OT: Maybe it’s time to get rid of the AP Poll once and for all - Awful Announcing

[cancontent]

OD, this made me laugh at first, but after thinking about it, AI can watch almost all the games, at least those that are broadcast. Would that be better than a (possibly drunken) lazy sportswriter who watches 3 or 4 games plus maybe a dozen game highlights a week? After all, a sportswriter's job is to write, not watch TV.

The idea of AI does sound more efficient, however AI is built on information that it's given and can be vulnerable to bias and errors. It may help but human efforts to verify accuracy would still be required.

I don't understand your comment about sportswriters and TV however because writers need to watch games to do their job. What I find interesting about this debate is you'd think it would have been harder to complete these polls during eras where games weren't televised like they are now. The challenge to me is how they balance it all.

 

[Vowelguy]

case in point:

The Illinois-Indiana football game is a long-running nothing affair. Based on that most folks would have no reason to watch.

This year, for the first time in 75 years, both teams are ranked in the top 20. The rankings show us that this year it might be a game worth watching. I watch a fair amount of CFB, but without those rankings I would likely not have known its (potential) significance.

 

[Plebe]

I honestly don't understand the impulse to abolish a poll just because fans love to quibble over the poll results. The quibbling is a sign of the poll's success. It's a conversation starter.

In NCAA FBS football, the situation is quite different once the first CFP poll gets released (somewhere around early November?), because at that point fans hardly care about the much less consequential AP poll.

 

[Skeets]

The idea of AI does sound more efficient, however AI is built on information that it's given and can be vulnerable to bias and errors. It may help but human efforts to verify accuracy would still be required.

I don't understand your comment about sportswriters and TV however because writers need to watch games to do their job. What I find interesting about this debate is you'd think it would have been harder to complete these polls during eras where games weren't televised like they are now. The challenge to me is how they balance it all.

Sportswriters need to watch 2 or maybe 3 teams to do their jobs, and that's where their focus is. Teams on the other side of the country, not so much. TV announcers have the luxury of a staff of people to put information together for them so that they sound intelligent on the air. This is a little different from first-hand, organic knowledge, but at least it's knowledge.

If you're worried about AI and polls, think about what happens when AI makes life discissions about you.

I suspect that there are posters here that have a broader, in-depth knowledge of WCBB that a typical sportswriter.

 

[cancontent]

Sportswriters need to watch 2 or maybe 3 teams to do their jobs, and that's where their focus is. Teams on the other side of the country, not so much. TV announcers have the luxury of a staff of people to put information together for them so that they sound intelligent on the air. This is a little different from first-hand, organic knowledge, but at least it's knowledge.

If you're worried about AI and polls, think about what happens when AI makes life discissions about you.

I suspect that there are posters here that have a broader, in-depth knowledge of WCBB that a typical sportswriter.

If they don't have a vote in the polls, that would make sense to me. However, if the writer does have a vote, would it not be fair to expect them to make the effort to know something about the other teams they're ranking?

 

[visitingcock]

Sportswriters need to watch 2 or maybe 3 teams to do their jobs, and that's where their focus is. Teams on the other side of the country, not so much. TV announcers have the luxury of a staff of people to put information together for them so that they sound intelligent on the air. This is a little different from first-hand, organic knowledge, but at least it's knowledge.

If you're worried about AI and polls, think about what happens when AI makes life discissions about you.

I suspect that there are posters here that have a broader, in-depth knowledge of WCBB that a typical sportswriter.

I don't really understand that highlighted sentence and think I disagree. A voting sportswriter should watch games regardless of locations. While I wouldn't necessarily expect a writer in the eastern time zone to stay up and watch as many Pacific zone game LIVE, I would expect them to record and watch important games the next morning. Let's face it, there are not that many important games to watch, but I would expect voters to have watched every top 20-ish team at least once by the end of the season. I would also like them to become addicted during conference tournaments.

A note on coaches. I don't value the coaches poll. What I do value from coaches over sports writers are their votes on all conference players because they focus on the strengths and weaknesses of every player in the conference in preparing to play them at least once and, in some cases, twice or even thrice.

 

[Bigboote]

If they don't have a vote in the polls, that would make sense to me. However, if the writer does have a vote, would it not be fair to expect them to make the effort to know something about the other teams they're ranking?

Agreed. Till a year ago, I was working full time, not as a sportswriter, and generating significant hobby income, and still watched 5-10 games a week. Not all of every single game, but enough to get a sense of the teams, always including some teams from non-P5 conferences. I loved watching Richmond last year and look forward to seeing them this year.