter every week. This allows football fans to BROWSE them or analyze them in-depth using POLLSTALKER.
Coaches – “We are satisfied the current process provides the soundest football rankings.”
Harris – “The BCS has set the guideline that the final rankings will be made public.”
Pollspeak’s Take – Secret Ballots are like the bowl game of our questions. Both the Coaches’ Poll and Harris Interactive are satisfied with keeping ballots secret because they aren’t forced to do otherwise (other than the last poll of the regular season). We asked them if there was some advantage to this method, but never received a proper response. The AP is the only major poll to have every ballot public and is therefore the only poll to receive points in this category. Why aren’t the other two tied for second? Because we have declared them ineligible for post-season play and forbid our voters from ranking them. How do you like them apples?
|
POLL |
Rank |
|
AP |
1 |
|
Coaches |
- |
|
Harris |
- |
The Final Tally:
Score is determined in the standard way. Every first place vote is worth 3 points, second place is 2 points, and third place is 1 point. So the final scores are:
|
POLL |
Rank |
Points |
|
AP |
1 |
17 |
|
Coaches |
2t |
11 |
|
Harris |
2t |
11 |
Congratulations to the AP for being ranked pre-season #1! The poll isn’t perfect, but it is the best we have. Keep in mind that these are just pre-season rankings. If the polls keep fighting each week to improve and provide us with timely and accurate information, they may jump in our future rankings.
Here's a quick update direct from Harris Interactive: "The first Harris Interactive College Football Poll (HICFP) results are slated to be released on September 28, 2008."
So a full month of games will be played before we see their first rankings, and, yes, the ballots will once again be secret except the last poll of the season. If you want to see public ballots in the future, which would allow Pollstalker to work with the Harris Interactive and Coaches' polls, please sign the PETITION.
Today we turn to the AP Poll in part two of our series covering voter changes and demographics in the polls. See Pollspeak’s previous article on the Coaches’ Poll below. It’s more difficult to spot regional bias in the AP Poll than in the Coaches’ Poll. We’re not saying that bias doesn’t exist, but the potential for it is just much less transparent.
Coaches are often rewarded by their schools based on how well their team does and how well other teams in their conference perform -- even if the reward is indirect. For example, many conferences share bowl money between schools. So if more teams from a conference go to more or bigger bowls, there is more money for everyone. So the potential for bias by coaches, who are school employees, is inherent in their vote… especially when the ballots are secret. This doesn’t mean all coaches will vote with overt bias, but the potential is obvious. See Pollspeak’s article on the 2007 Coaches’ Poll for many examples. Also note that Pollspeak sponsors a PETITION to remove secret ballots from the Coaches’ and Harris Interactive Polls.
There is no definitive link between AP voters and the schools on which they vote. In fact, the AP forbids a business relationship. This is of course a good thing for reducing the potential for bias, but it does make bias harder to spot. (That’s why POLLSTALKER was invented.) Even when a writer works in a college football city, there isn’t necessarily a bias towards the team in that city. Just look at Taylor Zarour’s pre-season ballot as an example. He works in a cradle of ACC football, Raleigh, North Carolina, but on his Bio page (before it was changed), he says he grew up “an avid fan of the Crimson Tide,” and listed one of his all-time favorite sports moments as “Every time Tennessee and Auburn lose a football game.” He then proceeded to leave Tennessee and Auburn off of his pre-season ballot. The AP does have rules against school affiliations and “homerism”, which will be discussed in an upcoming article. In the meantime, here’s how the AP voters fall into place:
Click here for a full list of the 2007 & 2008 AP voter changes. In short, the AP made far more changes than the Coaches’ poll, replacing 28 voters, or about 43% of the 65 total voters.
Looking at this breakdown of AP voters per state, there was no major geographical shifting of voters. Each state has the same number of voters in 2008 as 2007. However, there definitely were some shifts within each state.
