Grading my preseason AP Top 25 ballot: What I learned from Clemson, Indiana, and other misses
As an expert in college football rankings, I recently underwent a self-assessment of my preseason AP Top 25 ballot from the previous year. This process, akin to a performance review, revealed valuable insights and lessons learned. While it's natural to be critical initially, self-evaluation is crucial for growth.
I approached my evaluation with a critical eye, considering both the knowns and unknowns. I focused on quantifiable factors like returning production and coaching continuity, recognizing that despite my best efforts, the process is as much an art as it is a science. My goal was to identify areas where my predictions aligned with reality and where they fell short.
I assigned letter grades to each slot on my ballot, with no pluses or minuses, and no set criteria. The key was to assess how closely my preseason rankings mirrored the actual final rankings in the AP Top 25. This method allowed me to reflect on the accuracy of my predictions and the underlying thought processes behind them.
One interesting aspect of this evaluation was my notes and memory of the thought processes behind each vote. I could distinguish between instances where my process was sound but the results were poor, and vice versa. This distinction helped me refine my grading criteria and gain a deeper understanding of my decision-making process.
Now, let's dive into the grades and the insights they provide:
Texas (No. 1)
Grade: B
I was initially drawn to Texas, but they ultimately fell short. Despite their potential, they didn't make the College Football Playoff, which felt like a missed opportunity. However, I recognized that they were likely better than some SEC teams that did make the playoff, indicating that my initial enthusiasm was not entirely misplaced.
Penn State (No. 2)
Grade: D
Penn State's season was a rollercoaster, with a record of 7-6. Their performance was more impressive than their record suggested, with several close losses. This grade reflects my initial skepticism about following the hype, but it also highlights the unpredictability of college football.
Alabama (No. 3)
Grade: B
I was bullish on Alabama, and my confidence in them remained strong throughout the season. However, I eventually adjusted my rankings, placing them at No. 12. This shift felt more significant than it appeared, indicating that my initial optimism was not entirely justified.
Clemson (No. 6)
Grade: F
This was a particularly disappointing miss. I initially trusted my instincts, placing Clemson in the 10-12 range. However, I succumbed to the offseason buzz, which led to an incorrect ranking. This mistake highlighted the importance of staying true to one's initial instincts.
Indiana (No. 17)
Grade: C
I missed the opportunity to forecast Indiana's remarkable turnaround, which became the greatest story in major American sports. This grade reflects my failure to anticipate their success, emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of teams' potential.
Other Notable Grades
- LSU (No. 8): Grade: F - I had too much faith in Brian Kelly's coaching abilities, which led to a poor ranking. This mistake underscored the importance of considering both coaching and overall team performance.
- Oregon (No. 9): Grade: B - I had doubts about Oregon, but my initial skepticism was not entirely justified. This grade indicates a need for a more balanced approach to evaluating teams.
- Vanderbilt (No. 15): Grade: N/A - I never saw Vanderbilt's 10-win season coming, highlighting the importance of staying open-minded and adaptable.
In conclusion, this self-assessment has provided valuable insights into my decision-making process and the factors that influence my rankings. It has also underscored the importance of a nuanced approach to evaluating college football teams, considering both quantitative and qualitative factors. Moving forward, I will strive to refine my methods and make more accurate predictions, learning from both my successes and failures.
