New AP Top 25 voter explains ballot approach

A veteran AP Top 25 voter outlines how he built his first ballot by blending data with informed instincts and quarterback clarity.

First Time AP Top 25 Voter Explains Ballot Building

In a rare move, a former AP Top 25 overseer joins the voter panel to craft his first ballot. He builds a composite top 40 from four computer ratings and sorts teams into tiers of five to eight. These tiers guide the initial ranking, though most teams move by at most one tier. He does not project schedules, instead leaning on power rankings, continuity from returning starters, and quarterback clarity. He also uses the Blue-Chip Ratio to weigh roster quality and notes that defense tends to be sturdier from year to year than offense. Even with data, he says vibes still matter and that strict rules rarely capture every nuance. He admits the process will never be perfectly consistent.

He cites specific choices to illustrate the tension between data and judgment: placing Texas No 1, and Penn State ahead of Ohio State; he nudges Clemson up to No 6 because of returning talent, even as he remains wary of hype. He notes Oklahoma s hard schedule and Utahs No 19 ranking as examples where intuition outweighed the numbers. He also concedes that quarterback uncertainty on top programs makes ranking trickier. The preseason poll, he argues, is an extension of the online debate fans already love, and its real value lies in provoking discussion as the season unfolds.

The piece shows how data and human judgment mix in rankings. Four computer ratings create a scaffold, but the voter adds layers from roster continuity and quarterback clarity. The admission that strict adherence is impossible reflects a central truth of sport polls: rankings are educated guesses, not gospel. The narrative also reveals how preseason rankings shape early season talk, even when outcomes prove unpredictable. That dynamic matters for fans, programs, and media alike, because it invites scrutiny while fueling anticipation.

This approach highlights a broader trend in sports media: numbers inform but do not replace insight. By inviting critique and promising seriousness, the voter treats transparency as a civic duty in a noisy landscape. YetSubjectivity remains a feature, not a bug, of ranking as a living conversation that evolves with rosters, injuries, and on field performances.

Highlights

The ballot will continue to evolve as rosters shift and games begin.