By Jon Wilner
Mercury News
OK, Cal fans. Here we go again. For the second consecutive week, the Bears weren't in the top-25 ballot I sent to the Associated Press. I know they are 4-0. I know they are ranked 12th. I know they are winning by an average of 30 points per game. I know they have one of the nation's best offensive lines and a terrific coaching staff and a ton of team speed. But the Golden Bears are missing what matters most to me. They don't have a quality win or a quality loss. Until they play someone better than Illinois -- which was 3-8 last season and just lost at home to Michigan State by 47 points -- how do we know the Bears are worthy of a top-25 ranking? I tried explaining this to dozens of angry/frustrated/incredulous Cal fans last week. Most didn't buy it, which is fine. That's the nature of opinion polls. But as a longtime voter in both the AP football and men's basketball polls, I was struck by some of the comments. Several e-mailers speculated that I must be either a Stanford graduate (nope) or a Stanford fan (wrong again). A few wondered if I was prohibited from voting for the Bears because I live in the area (absolutely not). Others said I should favor Cal because it's a local school (no can do).
Given the confusion, perhaps it's time to explain the AP voting process and my reasons for omitting the Bears.
System analyst
Each August, the AP sends its voters a list of ethics and procedural guidelines, which include the following instructions:
• ``Base your vote on performance, not reputation or preseason speculation.''
• ``Avoid regional bias, for or against.''
• ``Pay attention to head-to-head results.''
And, finally . . .
• ``Don't hesitate to make significant changes in your ballot from week to week.''
It doesn't get more specific than that, and it can't. Each of the 65 voters has a different system. I keep a log of about 40 teams and spend up to an hour and a half evaluating results on Saturday nights. The ballot is due at 9 a.m. Sunday, which explains why I have Louisiana State ahead of Tennessee in this week's rankings despite the Vols' impressive come-from-behind victory Monday. In my system, it's all about building your résumé. Since you need a starting point, I give early weight to teams with returning playmakers. For example, USC and Auburn were 13-0 last season. But USC returned every player who scored a touchdown in the Orange Bowl -- that doesn't even include Reggie Bush -- while Auburn lost its quarterback and two tailbacks to the NFL. (All three were first-round picks.) In my mind, the Trojans and Tigers were not on equal footing in August. I ranked USC No. 1 in my preseason poll and Auburn No. 22.
Once the season begins, my emphasis shifts gradually -- because of the lack of balance in schedules -- to performance. Whom did you play and whom did you beat? A close loss to an elite team is better than an easy victory over a patsy, because it proves you belong. That's why I have Michigan (losses to Notre Dame and Wisconsin) and Clemson (Miami and Boston College) on my ballot this week but not Cal, not No. 16 Texas Tech and not No. 19 Virginia. I pay little attention to margin of victory and regularly move teams up after quality losses. Two examples: Last season, I moved Cal from ninth to eighth after its loss at USC; this year, I moved Ohio State from sixth to fifth after its loss to Texas.
Not all my colleagues agree with this approach, but I look at it this way: Just because the No. 10 team loses to the No. 1 team doesn't mean it's not worthy of that No. 10 ranking. What defines a quality opponent? Is beating Maryland more impressive than beating Mississippi? Each week, we get a better idea.
Foes in focus
How does this relate to Cal? Check the schedule:
• The Bears' opponents (Sacramento State, Washington, Illinois and New Mexico State) are a combined 3-13, with the three victories coming against Idaho, San Jose State and Rutgers.
So not only have the Bears not beaten anyone, their opponents haven't, either.
• While Cal was dismantling winless New Mexico State last weekend, Sacramento State, Washington and Illinois were losing by a combined score of 134-38.
Sac State lost to Division I-AA rival UC-Davis by almost as many points (30) as it lost to Cal (38).
• According to Jeff Sagarin's computer poll, one of the six used to help tabulate the Bowl Championship Series standings, the Bears' schedule ranks 129th in the country.
• None of the I-A teams whose schedules are weaker than Cal's -- including undefeated Washington State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Nebraska and Texas Tech -- is in my top 25 this week. (I discovered this after submitting my ballot.)
In other words, combine the lack of proven playmakers with the woeful schedule, and Cal has nothing on its résumé.
For Old Blues still convinced I have an anti-Cal bias, consider this: In 75 percent of last season's ballots, I voted the Bears higher than, or equal to, their overall ranking. If they beat lowly Arizona this weekend and comport themselves well at UCLA next week, I'll certainly re-evaluate. So until then, Cal fans . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment