During my 20 years overseeing the Associated Press Top 25, I can’t count how many times I had to tell people that no, I don’t vote in the college football poll.
It was a common and totally understandable misconception. And, frankly, I would often joyfully make the correction.
“Don’t blame me. I don’t vote.”
Now you can blame me.
For the first time in my long career covering college football, I am part of the AP Top 25 voter panel. I was honored to be asked to participate by my former colleagues and happy to relieve my new colleague Matt Brown of voting duties after he diligently handled the task for eight years. There is no “I” in team, right?
It also was not an easy decision for me to become a voter. I liked being above the fray. My job was to administer the poll. Help pick voters. Make sure all the votes were cast accurately (and hopefully, on time) on Sunday mornings. And then write about the poll, highlighting the news and most fascinating and notable results.
After educating questioners about my role, I would often add that while yes, the poll was a massive part of my job — and to a degree I was (and still am) protective of it — I looked at the poll on Sunday mornings much like a fan.
Plenty of times I was incredulous about this or that ranking. I wrote a column where I would critique the results, politely disagreeing on certain rankings.
Rarely, if ever, was I obstinate in my opinion. Having spent two decades poring over the weekly rankings, I learned there were almost always multiple correct answers.
I roll my eyes at pundits, talking heads and fans who adamantly criticize the AP Top 25 — especially in the first half of the season — because a team they believe should be No. 2 was only ranked fifth or sixth. I have come to realize pretty much every critique of the poll comes down to this: The voters didn’t vote the way I would have voted, and I am right. Hence, they are wrong.
Unjustified confidence in subjective opinions is one of America’s most abundant resources these days.
My goal as a voter is to be as informed as possible and thoughtful about my ballot. I am under no delusion that my vote, my opinion, is the only correct one. This is an exercise in educated guessing.
That is never more true than with the preseason poll. The idea of getting rid of preseason polls is kind of silly. About 75 percent of sports content is some combination of trying to predict the future and arguing over whether Team A is better than Team B.
The preseason Top 25 is just an extension of that, and if the AP stopped ranking teams there would still be endless websites, experts and computer programmers forecasting the season. Try telling Phil Steele to stop ranking teams before the season.
So here’s how I went about it. First off, it took a long time and I probably over-thought it.
Ralph Russo’s Preseason Top 25
I’m a Moneyball sports fan. I like advanced metrics in all sports. Anything that can make a subjective process more objective, I’m all for it. But even the number-crunchers who produce the various college football rating systems will tell you they don’t view their rankings as gospel truth.
Still, the numbers are a good place to start, so that’s what I did. Using four prominent computer ratings, I created a composite top 40 to consider and broke those teams into tiers of about five to eight based on range of ranking. I also considered the Massey composite, which compiles more than a dozen computer rankings. I feel like that’s a little much, and I’m not familiar with all the rating systems.
No team was guaranteed to stay in its tier, but the tiers were the foundation. A few teams moved up or down multiple tiers, but most either stayed in their tier or moved up or down one tier.
I did not assess schedules and project wins and losses. I did use one particular win projection system as a reference that was not part of the composite ranking. Ranking Penn State ahead of Ohio State right now doesn’t mean I’m picking Penn State to beat Ohio State on Nov. 1. I’ll deal with that when it happens.
I leaned into what we know: power rankings and continuity in the form of returning starters, starts and production (thanks, ESPN’s Bill Connelly), with a little extra emphasis on quarterback clarity.
I referred to the Blue-Chip Ratio (thanks, Bud Elliott of 247Sports), which measures what percentage of a team’s roster consists of four- and five-star recruits. Stars matter, some might say.
One more guiding principle: One of the number-crunchers I respect a lot has found that defense tends to be stickier year-to-year than offense. The data suggests flipping a bad offense into a good one is more likely than fixing a bad defense.
And with all that, still some of this was vibes. What I realized quickly is that it is impossible to strictly adhere to a set of criteria and be consistent.
I gave Penn State a boost within the top tier because the Nittany Lions are a more known quantity than Ohio State, Alabama and Georgia, especially at quarterback with Drew Allar. (I hear your doubts about Allar and acknowledge them.) But I also had Texas No. 1, giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to Arch Manning and a totally rebuilt offensive line and receiver group.
Similar to Penn State, I nudged Clemson up a tier to No. 6 compared to what the computers think of the Tigers because of an impressive set of returning stars, led by quarterback Cade Klubnik. But I’m still somewhat skeptical of the Tigers’ hype because fixing a defense is hard and Clemson’s defense didn’t play well last year.
Without question, the toughest part of filling out the top of the ballot this year is dealing with quarterback uncertainty surrounding some of the most talented teams. Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Notre Dame and Oregon will all have new starters with varying degrees of inexperience. Nothing can undermine a good roster like subpar quarterback play.
I found spots 10 through 14 particularly vexing. Any team I put 10th felt overranked. Congratulations, No. 10 Texas A&M.
For all my talk about deferring to experienced quarterbacks, I ranked Michigan and its freshman quarterback Bryce Underwood at No. 11. What?
No. 12 Oklahoma falls into the bucket of teams with a good defense that I am betting on to successfully make over a bad offense.
Like the Sooners, Utah imported a quarterback-offensive coordinator combo to boost its offense. The Utes always play good defense. At No. 19, Utah is by far my most vibes-based selection. The numbers don’t support that ranking.
Oklahoma also sets up as the team most likely to make me look foolish. The Sooners’ schedule is so hard that they will need to perform at the highest end of their expectations just to avoid losing five or six games.
Looking ahead, wins and losses count. Obviously, not all wins and losses are equal, but a ranking is a reward, and a team that maintains a high power ranking — that looks good under the hood, so to speak — while losing about half its games is probably not getting ranked by me.
I was totally conflicted about Illinois. The computers are skeptical of Bret Bielema’s Illini repeating last year’s 10-3 record, and so am I. But if I’m committed to rewarding experience and continuity, how can I not have Illinois in the top 20? At No. 18, I fear I have still overranked the Illini.
On the other end, the computers love Tennessee and Ole Miss. Despite a lot of turnover, each slots in as about a top-12 team. I’m not buying it. I slipped the Rebels in at No. 23 and left the Volunteers out.
So here we are. I’m a voter now. Critique away. I’m easy to find on social media. I might even respond to your complaints.
When I was on the other side of this process, recruiting media members to participate, I would sum up our expectations for voters with three words: Take it seriously.
No matter what you think of me as a voter, I promise to follow my own rule.
(Photo: Mitchell Leff / Getty Images)
Source link
