PDA

View Full Version : Goodman: Feinstein Should Have Vote Taken Away



gotham devil
12-26-2007, 08:31 PM
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/goodmanonfox/2007/12/24/FEINSTEIN_SHOULD_HAVE_VOTE_TAKEN_AWAY

weezie
12-26-2007, 09:53 PM
Oh, that IS rich!
A nice day after Christmas sentiment....

DukeU3x
12-27-2007, 04:41 AM
I ask this question, because I am seriously seeking an answer...Do rankings in the b'ball polls make any difference to a team or a conference, at all? Is there any advantage to being ranked 7 instead of 23? Is there any difference in being ranked 23 or listed as ORV?

Football, you can make a case that rankings matter sometime around Thanksgiving, but do rankings in the b'ball polls make any difference, at all?

Thanks, in advance.

Jumbo
12-27-2007, 09:43 AM
Nope.


I ask this question, because I am seriously seeking an answer...Do rankings in the b'ball polls make any difference to a team or a conference, at all? Is there any advantage to being ranked 7 instead of 23? Is there any difference in being ranked 23 or listed as ORV?

Football, you can make a case that rankings matter sometime around Thanksgiving, but do rankings in the b'ball polls make any difference, at all?

Thanks, in advance.

Ignatius07
12-27-2007, 10:00 AM
One could argue that rankings affect your seeding in the NCAA Tournament - so I would certainly argue they have significance - but the Selection Committee does not (seem to) rely on them as much as the BCS does in college football.

Wander
12-27-2007, 10:52 AM
You could argue they have intangible effects on recruiting.

OldPhiKap
12-27-2007, 11:06 AM
I ask this question, because I am seriously seeking an answer...Do rankings in the b'ball polls make any difference to a team or a conference, at all? Is there any advantage to being ranked 7 instead of 23? Is there any difference in being ranked 23 or listed as ORV?

Football, you can make a case that rankings matter sometime around Thanksgiving, but do rankings in the b'ball polls make any difference, at all?

Thanks, in advance.

I do think there are some intangibles that can make a difference. Intimidation of the opponent, recruiting, television viewership, school marketing and merchendise, etc. Also, for teams that are not there year in and year out, it is a real cause for celebration when your school is recognized as a top team. It is hard for a lot of us Duke fans (as well as fans of UNC) to put yourself in the place of a team on the rise who is just starting to get national attention.

Having said all that, for a team like Duke it doesn't make a big difference if they are in the 6-10 group or the 11-15 group except for perhaps seeding.

jimsumner
12-27-2007, 12:38 PM
Should Steve Spurrier lose his right to vote in the football-coaches poll because he casts a vote for Duke in the first poll every season?

Olympic Fan
12-27-2007, 03:58 PM
Polls do have a very small impact on exposure ... just watch the crawls at the bottom of ESPN some game night -- the games involving top 25 teams are repeated over and over, while it can often be hard to find a score from a game involving two unranked teams.

The original purporse of the polls was to guide the wire services (AP and, back then, UPI) as to which games to cover and disimminate. I know that the AP used to (and probably still does) move a national basketball roundup that rarely mentions another beyond the top 25 ... unless it was something like a coach reaching a big milestone or something newsworthy happening. That's not as big a deal today with ESPN and the internet, but in the 50s, 60s and 70s, if you lived outside the ACC region, you depended on that roundup to get anything more than the one-line score of a game. So then, it made a BIG deal whether or not you were ranked.

Today, with every game on the tube, it's not nearly as important. Still, during the season, ranked teams are going to get a little more airtime and a little more newspaper space outside their regions than those teams that are not ranked.

So I'd say, it matters a little ... but just a little.

alteran
12-27-2007, 04:04 PM
Should Steve Spurrier lose his right to vote in the football-coaches poll because he casts a vote for Duke in the first poll every season?

Much as I love it and Spurrier, yes, he probably should lose his right to vote in the football coaches poll.

The poll is not intended to make points about one's respect for an institution, it is intended to rank teams according to football potential, and the results can affect the teams post-season, particularly the BCS.

Is Spurrier the only coach not following the rules? Probably not. And since Duke is has been so awful, it probably is a wash. But he's probably the only one on the record as not following the rules.

RPS
12-27-2007, 04:20 PM
The poll is not intended to make points about one's respect for an institution, it is intended to rank teams according to football potential, and the results can affect the teams post-season, particularly the BCS.Do you have any support for the idea that the purpose of a major poll is to assess "football potential"? If "football potential" is the measure, how could Ohio State be in the national championship game over, say, USC?

alteran
12-27-2007, 04:42 PM
Do you have any support for the idea that the purpose of a major poll is to assess "football potential"? If "football potential" is the measure, how could Ohio State be in the national championship game over, say, USC?

