"Jeff Tedford got what he wanted.'

Last week the most amazing thing happened.

The American Football Coaches Association decided to reveal votes in their NCAA D IA college football poll. The first line of the article is the subject of this post. How strange; just because Tedford's "Sturdy Golden Bears" (as one ESPN announcer insists on calling them, because he's obviously heard the fight song) lost out to the Longhorns in as obvious an example of nepotism as ever existed in college sports, it's all about what Tedford wanted. This narrative started last year in November, and seems to have some pretty powerful staying power. It's strange that Teaff was so vehement about not making the votes public last year, and this year he is fine with it, but the vote on this topic was very close last year, and obviously it's Teaff's job to do whatever the members of the Coaches Association tell him.

This is probably a good thing, what with the whole move toward transparency in situations where there is a great deal at stake. There is a lot of money involved in college football rankings; the difference between Texas' #4 and Cal's #5 in last year's final BCS ranking was $9 million, not including future endorsements, recruits, and national exposure. But part of me thinks that privacy in voting matters too.

Obviously I have an interest in this case. I spent most of December 5th-January 2nd in a horrid fog of agony and anger because I went to San Diego (and lost) rather than to Pasadena. But as much as I wanted the votes to be made public in December, in the harsh light of May, I think it's actually the wrong thing. This might have something to do with the Newsweek kerfluffle about anonymous sources, but it also has to do with the act of voting, which ought to be always private and personal and anonymous. There is value to attaching a name to things that have money involved, but there is also value to being allowed to express an opinion that won't come back to bite you because it contradicts of public position you are forced to hold.

Frankly, I think the best solution to the problem — and I thought this in December as well – is to allow all 119 D IA coaches, and any D IAA coach who has played a D IA opponent that week, to vote on the rankings. It makes no sense to only allow slightly over 50% of the eligible participants to vote.

The fact that college coaches don't have the time or resources to track all 119 teams in D IA football shouldn't actually matter. They all have access to the same possible information (as happens in voting all over the world), and they all should be allowed to participate, anonymously.

Now, the issues with the Associated Press poll and the BCS are a different matter entirely, though no less disquieting.