It seems we have readers!
There is a reason the official poll is cited in the preseason. It’s picked by the coaches (or someone representing them) and sets the tone for the upcoming season, not some conglomeration of random preseason magazines and websites.
What on earth could he be referring to? Well this.
Let me quote myself:
[The Vito post] leaves out the fact that most publications were also “right all along.” Awful. McCarney himself said that he didn’t vote in that thing. I knew when it was released that we would never see the end of auto-journalism citing it as they mentioned UNT was “favored” to win the conference. Any thinking fan, anyone who has any sense, knew that that this wasn’t the case.
The problem I had with Vito and others (mostly others) auto-quoting the coaches poll is that it doesn’t put it all in context. Does “some conglomeration of random” polls necessarily add to the discussion? Nope. Am I advocating for a complete dismissal of the coaches’ poll? No. Similarly, do we just dismiss the random conglomeration of CUSA media opinions? No.
A better option would be to place it all in context for we the readers.
“Hey, CUSA coaches picked UNT to finish first. This is important because CUSA coaches are generally [terrible/awesome] at picking the field. This is interesting because this [preselected group of media that beat writer places value in] poll says this. Here is how they compare. Also, here is what I think.”
Why do this? Well it gives us a better idea of what it means to be picked first by the coaches besides being picked first by the coaches or-maybe-their-lackey.