Alabama’s votes moved from Montgomery and Mobile in 2007 to Dothan and Birmingham in 2008. This puts a voter in the home of Conference USA’s UAB Blazers. However, it also takes away the closest voter to Auburn (Montgomery, 55 miles). Now the closest city to Auburn is Dotha, which is 120 miles away (and 240 miles to Bama in Tuscaloosa). Mobile is about the same distance to Auburn and Alabama, and was replaced with Birmingham, which is 110 miles to Auburn and 60 miles to Tuscaloosa. Again, proximity may not be an indicator of bias, but let’s compare this with what is going on in Florida.
Florida had all three of its voters replaced. This isn’t surprising since Floridians are notorious for having voting issues (ask Al Gore). Still, where the votes landed is very interesting. In 2007, the votes were in: Brevard (Orlando/Melbourne), Miami and St. Petersburg. In 2008, they are in Tallahassee (FSU), Gainesville (UF) and Tampa (USF). I’ve been to both Tallahassee and Gainesville, and these are not major metropolitan areas. Okay, Tallahassee has the state capitol and another university in FAMU. Gainesville exports fine musical talent (Tom Petty and ½ of The Eagles) and is the world’s largest importer of jorts, but if Gainesville is capable of hosting an AP voter, then certainly other cities like Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Lubbock, College Station, Clemson, University Park, Eugene, etc. can host a voter.
It’s probably time to give the state of Florida a fourth vote. With the emergence of USF, the already football-rich state of Florida has earned it. (Texas and California are currently the only two states with four votes). The fourth vote should likely go back to the Miami area to cover the University of Miami and the Sun Belt’s FIU and FAU. This would still leave Orlando’s UCF in no man’s land similar to some teams in Texas and California.
Speaking of Texas and California, let’s look at where those votes fall:
|
Texas City |
Home Teams |
|
El Paso |
UTEP |
|
Houston |
Rice, Houston |
|
Fort Worth |
TCU, SMU (Dallas), North Texas (Denton), Baylor (Waco), which is closest to Fort Worth (85 miles), but in between FW, Houston and Austin |
|
Austin |
Texas |
As a major football school, Texas A&M doesn’t really fit nicely into any of these areas. College Station is 90 miles from Houston, but similarly less than 100 miles from Austin.
Also left out in the cold is Texas Tech in Lubbock. The closest voter to Lubbock is in Fort Worth, which is nearly 300 miles away.
|
California City |
Home Teams |
|
Los Angeles area (x2) |
UCLA, USC |
|
San Francisco area (X2) |
San Jose St., California, Stanford |
For the sake of simplicity, we’re considering San Francisco/San Jose and LA/Riverside to be the same geographical areas.
This leaves Fresno State about half-way between the voters and San Diego State a couple hours south of LA…or about five hours on a bad LA traffic day (I’ve done that drive.) If Florida were to get four votes, maybe it is time for Texas and California to get 5? Interestingly, not a single voter from Texas or California was replaced this year.
Technically, there is one state with even more than 4 votes, and that’s New York. Oh, you won’t see it listed on the AP’s list of voters. It only shows one vote for New York. However, at the very bottom there is also a list of “National” voters. While these people may be national personalities, they are all headquartered in New York. Okay, ESPN’s headquarters is actually in Bristol, Connecticut, but it is owned and partnered with ABC, which is based in New York. So that makes six votes for New York. Why six? Well, because one more is hidden in Ohio �� Kirk Herbstreit. Yes, he played QB for Ohio State, and he may do some work for WBNS-AM radio, but certainly he is most well known (and well paid) for his work at ESPN. Admittedly, there are lots of arguments that could be made here. Technically Walt Disney owns ABC and ESPN, so you could say the votes are California votes, or you could say that ESPN should be considered Connecticut. Without belaboring the point, when determining demographics for these voters, we can clearly place these votes in the northeast of the country. That is a point often brought up by Pac-10 fans claiming ESPN has an “east-coast bias.”
A quick note on Herbstreit -- we’re not sure why he was lumped into “Ohio” instead of “National,” but we’ve sent the question to the AP. For now, we’ll guess that there is a rule against having two voters from the same organization. If that’s the case, having Craig James from ABC, Chris Fowler from ESPN, and Kirk Herbstreit from WBNS-AM is really stretching that rule. Pollspeak has no issue with all three participating, but we’d rather see the voters stay and the rule go away. Then we can be up-front about the locations of these people for regional bias tracking.
There are other examples of the AP re-aligning voters to cities along school ties, like in Michigan. In 2007, Michigan’s votes were in Ann Arbor (Michigan) and Oakland County, which you would expect would be near Michigan State. However, South Lyon is one of the closer cities in Oakland to East Lansing, but it is still 50 miles away and only 15 miles to Ann Arbor. So in 2008, the AP moved the vote from Oakland to Lansing.
We can�������t be sure if the AP will eventually try to realign all votes towards major school cities or if it will just be constantly changing. There are still plenty of examples to the contrary. For example, the state of Oregon’s lone vote is neither in Eugene nor Corvallis. It’s in Portland. Would it be better to put two voters in Oregon, one in each major school’s city? Applied nationwide, that could lead to over 100 voters.
Of course, the AP can’t completely control voter locations. Voters have to be willing to do the job, and they have to be eligible (no conflict of interests, school booster, etc.) So there may be some smaller cities that don’t have willing or eligible voters. Since the AP also allows radio and TV personalities, you would think the odds are good, though. On that note, here’s a breakdown of voters by medium:
|
Medium |
# of Voters |
|
Print* |
56 |
|
TV |
6 |
|
Radio** |
3 |
* Includes Steward Mandel of SI.com
** Includes Kirk Herbstreit of ESPN TV
In practice, we don’t know if increasing the number of voters would reduce bias. Especially since we know that beat writers don’t necessarily vote along geographic lines. The AP currently instructs voters to vote without bias, but if that is sufficient, why are they shifting votes to school cities? If the AP did put a voter in every school city, they could say that potential bias would be cancelled out. So if they are going to shift votes to school cities, they should be consistent to prevent the potential for even more uneven bias. Either way, the AP should continue to forbid biased voting…as long as they are diligent in looking for it. Pollspeak is here to help, and POLLSTALKER is the tool for the job.
As part of our preseason analysis of the polls, we look at who's doing the voting. We compare the voters from last year to this year and point out who's left and who's new. We’ll also look at potential regional or conference biases. We’ll begin the series with the USA Today Coaches’ Poll.
11 coaches from 2007 no longer have a vote in 2008. Obviously some of them are not coaching this year, but some are. Also two coaches have transferred schools and taken their votes with them. Art Briles, formerly of Houston, now coaching Baylor, retained a vote. Also, Rich Rodriguez, formerly of West Virginia, now coaching Michigan, retained his vote. The Coaches’ Poll actually added one more voter in 2008. So there are now 61 voters, whereas in 2007, there were 60. That means 12 coaches are voting this year that didn’t have a vote last year.
You can see the full list of coaching changes here; however, below is a summary of who’s in and out:
|
New in 2008 |
Removed since 2007 |
|
Bo Pelini, Nebraska |
Bill Callahan, Nebraska |
|
Butch Jones, Central Michigan |
Bill Cubit, Western Michigan |
|
Gary Pinkel, Missouri |
Bill Doba, Washington State |
|
Gene Chizik, Iowa State |
Bob Stoops, Oklahoma |
|
Jim Leavitt, South Florida |
Dennis Franchione, Texas A&M |
|
Kyle Whittingham, Utah |
Houston Nutt, Arkansas |
|
Mike Price, Texas-El Paso |
Jeff Bower, Southern Mississippi |
|
Rick Neuheisel, UCLA |
Joe Novak, Northern Illinois |
|
Todd Dodge, North Texas |
Larry Blakeney, Troy |
|
Todd Graham, Tulsa |
Lloyd Carr, Michigan |
|
Turner Gill, Buffalo |
Sonny Lubick, Colorado State |
|
Urban Meyer, Florida |
|
We could look at which teams lost or gained a vote. For example, Nebraska and Michigan retained votes even though their coaches were replaced. However, more interesting is how many votes each conference is getting:
|
2007 |
ACC |
Big 10 |
Big 12 |
Big East |
C-USA |
MAC |
M-West |
Pac-10 |
SEC |
Sun Belt |
WAC |
IND |
|
60 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
|
2008 |
ACC |
Big 10 |
Big 12 |
Big East |
C-USA |
MAC |
M-West |
Pac-10 |
SEC |
Sun Belt |
WAC |
IND |
|
61 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
So there is one extra voter in 2008, and that vote went to the Big 12. However, more important is how the votes are distributed by conference. Of course, Notre Dame has a vote, but we’ll overlook them as they are independent.
