Now, I certainly don’t expect voters to see all the games - that’s unrealistic. But I do expect them to utilize the fast forward button on the VCR. I think you could easily watch a 60 minute game in 30 minutes. MLB.tv offers a service where you can watch every pitch of a baseball game and it cuts out everything else - the whole thing takes about 15 minutes.
I also don’t expect most of these voters to go out of their way to track down 20-25 games a week to watch, but they could.
Considering that the average football game consists of 11 minutes of play action, I think it’s not as ridiculous as you make it sound to see a lot of games from any given weekend. (Sure, that’s a statistic for NFL games, but certainly college football is no better.)
If the poll votes were due to the AP or USA Today later in the week, that’d be realistic. But, I believe that the voters are required to submit their rankings by Sunday afternoon, at the latest (given that the weekly poll results are released on Sunday evening), so I suspect it’s simply not feasible.
Does anyone still have one?
That’s true - but it’s not an excuse to not watch the games. They’re perfectly capable of making adjustments in their rankings the next week if they see something important.
Every fan of any team should hope to play alabama over Boise.alabama is waaaaay over rated
In a closet…
In the AP polls you occasionally get voters who seem to have a particular ax to grind. An interesting case this week in which two voters left Wisconsin off the top 25 completely. Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury for one. Wisconsin unranked, but Oregon State ranked 23rd, because gosh darn it, they’ve tried real hard or something and Wisconsin was just a bully for scheduling Austin Peay. Wilner had Wisconsin ranked 15th (!!!) the previous week. Maybe if they had rolled up a century they could have stayed on his ballot.
See, that shit I just don’t understand. Isn’t having Austin Peay on the schedule already factored into the ranking at the beginning of the year? If they’re not, why even put together a pre-season ranking? Now, if Wisconsin got beat or looked particularly terrible, I’d understand. But dropping them (at least) 11 spots for something you knew about 3 months ago? No - that’s just being a pathetic voter.
I don’t believe he has a VCR or a DVR.
That is absurd. Someone would have to distill all the games down to a shorter time. 11 minutes of non stop action would not allow you to rate teams. Give it up.
You may want to have someone introduce you to the concept of fast forward.
Turns out, you can skip the vast amount of time-wasting nonsense in a football game by using a simple pair of buttons.
You may also want to have someone introduce you to the concept of hiring assistants.
Turns out, you can delegate certain tasks to people you hire.
But if your point is only that ratings are stupid because probably very few people really take the time to even read synopses of every game, much less watch highlights, well duh.
Coaches shouldn’t be voting, they simply don’t have the time. I’d rather have my coach spend 100% of his time studying the upcoming opponent, not trying to grade 25 other programs.
The theory is because they are insiders and know the game better than we, they can school us in polls. The BCS was supposed to eliminate slant and the human factor. It did not do it very well.
Seriously? I think that’s an unrealistic expectation. Even watching twenty-five games games condensed to 30 minutes each would take 12.5 hours , on top of the voter’s real job as a sportswriter or columnist or whatever. Where’s he supposed to find the time to do that?
I guess if I brought up the inherent insanity of not having an actual playoff (like every other sport played in college does), it would be somewhat off-topic.
Right?
Isn’t watching games where they get their stories? Baseball writers (the good ones) are watching 2-3 a night in real time, let alone pouring over the box scores and watching condensed games. It’s their friggin’ job to do nothing but watch sports and call up contacts who work/play for those sports.
It’s the difference between Joe Posnanski and Joe Morgan. One watches every game that he possibly can, the other watches one game a week - the one he gets sent to.
I am certainly not going to disagree with that.
That’s my point. On top of watching games in real time - and travelling to games- and talking to contacts, and god forbid writing the columns, articles and blogs, now they’re supposed to devote 12.5 hours in a day - with no breaks for meals or the restroom - to watch condensed versions of the top 25’s games. That’s not a reasonable expectation.
My DVD recorder has this cool “commercial skip” button that jump fast-forward 30 seconds at a time. If I hit it right after a play ends, it usually jumps right to the snap of the next play. Not so good for the “hurry-up” or two-minute drill, but its pretty neat to edit out a bunch of non-action.
My friend lives in L.A. and has Trojan season tickets. As a result, he usually only sees one/two games a week (well, that and he has a life). I live in the wilderness and will watch six/eight games.
Why am I sharing this? I don’t know. I can’t sleep, so here I am.
I didn’t suggest that. To do so over the course of a week - yeah, I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable. There are, of course, going to be games they can and have to skip. But to make an effort each week to watch the games you’re covering - that’s not unreasonable.