clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Wednesday morning cup of coffee (in the evening)

New, comments

The mainstream media tends to do things that baffle some of us.  They criminalize players that do the same things we do in everyday life. They shine a bright shinny light in their eyes asking impossible questions to develop a story, off a quote, that was never there before. I'm still not sure if Bill Parcells was mad at the media for the constant reminders of Terrell Owens's injury or T.O. himself.

They make nothing out of something on a story like Jim Tressel's voting in the coach's poll. Tressel said he voted the Longhorns number one while the U.S.A. Today said he voted for his own team. Two things stuck out at me.

  1. Who cares who he votes for?
  2. Why did U.S.A. Today feel the need to defend themselves?
From ESPN.com:
USA Today, however, disclosed late Tuesday that Tressel's ballot actually lists Ohio State No. 1 and Texas No. 2. The paper, which normally does not reveal votes except for the final regular-season poll, said it revealed Tressel's vote as a matter of policy to protect the integrity of the poll.

Protect the integrity? Little did I know their integrity was called into question on such a trivial issue until now. The U.S.A. Today going out of their way to tell the world who Tressel voted for to prove him wrong makes me question their integrity.  The polls, after all, are traditionally classified during the season.

I really could go on a rant regarding U.S.A. Today's misleading poll questions and demographics that slant the results for their feature stories. But I won't. This isn't a current events (political) blog and I wouldn't want to bore you with such pointless dribble.

However, I do think questioning the use of polls that rank college teams is justified. Coaches and writers rank the teams based on personal opinion and what they've seen; there's nothing scientific about it. In an age where only perfection is acceptable and a college playoff system is in high demand; don't you think it's a little silly we use the opinion of coaches and writers to rank teams? The BCS, as the only means to determine a national champion, is silly. Remove any and all human influence and the BCS is a good system to rank teams; not determine champions. Now all that's left is a modern way to crown a champion. What are your thoughts?

Mark Curnutte takes a look at the Chiefs' offensive line.

If I were a betting man, which is why I'm so dag-um poor, I'd bet the Chiefs will struggle to finish .500. Call me a dope if you must, but an offensive line that's been tugged and pulled recently, a defense that's comparable to the Bengals '05 defense, and an aging foundation of stars (minus L.J.) doesn't convince me that Herm Edwards' defensive-minded approach will mean a whole lot this season.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing about the Chiefs that I dislike. The 2005 season and the pre-season tend to create forecasts that are very uneducated (i.e. my opinion). But until then, they'll have to prove me wrong; which is always possible in my case.

There's always been an under-appreciation with Brian Simmons. He was drafted in the first round with Takeo Spikes designed to create a buzz that was never fulfilled. It's like Justin Smith; expectations too high to appease the critics. I'm guilty of expecting too much out of both also. But Simmons has always been consistent and versatile.

Simmons answers a few questions.