I can't imagine very many voters using it, but at the very least it would be useful for discussion. And maybe it will become more important down the road. So, yes, I think you should do it.

Also, what about just a more low-tech listing of some important tidbits for each team -- e.g. their best wins, who they've lost to, their strength of schedule, etc.?

If the voter tool actually works, I'm all for it, but bias will remain and teams will always have to contend with those who consistently vote for a team based on seasons past rather than the current season.

Example - I found the ranking of Oregon and USC to be quite baffling. For weeks I heard analyst after analyst state that they could not rank Oregon above Boise State due to the head-to-head results even though Oregon's schedule was much tougher. By that logic, the beat down Oregon gave USC should have guaranteed Oregon to remain ahead of USC. But the following week Oregon drops below USC in all the polls??? Oregon beat USC by 27 - something almost unheard of. In my mind, every voter who placed USC above Oregon has lost all credibility. I recognize it's not just Oregon who's experienced this, so I sympathize with them as well. Sometimes bad voters should be replaced.

Sounds like a useful tool to throw into the mix. Like you said, it isn't going to fill out their ballots for them, just provide them with an "external hard drive" of sorts...something to help augment their base memory.

Oh Duckfan...how quickly you all cry fowl..er foul. Granted, your last sentence took a little of the juice out of my desire to respond in a biting manner, but here it goes anyway: I am pretty sure the author had you all in mind when he was making his critique on fans/pollsters using excessive excuses. I agree that your victory over USC was beyond impressive, it was historic. But, and this is where we get into the deep seated hypocrisy inherent to all subjective opinions, if we were to ask you about the Duck/Bronco rankings a week and a half ago, I am sure you would have been all for jumping the Ducks over BSU.

Go Broncos!! Crush the Vandals.

"Pollspeak has always advocated that when two teams have the same record, the team that wins the head-to-head match-up should be ranked over the loser."

While there are a number of abominations in the polls to support your point, there are also some good cases to be made for violating the rule. For instance you cited "Eight voters rank two-loss Arizona over one-loss Iowa." If the polls are supposed to reflect who is the better team now, then this is not unreasonable.

certanly Iowa was the better team on that day in September in Iowa City. But since then Arizona's first year quarterback, Nick Foles, has progressed enormously and Iowa just lost Stanzi for the season. Anyone who saw how inept they looked with Stanzi's backup at quarterback in the second half against Northwestern knows they are in a world of trouble.

It is not unreasonable for 'eight people' to believe that, if the two teams played today on some neutral field, Arizona would come out ahead.

The polls are not supposed to be standings - they are supposed to reflect how good the teams are relative to each other on the day the poll was taken.

The only problem I see with this idea is how to count W-L records. If teams can count wins over Charleston Southern, Florida International, The Citadel, North Texas, Furman, and other lower-division teams, then the BCS championship will often get teams -- like Florida and (especially) Texas this year -- that schedule lots of ooc cupcakes.

Indeed, I would argue that the BCS got it right last year favoring Oklahoma over Texas (despite head-to-head) because Oklahoma finished the year with an 11-1 record against BCS-level competition (including wins over TCU, Cincy, and Washington), while Texas finished the year with a 7-1 record against BCS-level competition. (Last year, like this year, the Longhorns played ZERO ooc BCS-level opponents.)

So, develop a system for counting "any given Saturday" games and ignoring "glorified scrimmages," and I'm all for using head-to-head as a tie-breaker when teams have identical W-L records. In the meantime, let's put a "Barry Bonds asterisk" besides the "official" W-L records of teams like Texas, Penn State, Texas Tech, Ole Miss, Kansas, and other teams that refuse to schedule even a single BCS-level ooc opponent.

Better yet, let's disqualify such teams from national championship consideration.

None of the writers or rankers systematically and explicitly exclude at least one required "logical upset" from consideration, i.e., in each of the following at least one of the game results is WRONG: AZ State > Washington > USC > AZ State; UTEP > Tulsa > Tulane > UTEP; Michigan > Notre Dame > Michigan State > Michigan. Until upset removals are done for at least each such cycle, analysis will perpetually and ridiculously circle about. The real art is in correctly identifying the right combination of upsets.

I don't think voters would use it. If they did they would still do whatever they wanted. BCS bowls are the same as any other bowl, accept the championship game. 1 and 2 are all that matter. It only matters to the schools and confrences who collect all the money from the BCS bowls. Fans really shouldn't care, we don't see any money. Why would it be so hard to leave the system exactly as is to set the top 8 teams for a playoff. Treat it like the elite 8 in b ball. You would only have to add 3 more games, that would generate more money for the powers that be, and the fans would have a true champion. It would be a lot easier to get the right 8 teams every year than 2.

They don't watch all the games or follow the teams close enough. They rely on past performances and really don't know how to evaluate teams if their name isn't Ohio State or USC.
It's all a joke, give us a playoff!

