After spending two decades administering the Associated Press Top 25 college football poll, I finally joined the panel as a voter for the first time. This significant shift in my career means that now, instead of overseeing the process and critiquing the rankings, I am directly responsible for shaping them.
Previously, my job revolved around ensuring the accuracy of the poll, selecting voters, and highlighting the most compelling results each week. I often explained to fans that while the AP Top 25 was central to my work, I did not cast a ballot myself—until now. Taking on this new responsibility, I aimed to approach my first preseason ballot with the analytical mindset that defines my style: a focus on advanced metrics, power rankings, and a deep appreciation for statistical rigor.
Building my Top 25 began with a composite of four leading computer ratings, segmenting the top 40 teams into tiers. I also referenced the Massey composite, which aggregates over a dozen ranking systems, and drew insights from ESPN’s Bill Connelly’s continuity metrics and the Blue-Chip Ratio devised by Bud Elliott of 247Sports. These tools helped me emphasize roster quality, returning starters, and quarterback clarity—key ingredients for preseason projections.
The preseason Top 25 is fundamentally about educated guesses. Despite the reliance on data, subjective judgment remains unavoidable. For example, I gave Texas the No. 1 spot, banking on promising talent like Arch Manning and a rebuilt offensive lineup. Similarly, Penn State edged ahead of Ohio State due to greater certainty at quarterback with Drew Allar. I also nudged Clemson up based on returning stars, even while remaining cautious about their defensive improvements.
One lesson from years of polling is that quarterback uncertainty can undermine even the most talented rosters. This season, elite programs like Alabama, Georgia, and Notre Dame all face this challenge. My methodology did not include projecting wins and losses; rather, it emphasized known strengths, such as power rankings and player continuity.
Some rankings were more instinctive. Utah at No. 19 was a gut pick unsupported by the numbers, while Oklahoma’s tough schedule made their placement risky. The computers favored Tennessee and Ole Miss, but I was skeptical, ranking the Rebels at No. 23 and leaving the Volunteers out.
With my new role as an AP Top 25 voter, I welcome critiques and debates. As ever, my guiding principle is to take this responsibility seriously, combining statistical analysis with thoughtful consideration of each team’s context. The preseason poll remains a vital part of college football’s predictive drama, fueling discussions and setting expectations for the season ahead.