Powder Rankings

I believe some of the voters for ESPN.com's NFL power rankings are on crack. I don't even know what league they watch.
There is only one ranking system on earth that makes less sense is the BCS (see my last post), so at least the power rankings don't determine any sort of major championship.
In the end, the overall rankings are basically right by my estimation, but some of the voters are completely off their rockers.
Let's take Matt Williamson of Scouts, inc., for example.
His rankings are as follows:
1. New York Giants- even though they lost to Cleveland.
2. Tennessee Titans- even though they are the last remaining undefeated team. I'll let that one slide.
3. Philadelphia Eagles- 5-4...enough said. Here's another stat, they're 0-3 against their division, which kills them in almost any tie-breaker.
4. Pittsburgh Steelers- That one makes sense.
5. Carolina Panthers- I don't think the Panthers are really this good, but everyone else does, so I'll let him have this one.
6. Tampa Bay Buccanneers-These guys are 6-3, but they've lost to New Orleans, Denver, and Dallas, who Williamson ranks 20,22,16, respectively. Basically, even he knows his rankings are nonsensical.
7. Washington Redskins- Even though they beat Philadelphia. Then again, so did nearly everyone else. Their only losses are to Williamson's numbers 1, 4, and a loss to the Rams in an emotional rebound game, yet they are ranked below Philly and Tampa Bay.
8. Baltimore Ravens- Overall, a decent team for a team who doesn't have a quarterback.
9. Arizona Cardinals- These guys are the slumlords of the NFL, ruling a division full of 2-7 opponents.
10. New York Jets- A 6-3 division leader with a hall of fame quarterback and talented runningbacks, yet they're behind 3 second-place teams and a third-place team.

And that's just the screwiness at the top. There are other spots down lower where I think he got tired of thinking.
There really isn't any reason for me to question these rankings, other than to say this: Why does Matt Wiliamson get to vote in such a highly-publicized poll and make so much money while I can't get a full-time job as any sort of sports writer?
I want some of what he's snorting.

Irony, anyone?

Pete Carroll thinks the BCS "stinks."
The same BCS system that, by virtue of pre-season rankings and hype always favoring his Trojans, gives his team the first crack at a number 1 BCS ranking. (See USC's mysterious jump over an undefeated UGA to number one circa, September 2008).
His team always forfeits their claim to an automatic title game bid by losing inexplicably to Stanford or explicably to Oregon State early in the season, but don't worry, Pete, you'll be back.
That said, he's calling for a playoff system in college football.
He has a point, as there are several questionable re-arrangements present in the most recent BCS rankings. (See Pat Forde on espn.com).
Thus, I see it necessary, or just plain fun, to predict what a playoff would look like if we merely substituted it for the current set-up, and predict the media surrounding each matchup.
Here we go...

FIRST ROUND
(1) Alabama vs. (8) West Virginia "Can the Tide's vaunted defense slow down the mighty Mountaineers? It's the Mountaineers versus Mount Cody (overly white chuckle from Herbstreit.)" Alabama wins, 31-17.

(2)Texas Tech vs. (7) Georgia Tech "In this battle of the Tech's, we know this: Texas Tech will have more yardage through the air, and Georgia Tech will have more rushing yards. Heck, both might get a shutout in their respective specialties (overly white chuckle from Herbstreit.)" Texas Tech wins, 42-21.

(3)Penn State vs. (6) Florida "Tim Tebow and the Gators look to contine the SEC's dominance over Big 10 teams in big-time games. I just hope the Nittany Lions haven't asked Ohio State for any advice (overly white chuckle from Herbstreit.)" Florida wins, 49-14.

(4)Texas vs. (5) USC "One thing that I think goes understated is how incredible USC is at (insert every possible factor of the game of football, excluding winning in Corvallis). Who's the underdog here? (overly white...you get the picture.)" Texas wins, 35-31.

SEMIFINALS
(1) Alabama vs. (4) Texas "This one should be a slobber-knocker, folks. That's all we got. No story lines, sorry." Texas wins, 24-21.

(2) Texas Tech vs. (6) Florida "Tim Tebow takes on his Heisman heir (Crabtree or Harrell, take your pick really). How will Texas Tech's aerial assault fare against an SEC defense?" Florida wins, 42-38.

CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
(4) Texas vs. (6) Florida "Thank God we get to say Tim Tebow some more. In fact, let's say it five more times... Tim Tebow, Tim Tebow, Tim Tebow, Tim Tebow, Tim Tebow. Oh yeah, Texas is here, too." Texas wins, 34-28.

So there you have it. That's how it would happen, if I'm any good at predicting, which I'm not. Tim Tebow.

Where's the Hype?

It's not often I expect a little more hype from the national sports media, particularly from ESPN, but I have to say, I'm disappointed this time.
The Phillies are a team of baseball's good guys, with back-to-back MVP's and a comeback kid in Brad Lidge, whose career as a light's-out closer appeared to be over when Albert Pujols stole his mojo a few years ago.
Lidge was perfect in save attempts this year, and he saved the Series-clinching game 5 for the Phils.
Yet, the next day, no one seemed to care that the Phillies had won.
The same outlets that had lamented how fans wouldn't watch a Phillies-Rays Series gave fans nowhere to hear or read about what was actually an intriguing series.
ESPN gave more coverage to the bottom of the sixth inning in Game 5, which lasted two and a half days, than they did the champs.
The espn.com headline on Thursday, after the Phillies won it all on Wednesday, was a goofy Halloween feature about scary players and other fears in the NFL.
As big of a story as that was, the World Series deserves better.
Thank God there wasn't a draft going on, or we would've had to look at Mel Kiper's natural helmet instead of Series coverage.
Even the Macon Telegraph decided that ANOTHER fearure about the Georgia-Florida game was a bigger deal than a new World Series Champion. The story about the Phils was relegated to a tiny "continued on" spot in the bottom, right-hand corner of the front page.
Media outlets have become confused, I think.
We, as sports fans, actually don't care to read a Telegraph writer's seventh angle of the week on a game that hasn't happened yet nearly as much as we do a World Series.
We enjoy reading a "Top Ten Scariest Players List" that looks oddly like the list you've run approximately 37 times as "Top Ten Dirtiest Players," but a champion deserves it's due.
I can promise you that if ESPN's beloved Red Sox or LA Manny's had won the Classic, there would have been coverage.
If USC somehow wins the BCS title, there will most assuredly be a feature written about every segment of the Trojans' team and how they are the "most awesomest" in the land.
The Phillies bring a title to Philadelphia for the first time in 25 years after beating out the New York Trainwrecks for a second consecutive division title, and they get nothing.
Happy Halloween, now here's a list of "Hockey's Top Ten Scariest Faces."

Suggs for President '08

Terrell Suggs would be an incredibly stereotypical presidential candidate.
In a recent "Two Live Stews" interview, he made several note-worthy comments, including the statement that the Ravens had a "bounty" on Rashard Mendenhall that caused his shoulder injury.
He also said that he and his fellow defenders had a hit out for Hines Ward because he's a dirty player, and Troy Smith will and should start over Joe Flacco.
When the NFL began investigating the "bounty" comments, Suggs pulled a Kerry-esque flip-flop and said, in effect,
"What I meant to say was we were worried about that mean ol' Hines Ward. Look, he broke a guy's jaw last week. Brrr...Scary!"
He also completely changed his opinion on the Flacco-Smith debate, saying that he meant they should platoon so the team can get some diverse packaging options.
All we're missing is a "Senator McCain is right," and Suggs could be a great Democratic party candidate.
Suggs may have a point on the quarterback issue, considering Flacco's inconsistencies, but that doesn't really matter.
I think the real issue is that someone should show Terrell Suggs his own business card, if he has one. His title is not "Offensive Coordinator," "Head Coach," or even "Anyone with a tangible connection to offensive personnel decisions."
His title is simply "Linebacker."
The idea that a linebacker even has a publicist is ludicrous, but maybe Terrell's publicist pointed to that particular line on Suggs' imaginary business card and suggested a change in stance.
Regardless, Suggs' flip-flop is one of the most pronounced I've ever seen in the sports world, so I think he should run for president with those kind of statement-bending capabilities.
Heck, it's guaranteed nearly half the country would vote for him.