When South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier acknowledged last week that his was the ballot cast without Florida quarterback Tim Tebow's name for preseason All-Southeastern Conference, the admission came with a qualifier.

Just as he had 16 times before, Spurrier left the work of filling out the ballot to director of football operations Jamie Speronis.

"I did glance at the one this year, but I didn't glance very thoroughly," Spurrier said during SEC media days. "So it was my fault."

Although the snub had created some buzz, Spurrier was allowed to amend his vote to give Tebow virtually unanimous recognition (SEC coaches are not allowed to vote for their own players).

But the relatively minor matter brought back into focus the complications inherent in coaches voting on an infinitely more significant topic that doesn't allow for do-overs: the USA Today coaches' poll, which constitutes one-third of the Bowl Championship Series formula for determining which schools play for the national title — as well as helping shape which schools play in the other most prestigious bowls.

Yet as vital as those rankings are, Baylor coach Art Briles said last week at the Big 12 media days in Irving, Texas, that if most coaches were honest about it, "They would say they have some guys look at it, fill it out to a certain extent."

But that's just one of the issues looming over the poll.

In a business where coaches essentially are on the clock all day every day during the season, who has time to do an honest accounting?

And conflicts of interest, or certainly perceptions of them, essentially are built-in.

That was apparent even the past four years, when the coaches' final votes were publicized, making transparent such logic as New Mexico State's Hal Mumme voting Hawaii No. 1 in 2007. That was just one of the more obvious oddities.

"I watched some of the voting patterns (that year and since)," Kansas coach Mark Mangino said. "I can see areas where guys weren't voting for teams they probably should have."

The voting could get murkier yet if the American Football Coaches Association proceeds with the return to anonymity it seeks after this season. In interviews, AFCA president Grant Teaff repeatedly has compared the sanctity of the balloting to that of a voting booth.

Trouble is, everyone in this voting booth is in competition and facing the temptation of self-interest and the legitimate concern that not to act is to be acted upon.

"Everybody has a little agenda when they vote," Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops said. "The (Texas Christian) or Rice coaches, don't you think they have some Texas fans as supporters? Doesn't it help them to have Texas higher? The Tulsa coach, don't you think he has some OU fans as supporters? Doesn't it help to have OU higher?"

That's one reason not all believe cloaking the vote is a good idea.

"Pretty much whatever you do, whatever it is, you know, put your name on it," Spurrier said.

While some coaches acknowledge they dislike the process, they are captive to the system. Stoops, for instance, declined to vote last year. He didn't specify the reasons, but on returning to it this year he said, "You don't need to make a point twice."

Among the likely reasons for his return: His Sooners slipped into the Big 12 title game on percentage points because the conference uses BCS rankings to break ties among three or more teams.

Asked if not voting last year hurt, Stoops said, "Well, it didn't help," and acknowledged that he has to vote to protect himself "to some degree."

Mangino, in a sense, has taken the opposite stance. The potential for conflict in the system, he said, is one of the reasons he doesn't vote.

"I think the coaches should have a say; it's just that I don't feel comfortable (voting)," said Mangino, who also cited time to be properly informed as a factor.

Others feel less jaded by the system. Missouri coach Gary Pinkel shrugged off the notion of potential conflicts or time issues, saying simply, "What you do is try to analyze the best you can, do as good a job as you can."

He added, "I take it very seriously."

Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy said, "I want to do the right thing (even if it could hurt Oklahoma State in recruiting). I had Texas No. 1 (in 2005, a national title season for the Longhorns) from midseason on while a lot of other people had USC. That wasn't a very popular pick in Oklahoma. But I thought Texas, with Vince Young, would beat anybody. So that's why I did it."

Told that the mixed feelings he has about the vote are at the crux of an issue with the BCS, Mangino tried to play down the coaches' aspect by saying there is a "problem top to bottom with the BCS."

Until somebody comes up with something better, he added, those who have the most invested need to have a say — potential for misuse notwithstanding.

"I don't know why we vote," Spurrier said. "I guess we vote because college football is still without a playoff system. I really believe most coaches do not know a whole lot about other teams, but we do vote. That's what they ask us to do."