After 20 years of overseeing the Associated Press Top 25, I frequently had to clarify a common misconception: I did not vote in the college football poll. Now, for the first time in my career, I am a member of the AP Top 25 voter panel, an honor I accepted after my colleague Matt Brown diligently handled the task for eight years.
The decision was not one I made lightly. I valued my position above the fray, where my role was to administer the poll, help select voters, and ensure the accurate and timely submission of ballots. Afterward, I would analyze the results, highlighting notable shifts and fascinating outcomes. I often approached the Sunday morning rankings with the same critical eye as a fan, and I was not shy about politely disagreeing with certain rankings in my columns. Two decades of scrutinizing weekly ballots taught me that there are almost always multiple valid perspectives.
I am often skeptical of pundits and fans who adamantly criticize the AP Top 25, especially early in the season. These critiques usually boil down to a simple complaint: the voters did not rank teams the way the critic would have, therefore the voters are wrong. My goal as a voter is to be as informed and thoughtful as possible, recognizing that this exercise is ultimately one of educated guesswork.
This is never more true than with the preseason poll. The notion of eliminating preseason rankings is misguided; predicting outcomes and debating team strength is the essence of sports commentary. The Top 25 is merely a formal extension of this, and if the AP were to stop, countless other outlets would continue to produce their own forecasts.
My process for creating this preseason ballot was meticulous. As a fan of advanced metrics, I believe in using objective data to inform a subjective process. I began by creating a composite top 40 from four prominent computer ratings, which I then organized into tiers. While no team was locked into its initial tier, this structure served as my foundation.
I did not project wins and losses based on schedules. Instead, I leaned on established power ratings and continuity, analyzing returning starters and production, with an extra emphasis on quarterback clarity. I also referenced Bud Elliott’s “Blue-Chip Ratio,” which measures the percentage of four- and five-star recruits on a roster. Furthermore, I adhered to a principle, supported by data, that defensive performance tends to be more consistent year-to-year than offensive output.
Despite this data-driven framework, I quickly realized that strict adherence to any single criterion is impossible. Some decisions were simply based on feel. For instance, I gave Penn State a slight edge over Ohio State, Alabama, and Georgia due to its stability at quarterback with Drew Allar. Conversely, I ranked Texas at No. 1, granting significant benefit of the doubt to new quarterback Arch Manning and a rebuilt offensive line. Similarly, I elevated Clemson to No. 6, higher than computer models suggest, because of its returning talent, yet I remain cautious about a defense that underperformed last season.
The most difficult challenge this preseason was navigating the quarterback uncertainty at several top-tier programs, including Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Notre Dame, and Oregon. Nothing can undermine a talented roster faster than subpar quarterback play. The middle of the poll, particularly spots 10 through 14, proved vexing; placing Texas A&M at No. 10 felt like a slight overreach. In a seeming contradiction to my preference for quarterback experience, I ranked Michigan and its freshman quarterback at No. 11.
I am banking on teams like No. 12 Oklahoma and No. 19 Utah, which both feature strong defenses and have imported new quarterback-offensive coordinator tandems to revitalize their offenses. My ranking for Utah is my most vibes-based selection, as it is not strongly supported by the numbers. Oklahoma’s formidable schedule means the team could easily make me look foolish.
I was conflicted about Illinois. While the computers are skeptical of a repeat of last year’s 10-3 record, the team’s experience and continuity merited a high ranking. At No. 18, I fear I have still ranked them too generously. On the other hand, while computer models favor Tennessee and Ole Miss, I am more skeptical due to significant turnover. I slotted the Rebels in at No. 23 and left the Volunteers out entirely.
As the season progresses, wins and losses will be paramount. A ranking is a reward, and a team that loses consistently, no matter how strong its underlying metrics, will likely not appear on my ballot.
When I used to recruit media members to vote, I would summarize my expectation with three words: “Take it seriously.” Now on this side of the process, I promise to hold myself to that same standard.
Source link
