Coaches Poll Votes?

[buxfan4life]

Making this final vote private will only increase the bias (like Gatorubet pointed out), not create a "better poll"" no matter what Grant Teaff (Who?!?!?!) of Gallup thinks.

I would like to know why the coaches opinions are used in the BCS anyway. I am sure that those coaches that participate take ample time to truly evaluate all the FBS teams (other than theirs) fairly and acurately in order to get a non biased poll out.

The system sucks now and this will only make it worse.

 

[Steve19]

Agree. Bad move.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Making this final vote private will only increase the bias (like Gatorubet pointed out), not create a "better poll"" no matter what Grant Teaff (Who?!?!?!) of Gallup thinks.

I would like to know why the coaches opinions are used in the BCS anyway. I am sure that those coaches that participate take ample time to truly evaluate all the FBS teams (other than theirs) fairly and acurately in order to get a non biased poll out.

The system sucks now and this will only make it worse.

FWIW Grant Teaff is the director of the coaches association, he's not associated with Gallup.

as far as this gem goes:

Gallup recommended the change because confidentiality leads to a better poll, according to Teaff.

translated to the language of my people it comes out as

Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining

stick to the X's and O's Grant. A spin doctor you ain't.

 

[BB73]

Confidentiality might lead to a more accurate poll when you're asking people about personal information, but it doesn't help when the participants have a vested interest in the results of the polling.

The results of a poll that say that 47% of women under the age of 25 have used a vibrator, or intend to vote for legalize LSD in the next election doesn't really affect the women who gave answer; but when the results of the poll affect whether your conference gets a team in the BCS Title Game or gets 2 teams into BCS bowls, which can mean millions of dollars for your conference, confidentiality simply provides a shield to rig the results.

If the Gallup folks don't realize the difference, they're idiots.

 

[buxfan4life]

FWIW Grant Teaff is the director of the coaches association, he's not associated with Gallup.

Thanks for the clarification. You know, I should have picked that up since it was clearly stated in the post. I guess my long/short week (always seems these 4 day work weeks seem longer than a normal week) has taken a toll on my brain.

But, I don't feel so bad since blueinfla pointed out that as Buckeye fans on a Buckeye board, our reading comprension must be whacked anyway.

 

[Jaxbuck]

.
The results of a poll that say that 47% of women under the age of 25 have used a vibrator...

HAWT

If the Gallup folks don't realize the difference, they're idiots.

I think the Gallup folks realize it. Teaff is essentially an elected union leader sifting through 300 pages of data to find 1 line he can use to favor his union members.

We know its bullshit, Gallup knows its bullshit, Teaff knows its bullshit, he's just doing his job.

 

[BB73]

The coaches votes in the final poll of the regular season will still be public this year. If the coaches wish to keep their votes private next year, the BCS could switch a new poll into their formula. If that happens, neither of the 2 traditional polls that determined the MNC would be involved in the BCS.

CBS.Dodd

AFCA delays change to coaches poll at BCS request

Concerned in part with continuing attacks on the Bowl Championship Series, BCS officials successfully lobbied the American Football Coaches Association to delay a controversial change in the coaches poll by a year, CBSSports.com has learned.

The AFCA raised eyebrows on May 27 by announcing that its 16-member board of trustees voted unanimously to once again hide the final ballots of its 62 voting coaches starting in 2010. The AFCA has made those ballots public the previous four years.

The return to a lack of transparency upset BCS officials more than what was originally known. There are indications that the change could be a deal breaker, going forward, in the coaches poll's inclusion in the BCS. The poll is one of two human components in the BCS. The Harris poll is the other. There are also six computer indexes that are factored in.

The BCS has been under renewed pressure this year from Capitol Hill and from one of its own members (the Mountain West Conference). That was part of the reason the coaches were asked to delay implementation from 2009 to 2010. Opponents have enough ammunition against the BCS without it trying to explain how champions are determined, in part, by a secret vote.

The BCS also didn't want to scramble so close to the 2009 regular season to find a replacement poll if it dropped the coaches poll because of the change, one source indicated. Dropping the coaches poll seems to be an ongoing possibility -- call it leverage for the BCS -- if the AFCA follows through with once again hiding the ballots. The BCS adjusted in 2004 after the Associated Poll dropped out because of ethical concerns. The BCS then assembled the Harris poll to replace AP.

While not outwardly criticizing the change, BCS coordinator John Swofford released a cryptic statement in May: "The commissioners review all aspects of the BCS arrangement -- including the BCS standings -- at the conclusion of each season, and I know the AFCA's decision will be on the agenda for that review after the January 2010 games."

Cont'd ...

AFCA delays change to coaches poll at BCS request

 

[Abenaki]

Would anyone be that upset if the Coaches Poll wasn't a determining part of the process? I know I wouldn't be surprised if more than half didn't even fill out their own ballot, so what's really the point? If we're trying for the best solution I'm not sure that the coaches voting factors into the equation.

 

[Steve19]

I think the Coaches' Poll provides a useful balance to the press poll.

 

[Abenaki]

I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory.

I like the idea of the coaches poll. Ideally they're the most successful at teaching football, so they ought to know better than anyone which teams are the best. But, I don't think they have enough time or motivation to watch 25-30 teams each week and evaulate them. They get paid to win games for their teams.

 

[Zurp]

I have a couple of problems with the coaches' poll:

1. Do the coaches actually watch these games? The Universities are paying them to coach their teams and get some wins - not to rate their teams against all of the other teams in Division Ia. For instance, Jim Tressel ought to be watching game film on his team, and gam film on his opponents. Other than that, he ought not be watching much of LSU vs. Alabama.

2. I don't think the coaches should have any part of who gets into what bowl games. In 2006, Jim Tressel actually had the opportunity to vote on who his team would play in the National Championship game. He did the right thing (though he got blasted in the media for it) and didn't vote at all. I don't remember how close the Michigan vs. Florida thing was, but can you imagine if the same situation arises in the future, and the coach DOES vote, and the team that gets into the BCS national championship game gets in my such a small margin that the one coach's vote actually decided it? That would be retarded.

3. Bulletin-Board material. And in more ways than one. First, you vote your team over your opponent. Meh - I don't find that so bad. But second, you vote the other team over your team. How do you expect your players to play for you if you vote that your team can't beat the other team?

 

[Abenaki]

The Tebow All-SEC fiasco going on right now is exactly why I don't feel that the coaches poll is all it's cracked up to be. Someone else filled out the ballot and Spurrier signed off on it by barely glancing at it. I'm guessing that happens more often than not with the top 25 poll as well.