![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was reading on a TV network website with people griping about the voters in the top 25 polls this year.
I'm not about to defend the voters in the polls. Imagine a season where there are about 30 undefeated teams going into the 4 week. Image you have two unranked teams playing each other in week two. One barely avoids losing to the other and somehow that qualifies the winner to jump into the polls. The next week the team that lost plays another unranked team and manages to to lose again in overtime on a trick play. This apparently qualifies the winner of the game in week three to vault into the polls. No one gripes that beating a team almost no one thought should be in the top 25 qualifies you to be in the top 25. They do get very upset that someone does vote to put the team that lost both games in the top 25. Personally, I'm not sure how you can vote for any of the three teams without voting for all of them. Clearly, there isn't a lot of difference between them. So if you are going to vote for one you ought to vote for all of them. But, if winning is everything. like a lot of twits feel, I suppose you can justify voting for two and not the third.
I do think that perhaps you have to question the voters when a team that barely makes it into the top 25 one week gets more votes by barely squeaking by against a much inferior team the next week. Yes, the team that won the first of the games above falls into that category. But then so does my personal favorite team which rose one place in the Coaches poll this week after nearly blowing the game last weekend and winning on a fluke play in the last minute. I don't mind voters who voted for these teams before to continue voting for them, but why are they attracting more votes this week?
I am a bit amused that the posters on the network conversation are coming down hard on ex-football star and colorman Craig James for voting somewhat bizarrely. Now anyone who has ever heard Craig James speak on the subject of college football knows that considering he has been in a position to know more about football than almost everyone, he knows less about college football than the average couch potato and probably less about it than your average bowl of mashed potatoes. Why ESPN hired this person and continues to employ him is probably wrapped up in the byzantine world of ratings. Everybody likes to yell at the loudmouth nincompoop on the TV screen, after all. But why does this person have a vote in the AP poll? I don't have a clue.
I'm not about to defend the voters in the polls. Imagine a season where there are about 30 undefeated teams going into the 4 week. Image you have two unranked teams playing each other in week two. One barely avoids losing to the other and somehow that qualifies the winner to jump into the polls. The next week the team that lost plays another unranked team and manages to to lose again in overtime on a trick play. This apparently qualifies the winner of the game in week three to vault into the polls. No one gripes that beating a team almost no one thought should be in the top 25 qualifies you to be in the top 25. They do get very upset that someone does vote to put the team that lost both games in the top 25. Personally, I'm not sure how you can vote for any of the three teams without voting for all of them. Clearly, there isn't a lot of difference between them. So if you are going to vote for one you ought to vote for all of them. But, if winning is everything. like a lot of twits feel, I suppose you can justify voting for two and not the third.
I do think that perhaps you have to question the voters when a team that barely makes it into the top 25 one week gets more votes by barely squeaking by against a much inferior team the next week. Yes, the team that won the first of the games above falls into that category. But then so does my personal favorite team which rose one place in the Coaches poll this week after nearly blowing the game last weekend and winning on a fluke play in the last minute. I don't mind voters who voted for these teams before to continue voting for them, but why are they attracting more votes this week?
I am a bit amused that the posters on the network conversation are coming down hard on ex-football star and colorman Craig James for voting somewhat bizarrely. Now anyone who has ever heard Craig James speak on the subject of college football knows that considering he has been in a position to know more about football than almost everyone, he knows less about college football than the average couch potato and probably less about it than your average bowl of mashed potatoes. Why ESPN hired this person and continues to employ him is probably wrapped up in the byzantine world of ratings. Everybody likes to yell at the loudmouth nincompoop on the TV screen, after all. But why does this person have a vote in the AP poll? I don't have a clue.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
As for Craig James - I think he's mostly on TV because he's a handsome, articulate, ex-jock, no matter how little he seems to know. (And the massive conflict of interest he engendered with the coverage of Texas Tech last year.)
Although, I would like to hear Craig James talk about Reggie Bush and paying college players - since that's one thing he'd definitely know about.