I'm curious what the rest of you think about the privacy of the coaches poll. There is a lot of talk about revealing which coach votes for whom publically. While this would address the issue of biased voting, I see a problem with it for two reasons:
1) It could have very negative connotations on the team and the community if a coach voted accurately for a team that he is supposed to dislike, such as Tressel putting Michigan high. Also, if Tressel puts them too low he will provide message board fuel for the other team during practices.
2) Coaches will stop voting for teams that they believe are worthy but might be viewed as worthy but would cause their votes to be questioned. For instance, if a coach thought Auburn was #1 that would immediate be a red flag on his voting record. But worse, lesser teams like Louisville will be ranked lower to save face.
Personally, I think that the votes should be reviewed, but by a select group that protects the privacy of the voters. They could hold them accountable but not cause public uproar over their votes.
No big surprise here, Fulmer wants to hide some more.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1965508
1) It could have very negative connotations on the team and the community if a coach voted accurately for a team that he is supposed to dislike, such as Tressel putting Michigan high. Also, if Tressel puts them too low he will provide message board fuel for the other team during practices.
2) Coaches will stop voting for teams that they believe are worthy but might be viewed as worthy but would cause their votes to be questioned. For instance, if a coach thought Auburn was #1 that would immediate be a red flag on his voting record. But worse, lesser teams like Louisville will be ranked lower to save face.
Personally, I think that the votes should be reviewed, but by a select group that protects the privacy of the voters. They could hold them accountable but not cause public uproar over their votes.
No big surprise here, Fulmer wants to hide some more.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1965508
ESPiN said:AFCA hands out surveys on poll ballot disclosure
Associated Press
<!-- template inline --><!-- insertinlineAd --> LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- College football coaches delayed a vote Wednesday on whether to release the ballots for their weekly poll, though some made it clear they strongly oppose the idea.
<!-- BEGIN INLINE UNIT --> <iframe src="http://adsatt.espn.go.com/ad/sponsors/utilities/espn/adslug_120_160.html" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" align="middle" frameborder="0" height="12" scrolling="no" width="1"></iframe>
<!-- END INLINE UNIT --> "I don't see how that could be anything but a negative," Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer said.
Wyoming coach Joe Glenn said, "I've got no hidden agenda, but you've got nothing good in it."
Just over half of the nation's Division I-A coaches -- 59 of 117 -- attended the final day of the American Football Coaches Association's annual convention in Louisville.
AFCA executive director Grant Teaff led a forum on the ESPN/USA Today poll, which came under fire after Texas overtook California for the last at-large bid in the Bowl Championship Series.
Six coaches dropped Cal below No. 6 in the final poll, prompting Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen and Cal coach Jeff Tedford to ask the 61 coaches who voted to disclose their ballots. The AFCA voted down the request.
On Wednesday, Teaff handed out a three-question survey to the coaches in attendance.
The survey asked whether the coaches would:<bullet></bullet>
release their ballots every week;
release their ballots at the end of the season only; and
<li>continue to vote if their ballots were ever released publicly.
Teaff said the rest of the coaches would receive surveys by mail. An official vote would not take place until all the surveys have been received, Teaff said.
"We're trying to make a decision based on what we think is best for our game and our teams and our players," Teaff said.
The AFCA twice rejected proposals in the past year to disclose the coaches' ballots publicly. Teaff said the more likely change this time was for the coaches to release their ballots at the end of the season.
"I don't think they're interested with dealing with it on a weekly basis," Teaff said. "I don't know why they would be."
Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville said publicly disclosing ballots would put coaches in awkward situations.
"If we release the polls, we're bound to our players," Tuberville said. "They're going to see how we voted, other coaches are going to see. There are a lot of things you don't think about."
Fulmer said revealing how coaches voted could create bad blood before games.
"If we're getting ready to play somebody or if you rank somebody ahead of your team, that's a bad message to your kids," Fulmer said. "It's different than the writers' [poll] because we're dealing with our peers. We're playing against them rather than just reporting about them. That's a big difference."
Teaff said a suggestion to delay the coaches' poll until October was dismissed. BCS officials have suggested they'd prefer to see preseason polls eliminated.
"The other issues are more important to us," he said.
Earlier Wednesday, NCAA president Myles Brand participated in what Teaff termed a "sobering" discussion about the academic reforms approved at the NCAA convention earlier this week.
About 30 percent of the Division I programs will receive one-time warnings from the NCAA, stating that if their graduation rates don't rise, they'll lose scholarships.
"There were some questions and clarifications, and I hope the coaches now understand what took place at the convention," Brand said.
Also, the coaches agreed to lobby for a fifth year of eligibility for players. Brand said the issue was not discussed at the convention -- and will not come up for a vote when the NCAA Division I Management Council meets in April.
However, Brand said the council will vote in April on a proposal to allow teams to play a 12th game every season, beginning in 2006.
Teaff said that if the extra game is approved, the fifth year of eligibility becomes vital.
"We have guys [coaches] who will redshirt 20 guys," he said. "When you take 20 guys off of 85 and you go to 12 games, it doesn't mesh. Something has to happen."