In case you missed it, Missouri football wasn’t included in the Amway Preseason Coaches Poll, released last week.

The reason for that? As USA Today college sports editor Erick Smith confirmed to Dave Matter of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, it’s because the Tigers are currently under a postseason ban. That’s all fine and good -- recent examples like Southern Cal (2010) and Ohio State (2012) were pointed out as examples of this rule.

One key difference here:

Those two schools weren’t in the process of appealing said postseason ban. The most recent team to be ineligible for the coaches poll while filing an appeal would have been Ole Miss in 2018; it won part of its appeals process, but the 2018 bowl ban stuck after self-imposing a bowl ban in 2017.

A quick scan of other recent postseason bans (2012 North Carolina, 2012-2013 Penn State, 2012 Miami) show that none of these teams were in the middle of an appeals process. All had either self-imposed their bowl ban or accepted the sanctions without appeal.

(Related: I can find a few examples of postseason bans for revenue sports being overturned in-season. Louisville basketball in 1999, for one. Penn State in 2014, but the circumstances there were obviously a little different. FCS Eastern Washington in 2009 is another.)

Even with that recent analog in Ole Miss, making a team ineligible for a poll while their sanctions appeal is ongoing doesn’t make much sense to me. If a team’s postseason future is still unknown, shouldn’t they be eligible? Shouldn’t it be considered by voters at every step of the way, until there is finality to the situation?

Here’s a hypothetical situation:

The NCAA doesn’t rule on Missouri’s appeal until the bye week (Nov. 2) -- around the same time it ruled on the Ole Miss appeal in 2018. Over the first eight games of the year, Missouri goes 7-1. But because they haven’t been eligible for the coaches poll, SIDs (the real voters in the coaches poll) in conferences like the Pac 12 and Big 10 aren’t even paying attention to the Tigers.

But, in the most stunning outcome since my wife married me, the NCAA rules in favor of Missouri’s appeal and the bowl ban is overturned. We should expect all those “coaches” who haven’t had to pay any attention to Missouri all season to suddenly have a light switch flip on and boost Missouri into the top 20 at a moment’s notice? What if Missouri’s first eligible ranking -- in this hypothetical scenario -- comes after a loss at top-five Georgia?

Are those pollsters going to jump Missouri into the rankings for the first time after a loss?

At this point, while a final ruling on the appeal is still (potentially) a ways off, Missouri is technically postseason eligible, after all. Same deal with the baseball and softball teams -- both were eligible for their respective conference and national postseasons because of the on-going appeal.

So if Missouri is eligible as long as the appeal is going on, why does USA Today and the AFCA treat the Tigers as if they’re ineligible?

The coaches' poll is inherently a stupid, outdated system anyway, built around sponsorship dollars (brought to you, fittingly, by Amway, a multi-level marketing company). It doesn’t directly factor into the College Football Playoff rankings, like it used to with the BCS system. And, again -- why are coaches’ opinions trusted outside of their opponents or conferences? You think Nick Saban (a voter this season) is up watching the highlights or checking the stats of a late September game between Oklahoma State and Kansas State?

If the NCAA comes back and upholds the bowl ban, then this is all a moot point. If Missouri falls flat out of the gate, same deal.

But this isn’t Schrodinger’s Tigers (look it up). Missouri isn’t both postseason eligible and ineligible at the same time right now. Technically, as long as the appeal is floating out there in the ominous black clouds around the NCAA’s villainous lair, Missouri is eligible for the postseason.

So treat ‘em as such.