USC, Utah, SEC, Etc. Fans Disenfranchised By Apathetic Voters

It's not difficult to understand why the voters who determine college football rankings cannot watch every single game.

Even if you assume that they somehow have access to all of them, how would a regular person find the time to watch them all? In fact, who would WANT to? I wouldn't.

As much as I love the game, there's no way I'd agree to it.

However, the fact of the matter is that these people do have a responsibility to be as informed as possible when determining the pecking order. I cannot shake the nagging feeling that they don't do any more than watch a regional game or two and review whatever highlights on ESPN are available.

Once that's done, I would presume that they have a decent idea on who the top 10 or 12 schools might be. After that, you have to figure that, lacking information, they sorta pick and choose by what they recall, as in, "Hmmm...I guess I'll put, oh...Arkansas @ No. 13. Huh. Isn't their coach the one who bailed on the Falcons? That guy's a jerk, I'm sticking them at No. 21 instead."

That scenario isn't much of a stretch, is it?

If you said yes, I'll still say no to you, and here's why: People are like water in that they follow the path of least resistance. At one time or another, everyone has taken a lazy shortcut or has said, "Ahhh, that's good enough."

Right or wrong, any non-empirical human process is at risk for a subjective slant. They're also prone to use subjective analysis in favor of objective observation.

Shocking, I know.

It stands to reason, as a result, that the polls are inherently flawed. If you've had a long weekend due to an extended stay by the in-laws, or as a result of tearing the house apart looking for tax papers, discerning the nuances & merits of placing Northwestern above Ball State is just not on the radar.

Of course, this is exactly why the dreaded "style points" problem has arisen. Given this facet, it is patently clear why teams should try to run up the score. It is easily the most direct path to grabbing a high ranking: Lazy voters will only look at the final points in the box...therefore, the bigger the win, the better.

If you're expecting me to deliver a shiny, neat resolution, well...sorry. I don't have one.

The fact is that I don't know how I would begin to solve this thorny issue. Hiring professional evaluators/"voters" is risky, because then you might get the wrong person in there, someone who could be persuaded in a less than ethical way to boost a certain school or conference. Besides, who would do the hiring?

Elected officials with specific terms or service might help, but there again, how would you develop the candidates? Would they have to campaign? You'd certainly have to monitor donations if that were the case, and I'm thinking that everyone is at their saturation level in terms of politicking.

I regret ending this in a Hitchcock-esque fashion, in terms of leaving you, the ever faithful Reader, to determine how this should end. However, I tend to believe that we could have interesting dialogue as a result. So please, by all means, share your thoughts with me.