Should Pollster's Votes Be Publicized?
It's starting to get fun once again. Alabama tastes a loss for the first time in some 20 months. Greg McElroy lost a game and I am thankful we will not be subjected to the weekly reminder that the Texan has not lost since 8th grade. Colt had his helmet on and frankly, probably came closer to seeing some action than most would believe as Jake Delhomme (who is making $19.7 million this season...and yes...you read that right) was absolutely woeful in replacing Seneca Wallace yesterday. Oh, and the #1 item on my Christmas list, "Death to the BCS," is released prior to the first BCS rankings which are due out this upcoming weekend. But, this is not an anti-BCS rant. It's not even an anti-Boise State carpet piece of loquaciousness. It's simply about the lack of accountability regarding the voters...
There is a fantastic article by Chris Dufresne of the LA Times in reference to this problem. The most glaring, egregious error this week was ranking Alabama in the top 10 and ahead of South Carolina. This is not a Gamcock team that got lucky. No, they beat the former #1 team in the nation and defending MNC champions by two touchdowns. They also pretty much whipped them in every facet of the game. They answered the 2nd half abysmal start (um, Stephen Garcia, what the hell was that?) and took control of the game, making plays during the most crucial stretches of the contest, against a team who essentially always figures out a way to win. East USC's lone loss was on the road to a good, albeit a bit lucky, Auburn squad. Their record is identical to Alabama's, yet somehow they are ranked behind them. I believe this may not be the case were voters required to publish their ballot on a weekly basis. Why the push back here? What is there to hide or protect? It's these policies which gets the conspiracy theorists train moving with more and more momentum. The fact that Oregon State is not in the top 25 as a two loss team is certainly comical. Each loss is to a current top 5 team.
I've often not understood the human element with the polls. There is either clear bias, or clear incompetence here in these two examples. East USC deserves better at this point in the season. What if they both win out? Will the pollsters keep 'Bama ahead of them per the "business as usual" platform which is stood upon every week? Did they ever consider that East USC was ranked too low to begin with? That's a good football team with solid playmakers on both sides of the ball. Give them their due.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Their record is identical to Alabama’s, yet somehow they are ranked behind them. I believe this may not be the case were voters required to publish their ballot on a weekly basis. Why the push back here? What is there to hide or protect? It’s these policies which gets the conspiracy theorists train moving with more and more momentum.
45-35, beaches.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on Oct 11, 2010 2:06 PM CDT reply actions
45-35 is not a valid companion to the original comment by Mulliganville
that was a 3-way tie situation with Tech. USC/Alabama is clear cut. USC should be ranked ahead of Alabama, period. Any argument against it can easily be dismissed as lunacy. With TX/OU/Tech in 08, there was no clear cut winner.
Although I find myself fully agreeing with your comment. 45-35!
by longhorn_dan on Oct 11, 2010 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the biggest difference is that UT beat OU on a neutral field.
SC won at home. I bet Alabama would win if they played again in Alabama (we may get to see the game replayed on a neutral field).
by Texas Wahoo on Oct 12, 2010 12:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Rankings still influenced by eye test, subjective "power rankings"
I don’t think we could ever get to a point where the human polls give due credit to what happens on the field. To some people that is still their (to them) justifiable standard. It is why Boise is the projected #1 in the BCS rankings; people just think they’re that good, to hell with them having to prove it.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
That is my point...
East USC just proved it…yet they are still looking uphill. If they lose again, I have no problem with ’Bama moving ahead of them at that point.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." ~ Will Muschamp
"I always felt like, and I paid a price for it, that it didn't seem right for one guy to bring me down." ~ The Tyler Rose
by Mulliganville on Oct 11, 2010 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Publicizing poll votes has problems too.
In that the way a person votes could have an influence on their career or livelihood. Naturally, this would lead to people voting in a manner to minimize that risk i.e. in a biased way.
Look the current system isn’t perfect, but there’s a reason that when we vote for elected officials, our votes are kept private. I think similar logic applies here.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on Oct 11, 2010 4:03 PM CDT reply actions
Valid point...
we all know the solution. Only a matter of time.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." ~ Will Muschamp
"I always felt like, and I paid a price for it, that it didn't seem right for one guy to bring me down." ~ The Tyler Rose
by Mulliganville on Oct 11, 2010 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on Oct 11, 2010 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Nevertheless, I don't believe there are any checks and balances
Like the blog poll, someone could have forgotten South Carolina altogether and the system assumes it was on purpose. I’m guessing most voters don’t QA their work. Maybe there needs to be a WTF police at least reviewing the ballots.

by 






