"Ten voters rank West Virginia over South Florida. The Mountaineers do have one more win so this is debatable, but both teams have two losses and the Bulls won the head to head."

After last night's performance, I don't disagree with them - even after tonight. Perhaps one game in an any-given-saturday type of sport is too much to hang a ranking on, after all.

While your logic is impeccable, your voters aren't logical. I'm no fan of the Ducks, but I'll leave that aside here. The fact is that USC gets votes because...well...because...it's USC. Good grief! Do you ever need a reason to vote for USC? It's...it's...it's USC! You can't have a top ten without USC. That's written somewhere, likely on that third stone tablet that Moses dropped (according to Mel Brooks). USC is ranked higher than the Ducks because...because they're USC, and that's why. So they lost. They're still, and always will be...USC.

And THAT is all you need to know. BTW, I think another one on that same tablet had to do with ND, but I'll leave that for another sermon some other time.

Bullsh@t... I spoke with an AP voter this wednesday and he said that its all crap. These people can't keep up with all the games and he even admitted that there is pressure to vote these BCS conference schools over others. I asked so who's the best team, and his response was "TCU, but I cant vote for them."
You must understand that all these people are just writers, they don't know crap. They write sports columns for a living, and usually have to attend one teams games every week which means they miss 90% of all the games because of prep and writing.
The only answer is a Playoff, Period.

Before everyone gets TOO excited about the opportunity to dump on USC for being (agreed, quite bizarrely) ranked over an Oregon team they lost to in head-to-head play, it should also be pointed out that AP voters put Ohio State above a USC team they also lost to in head-to-head play. Last week's poll was just plain weird in far too many ways.

Remember last season? Texas beats OU by 10, Sooners inflate scores on hapless opponents, and as a result of back Door Bob Stoopstoanything and his lack of lack of integrity they rank the Sooners ahead of Texas--same records---3 way big 12 tie means OU goes to the title game instead of Texas--Head to Head meant NOTHING last season either.

Head to head is only supremely relevant if one of the teams remains undefeated. Just because I lost to you does not mean you are an overall better team than me...You were better than me on THAT day. The entire season needs to be taken into account. Yes, your victory over me is very important, but it doesn't necessarily trump everything else we have done during the season.

Head to head is only supremely relevant if one of the teams remains undefeated. Just because I lost to you does not mean you are an overall better team than me...You were better than me on THAT day. The entire season needs to be taken into account. Yes, your victory over me is very important, but it doesn't necessarily trump everything else we have done during the season.

I just think folks think of the previous season and use that to keep teams ranked too high. Perfect example is USC, they where a great team in the past and pollsters and media cannot accept the fact that their terrible this year. They should be ranked lower the 20. I think the tool would be good to prevent the excuses but I doubt it will change the pollsters votes.

Okay, I weighed in earlier regarding Oregon and USC, but after this weekend's games, I think I'll be a bit more partisan. Oregon State defeated Stanford. They also defeated Washington, who in turn has defeated USC and Arizona. They defeated Cal, which just defeated Arizona. They have lost to only (supposedly) top ten teams. They haven't yet played Oregon (THAT will be an interesting game)

So, why isn't Oregon State ranked above any of those others? Better yet, why isn't Oregon State ranked...period? There's got to be room...since USC lost yet again...decisively!

Playoff is an obsession of US fans. Sometimes, so are polls. This year the pollsters went wacko and get teams up and down like yoyos. Take soccer, even if Man Utd lost to all other top 3 teams but get more points than the others at the end of the season, they are still the Champs. No questions asked. No one is whining for a playoff or head-to-head results. Playoff only says, on that given day, one team beats the other. The way it is now, the whole body of games over the season matters. The only arguments maybe the strength of schedule and margin of victory should get back into the whole formula of ranking. Head-to-head results are important but not that important. It should only matter in the first few weeks of the poll and anything beyond that, you will have that A beats B who beats C and who beats A cycles.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 12:02 AM ET  11.15 by coachfraker

Head to head is only supremely relevant if one of the teams remains undefeated. Just because I lost to you does not mean you are an overall better team than me...You were better than me on THAT day. The entire season needs to be taken into account. Yes, your victory over me is very important, but it doesn't necessarily trump everything else we have done during the season.

horsesh*t

This story and many of the comments seem to miss the underlying point/assumption of voting by humans. It is subjective in nature. Otherwise, if a common set of decision rules are adopted by voters, the result is basically a form of calculated decision-making (e.g., computer polls). So, the more that rules for ranking are adopted and used by voters, the more the voting polls move toward becoming computer models that are based on formulaic calculus. If there is a need for less subjectivity, toss out the voting polls. If not, then individual subjectivities need to be embraced, not controlled by decision rules.