Christopher M. Hoover
Lucas Fisher
Professor Hubert Bray
Math 49s
27 October 2011
Players Poll
The months from September through November bring unity among millions
of people across the nation. The reason is simple…college football. Dedicated fans fill
stadiums to support their favorite teams for a variety of reasons. Some come to
tailgate, essentially attending a giant party. Others come for the sounds of the
marching band. Some come to support as alumni. Many find themselves high-fiving
the stranger next to them, so long as he is wearing the same color jersey. Regardless
of the reason, once the first whistle blows and the ball is kicked off, there is a
common sentiment shared between everyone. It is love for the game.
These same people eagerly await the college football rankings to come out
each week, hoping that their team moved into the Top 25, even more so hoping that
their rival slid out of the rankings. However, the current ranking system is unfair to
the fans. There are many rankings, the biggest being the AP Poll, USA Today Coaches
Poll, and the BCS Rankings. The sheer large number leaves the average fan
confused. The AP Poll is unofficially used for the first half of the season to rank
teams, until the BCS rankings come out. The NCAA has an agreement with the BCS,
which ensures that “the top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the
National Championship Game”1. The Coaches Poll, which is used in calculating the
BCS Poll, is required to vote the BCS champion number 1 in their final poll2.
However, the AP Poll does not have to adhere to the rule. It ended its involvement
with the BCS in 2004, following a controversial issue. In 2003, the BCS and USA
Today Coaches Poll recognized LSU as the National Champion after defeating
Oklahoma 21-14. However, the AP Poll, which at this time counted for a third of the
BCS rankings, voted USC as their National Champion after dismantling Michigan 2814 in the Rose Bowl. This upset fans across the country and led to the
disengagement of the AP Poll and BCS.
Taking a close look at the voting systems of the polls should remove even
more of their credibility. Currently, the AP Poll, which is conducted by sportswriters,
and the USA Today Coaches Poll, derived from the ballots of 59 Head Coaches, use
the Borda Count voting method. For the Borda Count method, each candidate gets 1
point for each last-place vote received, 2 points for every next-to-last-place vote,
etc., all the way up to N points for each first-place vote (where N is the number of
candidates).3 In the case of these Top 25 polls, the top place team will receive 25
points. The results of this system can be easily manipulated. For instance, if the top
two teams in either poll are separated by 24 points or less, a single voter can switch
the rankings of those two teams. The voter does this by simply leaving the number
one team completely out of their vote, dropping them a potential 25 points,
1
"BCS Explained, Bowl Championship Series." College Football Poll.com, Polls, Rankings, Predictions.
23 Oct. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html>
2 "Coaches' Poll." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 31 Oct. 2011.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaches_Poll>.
3 "TeacherSource . Math . Voting - Borda Count Method | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web.
31 Oct. 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/teachers/mathline/concepts/voting/activity1.shtm>.
assuming he voted them number one the previous week. The BCS Poll uses an
average of the Coaches Poll, Computer Rankings, and the Harris Interactive Poll to
establish it’s rankings4. All three rankings have a 1/3 influence on the BCS Poll, still
allowing manipulation of a ranking.5
The Player Poll was conducted to let collegiate football players vote for the
Top 25 teams in the nation. Initially, the first poll used the Borda Count method.
However, after learning of the Borda Count’s negative qualities, the Ranked Pairs
system, which is Condorcet, has since been used.
The Players Poll is a preferential ballot. The poll starts out by asking
respondents to rank the Top 25 football teams, in their view as a football player. The
first choice is “I have no preferences listed below this statement”. This choice acts as
a cutoff point. If a player only feels comfortable ranking his top twenty teams, he
could do so and place the statement as his twenty-first, which then would not count
the twenty-second through twenty-fifth teams. After the first choice, all Division 1
Football Bowl Subdivision members are listed in alphabetical order. The poll
started this season with Duke University football players. It is sent out in a survey by
email, which is invitation only, ensuring that players cannot forward the email to
outsiders. This assures the security of the ballot. The Player Poll has ranged from
five respondents to twenty-two. The low number of respondents was expected due
to the timing of the polls. The Duke Football team has been in-season while the polls
have been given out. Players may feel that they do not have time to complete the
"BCS Explained, Bowl Championship Series." College Football Poll.com, Polls, Rankings, Predictions.
23 Oct. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html>.
5 Ibid.
4
survey and thus disregard it. On the contrary, the results that these polls did exhibit
are insightful and thought provoking. For instance, in week one of the Player Poll
Stanford was ranked third by the members of the Duke Football team. Then Duke
played against Stanford in week two of the season and Stanford dropped to number
five in the poll. What is interesting about this is that Stanford did not lose against
Duke and the margin of victory was large. Something caused the Duke players to
change their minds about where Stanford should be ranked. In all likelihood this
resulted from the close first half score of the game between Duke and Stanford. It
appeared as if Duke still recognized Stanford as a top team, but after playing them,
saw that they may have been over-ranked. This does not happen in the current
NCAA polling systems. If a team wins – even by a small margin – its rank is not in
jeopardy of falling until the final BCS polling.
Also notable is the mobility of Clemson. In the first two Player Polls, Clemson
was unranked and received few Top 25 bids. Clemson was not ranked in the Top 25
in the AP poll either. In week four, Clemson climbed up to number 10 in the Player
Poll. Again in week five, Clemson moved up to number six. What this seems to elicit
is that the Player Poll is subject to change rankings, and fast. This is the greatest
strength of the poll because players recognize which teams are performing well and
which teams are not, therefore they vote honestly. This change in ranking for
Clemson was paralleled by the AP Poll as well. Clemson was ranked twenty-first in
week 4 and the week 5 poll saw them climb to thirteenth. The week 8 AP Poll voted
Clemson fifth. One difference between the current polls and the Player Poll is that
teams have greater mobility in the latter. With the Player Poll ranking Clemson sixth
after week five, it showed that the college football players sampled in the poll
recognized the talent level of Clemson. This is juxtaposed against the AP poll, which
took three weeks longer to recognize Clemson as a top ten team.
We also noticed inconsistent ranking, almost deemed unfair. For instance,
week 7 of the college football season saw #6 Wisconsin fall to #16 Michigan State
37-31 on a heroic hail mary pass as the final seconds ticked off the clock. This
resulted in Wisconsin dropping nine spots following the miracle last-second play.
This is in contrast to the Clemson Georgia Tech game in week 9. Clemson, ranked #5
at the time, was outplayed by an unranked Georgia Tech team, losing 31-17.
However, in this case, Clemson only dropped six spots, despite losing marginally
against an unranked opponent.
College football’s fans deserve a better ranking system than what is
currently used. They deserve a system based on honesty and integrity, exhibited by
the player poll, rather than one that is influenced by the possible socially desirable
responses of coaches and sportswriters.