|
# of Votes (2008) |
Conference Names |
|
7 |
Big 10, Big 12, SEC |
|
6 |
ACC, C-USA, MAC |
|
5 |
Pac 10 |
|
4 |
Big East, M-West, Sun Belt, WAC |
Upon first glance, the most striking thing is that the Big East is lumped in with non-traditional BCS conferences getting only 4 votes. While other non-traditional BCS conferences like C-USA and the MAC get 6 votes (1 more than the Pac 10 even). However, here is another way to look at the breakdown that might help:
|
2008 |
ACC |
Big 10 |
Big 12 |
Big East |
C-USA |
MAC |
M-West |
Pac-10 |
SEC |
Sun Belt |
WAC |
|
# of votes |
6 |
7 |
7 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
|
# of Teams |
12 |
11 |
12 |
8 |
12 |
13 |
9 |
10 |
12 |
8 |
9 |
|
% of teams with vote |
50% |
~64% |
~58% |
50% |
50% |
~46% |
~44% |
50% |
~58% |
50% |
~44% |
So using %’s we can group the tiers this way:
|
% of teams with Vote |
Conference Names |
|
64% |
Big 10 |
|
58% |
Big 12, SEC |
|
50% |
ACC, Big East, C-USA, Pac 10, Sun Belt |
|
46% |
MAC |
|
44% |
M-West, WAC |
Using this method, the Big East and Pac 10 fare better, and we feel confident that this method was partially used for determining the number of votes. However, if you use the same rationale, we’re not sure why the Big 10 is on a tier of its own. With 11 teams in the Big 10, obviously there can’t be a nice round percentage of votes. However, why were they given 7 votes instead of say, 6, which would have put them in the 54.5% range? This would still put the Big 10 closer to the Big 12 & SEC than to the ACC, etc.
Using the number of teams in a conference to determine the number of votes can be dangerous though. It isn’t an accurate measure of the power a vote brings. In other words, the size of your conference really has less bearing when you consider that the total number of votes is fixed. There are 61 voters in the poll. If a conference has 7 votes, it controls approximately 11.5% of the poll, whether the conference has 8 teams or 13 teams. So if conference size is a factor in determining votes, the Big 10 is truly being treated like a special case.
We at Pollspeak are very happy to see these guidelines published. Thank you Mr. Wilner. We have not yet been able to obtain a copy of the 2007 guidelines, but we have received conflicting information, with more than one AP voter saying they don't remember seeing them last year and one saying that the guidelines are the same with the exception of the first one "Base your vote on performance, not reputation or preseason speculation," which is a new addition. We were also told the guidelines state that voters "can't be in the booster club of any school." If anybody can provide Pollspeak with an actual copy of the guidelines, please send them to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Meanwhile a request has been sent to the AP.
We at Pollspeak would like to think that our reporting has had some influence on the AP guidelines, but we will continue our investigation. One suggestion we will make to the AP in the future is that all voters should be required to acknowledge receipt and understanding of the guidelines in writing.
Pollspeak will kick off the official start of the 2008 football season with an update on any changes in the BCS polling process and explanations of the new features added to our site and Pollstalker. In the meantime, it is noteworthy that the first poll of the '08 season has been released -- the Pre-Season USA Today Coaches' Poll. Click the link to see results for the 55 ranked teams. As new pre-season polls are added (i.e. AP and Harris Interactive), you will be able to compare them all. In the meantime, note that the Coaches' Poll ballots are still concealed. If you would like to help make them public (or remove blind polls from the BCS formula) please be sure to sign the Free The Ballots Petition.
ne quick hit from the Coaches' Poll: South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier is infamous for perennially casting a vote for Duke in his pre-season ballot. It seems he has finally decided to abandon the practice.