I assume you are picking a nit with my generic term "football potential," if so, please consider me chastised. Maybe this will be better: "The goal of polls seems generally to find the top teams in the country, and rank them."

My central point, that Spurrier's vote for Duke is in conflict with this goal, still seems valid.

RPS
12-27-2007, 05:23 PM
I assume you are picking a nit with my generic term "football potential," if so, please consider me chastised. Maybe this will be better: "The goal of polls seems generally to find the top teams in the country, and rank them."Actually, my point was to note the folly of the whole exercise for anything other than entertainment value. The sooner everyone realizes that the BCS and its alleged national championship in football is designed simply to keep more money in the pockets of BCS schools and away from the non-BCS schools the better chance there will be to have a play-off system and a real national championship.


My central point, that Spurrier's vote for Duke is in conflict with this goal, still seems valid.Before a game is played, Duke has as much a claim to a poll ranking as any other team. Spurrier is in my view not only within his rights to honor his old employer, but wise to use what should be a meaningless early-season poll make a point about a stupid system.

alteran
12-27-2007, 06:18 PM
Actually, my point was to note the folly of the whole exercise for anything other than entertainment value. The sooner everyone realizes that the BCS and its alleged national championship in football is designed simply to keep more money in the pockets of BCS schools and away from the non-BCS schools the better chance there will be to have a play-off system and a real national championship.


If this was your point, than you could have saved us both a handful of posts by saying so, rather than by challenging my admittedly poor definition of what the poll is, because I completely agree with your entire paragraph here.


Before a game is played, Duke has as much a claim to a poll ranking as any other team. Spurrier is in my view not only within his rights to honor his old employer, but wise to use what should be a meaningless early-season poll make a point about a stupid system.

Within his rights? Probably. Just like I have a right to insult customers if I work at retail. As one would presume this behavior would be grounds to let me go from my retail job, one would also presume that Spurrier's voting for a non-competitive team in the coaches poll would be grounds to find a different coach to cast ballots.

FWIW, it brings a smile to my face every time it happens.

RPS
12-27-2007, 06:49 PM
Within his rights? Probably. Just like I have a right to insult customers if I work at retail. As one would presume this behavior would be grounds to let me go from my retail job, one would also presume that Spurrier's voting for a non-competitive team in the coaches poll would be grounds to find a different coach to cast ballots.I don't think that argument stands up to scrutiny. Begin with the obvious notion that before a game is played it is ridiculous to claim that a ranking means anything, particularly given the change and development that a college football team undergoes from one year to the next and the notorious inaccuracy of football recruiting "rankings" (even less reliable than the polls). There is no basis upon which to judge which teams will be competitive. Then take a look at some actual data. A link to the 2007 preseason polls is here (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?seasonYear=2007&weekNumber=1&seasonType=2) while the current polls are here (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?seasonYear=2007&weekNumber=15&seasonType=2). Ten of the preseason AP top 25 (fully 40%) are nowhere to be found on the current list. The idea that even alleged experts could accurately predict which teams will be the best is silly. Thus the ranking of any school in the preseason top 25 makes as much sense as any other. There's nothing "rude" about what the ol' ball coach does. Since Spurrier stops voting for Duke once we lose, the poll loses no integrity (to the extent that it ever had any).

gep
12-27-2007, 07:47 PM
Since Spurrier stops voting for Duke once we lose, the poll loses no integrity (to the extent that it ever had any).

This is interesting. I agree that Spurrier's vote in the *pre*season poll is appropriate, given that *no* teams have yet played *1* game... and who's to say what will happen when the games are played... the proverbial "that's why they play the games". But the comment above... that Spurrier "stops voting for Duke once we lose"... well, suppose Duke wins the first couple of games they played. I guess it will matter who Duke beats, and by how much... but it would be interesting to see how Spurrier votes in that circumstance. My guess... he still won't vote for Duke once the season starts since the other "top" teams will begin to start proving themselves. But, if Duke starts winning consistently...:D

alteran
12-28-2007, 08:39 AM
I don't think that argument stands up to scrutiny.

Sure it does.

The object of the poll seems to be to get coaches, acting in good faith, to rank the best teams in order.

Spurrier is not doing this. Moreover, he has admitted such.

Therefore, removing him from the poll is reasonable.

Now, the point you seem to be making is that polls change throughout the year, and are hence error-prone, imperfect-to-horrendous indicators of who is the best and who is not. As such, Spurrier's behavior is only one incorrect data point among many, and probably results in little harm.

I not only agree with this, I said as much in my first post. To be clear, keeping him as a voter probably does little direct damage to the accuracy of the poll, such as it is. If raw numbers are the only consideration, it is certainly reasonable to keep him.

I would still submit that someone admittedly acting in bad faith is reason enough to stop using them as a data point, for a host of reasons. I suspect you still differ, and we will have to agree to disagree.