Poll: Preseason football polls ... prediction, or current state of affairs?

[Johnny Dangerously]

Inspired by the thread on the USA Today coaches poll.

On what do you base your preseason vote, or if you don't have one, on what would you base it? Where you think teams will finish? Where you think teams are at this moment?

 

[alleyallen]

I voted other. It should be based on the hotness of cheerleaders and nothing else.

Seriously, it should be based on a combination of how we think they're going to do, based on their roster and their schedule.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Well, perhaps I worded it poorly and too simply, but if you vote a prediction of how the teams will finish, wouldn't that assume you are taking into account their rosters and their schedules?

 

[alleyallen]

Well, perhaps I worded it poorly, but if you vote a prediction of how the teams will finish, wouldn't that assume you are taking into account their rosters and their schedules?

Yes, you're right. Prediction. It's not a current state of affairs, legitimately, because you haven't actually played or proven anything.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I agree. But you'd be amazed at how many college beat writers I know who say it's not a prediction but a "starting point."

The difference in opinion is part of the basis for why I think the AP poll is outdated and either should go back to its origins -- the first poll runs after three or four games -- or go away. Thankfully it's no longer part of the formula for deciding who plays in the championship game. If the voters can't agree upon what the preseason poll means, isn't that a serious flaw?

 

[alleyallen]

I agree. But you'd be amazed at how many college beat writers I know who say it's not a prediction.

I'm amazed by a lot of things college beat writers say.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

How about "waste of time?"

 

[Bubba Fett]

Doesn't this illustrate how silly having a preseason poll is? If voters can't agree on what they're voting for, then what's the point in having one?

 

[Oz]

I voted for "A measure of teams' relative strength going into the season." You can't see how things are going to happen during the season -- injuries, suspensions, etc. The best you can do is rate the teams, based on how they enter the year, then allow teams to decide the rest on the field, where it should be decided.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

I voted for "A measure of teams' relative strength going into the season." You can't see how things are going to happen during the season -- injuries, suspensions, etc. The best you can do is rate the teams, based on how they enter the year, then allow teams to decide the rest on the field, where it should be decided.

How can you measure teams' relative strength when you have nothing but practice and intrasquad scrimmages to go on?

Polls should hold off until the end of September.

 

[Oz]

Returning starters, key losses, personnel issues, off-campus issues, spring practices ... it can be done with the proper amount of research.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

On all 117 teams? Or just 50? Or just the usual suspects from year to year?

 

[dooley_womack1]

Well, for the most part, you need not consider C-USA, Sun Belt and MAC teams for your top 25 voting. That narrows the starting field of 117 a bit.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Haven't there been Conference USA and MAC teams ranked in the Top 25 late in the season? If a voter considers the preseason poll a prediction, shouldn't those conferences' teams also be considered?

 

[dooley_womack1]

Yeah, but ever since Louisville left C-USA and Southern Miss became mediocre and Bowling Green lost a bit of steam, I can't imagine predicting any team from the conferences I mentioned as top 25 teams. Teams from those leagues occasionally pop into the top 25, but that's just gravy, not something one would reasonably predict.

 

[slappy4428]

Popularity contest....

And that's why you rarely, if ever, see teams from the MAC or C_USA in them to start the season

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Small sample, of course, but interesting results so far.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Returning starters, key losses, personnel issues, off-campus issues, spring practices ... it can be done with the proper amount of research.

Not until they're on the field. Preseason means nothing until you're head to head with an opponent. You can research 24/7 if you want, but it's impossible to legitimately rank teams until they play. Slappy's correct --- preseason polls are popularity contests.

 

[Oz]

Returning starters, key losses, personnel issues, off-campus issues, spring practices ... it can be done with the proper amount of research.

Not until they're on the field. Preseason means nothing until you're head to head with an opponent. You can research 24/7 if you want, but it's impossible to legitimately rank teams until they play. Slappy's correct --- preseason polls are popularity contests.

If they were a true popularity contest, then Penn State would probably be ranked than teams like California (8-4), Clemson (8-4) and Louisville (9-3) or even Iowa (7-5). But it's not.

 

[Chuck~Taylor]

Returning starters, key losses, personnel issues, off-campus issues, spring practices ... it can be done with the proper amount of research.

Not until they're on the field. Preseason means nothing until you're head to head with an opponent. You can research 24/7 if you want, but it's impossible to legitimately rank teams until they play. Slappy's correct --- preseason polls are popularity contests.

If they were a true popularity contest, then Penn State would probably be ranked than teams like California (8-4), Clemson (8-4) and Louisville (9-3) or even Iowa (7-5). But it's not.

Whe he's trying to say is that it only puts out the teams that have strong college football background. West Virginia did great last year, and they ended up being 7th.