Why a Coaches Poll?

Best question of the collegiate post season: "Why do the coaches have a post-bowl poll?"

Or maybe even, "Why do the coaches have a poll?" Period.

It's the proverbial screen door in a submarine.

Nonetheless, it ain't right that a coach declare an intention, then fail to follow through. If you say you're gonna vote your kids #1, then do it. When Grant Teaff calls and reads you the fine print from the American Football Coaches Association BCS-poll contract, tell him to kiss off--politely. Words on paper written by a phalanx of lawyers overrides your judgement on the best team?

Yes, you were raised right, to respect that a deal is a deal. To fulfill your commitments, even if someone else negotiated your commitments. But what happened to the courage of your convictions? Isn't that an equally important life lesson imparted by your folks and your grandad. No different than eschewing style points, i.e. not running up points on a beaten foe, even if it might improve your poll position.

Utah's Kyle Whittingham exhibited that courage and did what he said he would do, voting his kids #1. His vote appears to have been included in the final poll results. Two other coaches were swayed to renege in the days between bowl win and poll vote. Before his Gators won the Beauty Contest Series, Urban Meyer said he had no problem with a coach "voting for his kids."

Wimpy. It's wimpy to waffle, to be talked out of your position. To say one thing and do something different. Don't be Coach Wimpy. And it's about the kids, the ones in your house, not some else's house.

As the BCS evolved, AP pulled out with concerns that the machinations of a flawed system may compromise poll voters in their day jobs. With each passing year the AP concerns appear more valid. Coaches are now essentially told--by attorneys--they can no longer vote as they see fit, raising serious questions about the independence and, ultimately, the integrity, of the AFCA.

The Harris poll, a patchwork substitute hurriedly thrown together to replace AP, has a few--or perhaps more than a few--absurdly uninformed, disinterested, and unqualified voters, to the point of raising questions about its validity.

Is it possible the BCS eats its own? Originally an evolutionary idea conceived by university presidents, television, and bowl committees to thwart or defuse playoff pressures, is it now inevitable that the BCS compromises any institution recruited to help verify the veracity of a moving target--crowning a champion without actually playing off to a championship?

Unhappy coaches, once they take stock of the situation, will add their voices to that of the AP. The Harris poll, lacking credibility and with no independent standing, is merely a lackey, a creation of the BCS. The computer rankings have already proven subject to whim after being ordered to eliminate margin of victory from formulas. More BCS direction on how to "think" may be forthcoming this off-season, further compromising the original goals and intents of the computer-model mathematicians.

BCS supporters, fewer with each passing year, must feel increasingly like the circling wagons of the old west. Perhaps the BCS hierarchy should compare notes with Republicans left in D.C.