A different look at the “new” USA Today Coaches’ Poll

By Bart Doan  |   Wednesday, June 03, 2009  |  Comments( 3 )

College Football
Got something to say?

Log In above and share your thoughts on this topic with other fans!

It’s back to the future for college football. While the rest of the world continues to at least attempt to advance, the 61 coaches who make up the AFCA/USA Today Coaches Poll have thumbed their nose at that idea, voting instead last week to keep their final ballots secret from public viewing.

The whole process seemed fishy when we got a chance to actually see how the coaches felt. Now, with this new veil of secrecy, aren’t things just going to get worse? If the releasing of the polls has shown anything worth questioning, two inevitable truths show up. First, coaches seem to have an inflated opinion of anyone either in their conference or that appears on their schedule. Second, coaches seem to have some sort of bond with past job stops, voting those teams higher than their peers.

Opinion since this decision to go secret again has been met with the obvious scrutiny that this will only get worse. Could there be another way, however? There are two ways of looking at this, and because the season is still three months away, let's do just that.

Pessimist: This seems to be the more popular point of view. This is the opinion that figures things will just get worse than they are. For instance, Florida's Urban Meyer went out on a limb and voted his former employer, Utah, higher than any other BCS coach last season. Without having to release his polls, might he just fly off the handle and vote the Utes at No. 2? Or take Georgia's Mark Richt, who absentmindedly ranked Florida and Alabama in the top two, saying essentially that the BCS title game should be between teams that played all of two days before his vote went public. With no media or public to appease, why not just put four SEC teams in the top five, Mark?

This isn’t just an SEC issue, though. Of the nine No. 3 rankings Southern Cal got last season, four came from Pac-10 coaches. Only one Pac-10 coach didn’t put Southern Cal in the top three, and that was Mike Bellotti -- who had them fourth. It’s obvious that having to play someone every year means they get free points right off the bat. Sure, it might be because these coaches actually get to analyze these conference teams; if that is truly the case, though, wouldn’t that mean they’re admitting that the poll is a farce in and of itself because they don’t see teams from other regions enough to make an equally educated guess? Basically, the pessimist says that the USA Today poll will forever be nothing more than a regional popularity contest, and with no one to scrutinize the picks, who’s to stop these coaches from playing up their conferences even more? After all, if the conference has highly ranked teams, doesn’t it benefit you to play and beat those teams?

Optimist: This is the point of view not taken much. Without having to worry about what a rival coach might spin as “disrespect," a coach can calmly vote his archrivals where he thinks they really are as opposed to having to worry about how this might affect future contests with that team. There are certain coaches who do this anyway. Look at Missouri's Gary Pinkel last season. Pinkel ranked Utah an astounding 15th in his final poll, which was six slots lower than any other of the 61 coaches. In addition, Pinkel did himself no favors in jumbling the other two mid-majors right behind in the rankings, forcing them in so he didn’t look any more biased than he already did. Among Boise State, Utah and TCU, the three highest-ranked mid-majors in the poll, Pinkel had them a combined 21 spots lower than they actually finished in the poll. Without having to answer why the rankings looked so skewed, might more coaches vote like Pinkel?

Now, let’s stop short of saying Pinkel is some sort of voting visionary, but it’s clear that most coaches were unable to see past their previous jobs or their current team’s region. Wouldn’t it be nice if finally, coaches could vote without the worry of whom they might be motivating?

The only major question from here is why they chose to enact this change in 2010. Why not start keeping the vote secret this upcoming season? The only positive that can come from this is to assess the public outcry from such a decision without having to actually put the new law in place for another season. Are they hoping to clean up the messiness that has been left recently after the polls have been released? One can only assume that to be the case.

The constant waffling, appearance of being bothered by criticism, and the one-year waiting period suggests what most college football fans fear the most -- that the bus keeps rolling, but no one is actually behind the wheel.
Got something to say?

Log In above and share your thoughts on this topic with other fans! (3)

About Bart Doan

Bart has been with Realfootball365.com for about six months and thoroughly enjoys writing for the site. He has been featured for his writings on college football in The Sporting News, The Indianapolis Star, Sports Illustrated, and on CBS Sportsline.com. When he's not drowning himself in the ...
read more
Article Tools Share!   |  RSS  |  Bleacher Report About Bleacher Report