Some more silly bias

by hoosierteacher on Sep 30, 2008 3:25 PM MDT

ESPN, the site that we love to hate, is at it again.

It seems to me that SD is 2-2, while Denver is 3-1. It also seems to me that Denver has already played SD, and beaten them. But does that get Denver a higher ranking in the latest power poll at ESPN? Of course not.

But this is the same group that has commericals on the radio when I drive to work that proudly spends time with Mike and Mike arguing over if one of them is wearing lip gloss. Another commercial has someone calling poison control with an emergency, only to have some a$$ answer the phone who asks if the victim's caller can tell which WR gives the best chance for a fantasy league. That's funny?

I wonder why they can't advertise about people with real sports insight? It's all about joking around and avoiding much talk about sports. Remember when MTV was about music videos, and the stars were the musicians and not the VJ's? Remember when ESPN was about sports reporting and analysis, and the reporters were second to the athletes? Today, ESPN is nothing more than a male version of "The View"; a bunch of ignorant panalists sitting around gossiping and pretending they know something.

No, you don't get a link to ESPN's power ranking.

That is all.

Poll

ESPN

The best in sports reporting

1 votes

They do a pretty good job

11 votes

Just another four letter word

46 votes

58 votes | Poll has closed

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

4 recs | Comment 54 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

"a male version of the view"!!!

LOL…now THAT"S funny!

But “a male version of the view”? Isn’t that an oxymoron.

GO BRONCOS!!!

by UnarmingMermaid on Sep 30, 2008 3:46 PM MDT 0 recs

To make matters worse

They dropped us in the power rankings because the defense needs to pick it up. Nice research fellas. Notice the 4 turnovers and 1/4 red zone percentage? Final score is all that matters on “The View”

Ick.

by jonahsilas on Sep 30, 2008 3:56 PM MDT 0 recs

I feel pretty much the same as you do HT

except in the morning I have tyo listen to some arrogant jackass named Colin Cowherd. Fortunately I still have control of the ON-OFF switch and I simply change it to the OFF position.

That’s ok with me. We’re playing for wins, not media publicity....HT 9/11/08

by firstfan on Sep 30, 2008 4:04 PM MDT 0 recs

Sometimes the simplest solutions

are the best ones!

by jonahsilas on Sep 30, 2008 6:43 PM MDT up 0 recs

i am so over espn

I am glad that I live here in SD (sometimes) that the metrosexual and the fat clown is on from 3-6 am PST. I am bombarded with their incessant promos though. I dont care where they rank Denver anymore. Its not a big deal to me, I cant wait for the season to end so when they Broncos have won the West they all can shove it. BTW the sports talk here isnt any better. SIGH

Love is a razor and I have walked the line on that silver blade

by broncfanstuckinsd on Sep 30, 2008 4:20 PM MDT 0 recs

I hate to be a cynic, but two of the four Power Rankings

I have received from MHR contributers have San Diego ranked ahead of Denver. Thanks to the kool aid drinking Zappa(HT was more honest), Denver still has the slight edge overall(2 points) with one contributer(big boss man Guru) that has yet to send me their rankings.

This will all be posted tomorrow of course or later tonight if I have time. ;-)

If God is not a Bronco fan, then WHY are sunsets Blue and Orange? - Jon Tollerud 5/22/08

by Zappa on Sep 30, 2008 4:40 PM MDT 0 recs

PS I hate to say I told you so, but I know I predicted this would happen Sunday evening or Monday morning...lol

It doesn’t bother me all that much…I am used to media bullcrap, since I am also a Ron Paul supporter. Getting dissed by the media is normal to me. lmao

If God is not a Bronco fan, then WHY are sunsets Blue and Orange? - Jon Tollerud 5/22/08

by Zappa on Sep 30, 2008 4:42 PM MDT up 0 recs

But Denver

ahead of SD in the only place that really counts. The Standings

Love is a razor and I have walked the line on that silver blade

by broncfanstuckinsd on Sep 30, 2008 4:58 PM MDT up 0 recs

I wanted to rank Denver 32 this week for that turd they laid Sunday,

At least I was levelheaded enough to keep them above 16

fader nation is a conquered nation

"Jerry Jones is Al Davis with a smile!"

The creator of the following names: conquered fader nation, Phyllis and his merry men

by mdierk on Sep 30, 2008 4:46 PM MDT up 0 recs

Can any of us send rankings?

I want to play, so I’ll email you with some rankings. Use ’em if you want.

3-0.

by papigrande on Sep 30, 2008 5:15 PM MDT up 0 recs

I'd a voted...

…if there was a “Who Cares” option.

If there's gonna be a collision, you better start it. Larry Csonka..

by bradley on Sep 30, 2008 4:56 PM MDT 0 recs

former denver LB tom jackson still loves us . for now !!!!

by broncosfaninphilly on Sep 30, 2008 5:00 PM MDT 0 recs

ESPN? Never heard of them :)

Owning the Patriots since September 9, 1960

by Darin H on Sep 30, 2008 5:12 PM MDT 0 recs

MTV showed music videos once?

ESPN is very much about themselves and not about the sports.

As a hockey fan also, don’t even get me started on ESPN’s arrogant treatment there.

InYoFace Phadouche! InYoFace

by InYoFace on Sep 30, 2008 5:21 PM MDT 0 recs

What's hockey?

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Sep 30, 2008 7:21 PM MDT up 0 recs

exactly

InYoFace Phadouche! InYoFace

by InYoFace on Oct 1, 2008 11:27 AM MDT up 0 recs

It's a thing they do in Canada.

You know, where Sarah gets all of her foriegn policy experience.

That’s ok with me. We’re playing for wins, not media publicity....HT 9/11/08

by firstfan on Oct 1, 2008 11:46 AM MDT up 0 recs

HEY!

I like hockey, and I like Sarah!

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Oct 1, 2008 12:44 PM MDT up 1 recs

HT--I would be angry....

but we deserve a little scrutiny right now. I hope Tampa and Jacksonville don’t prove ESPN right.

The best defense is a good offense!
I hope.

by Mike Clark on Sep 30, 2008 5:33 PM MDT 0 recs

P.S. I voted for, 'they do a pretty good job' for Tom's sake and the TV team.

The best defense is a good offense!
I hope.

by Mike Clark on Sep 30, 2008 5:35 PM MDT up 0 recs

We do deserve scrutiny...

..and I wrote a pretyy “scrutinious” piece for MHR too. But to drop the team below a 2-2 team we already beat seems extreme to me.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Oct 1, 2008 3:17 AM MDT up 0 recs

So much hate for ESPN

I know there’s a bias towards the coasts, just like everything else in life, so you have to take these things with a grain of salt. But I think guys like Rick Reily, KC Joyner, John Hollinger, Michael Smith and JA Adande are the best in the biz. Also Power Rankings don’t matter at all. Power Rankings aren’t like an AP poll that could affect a college team’s standing. So who really cares?

I miss Al

by birkheac on Sep 30, 2008 5:54 PM MDT 0 recs

There are always the good and the bad.

You’re right. Power Rankings don’t count. But the can show the bias of the group. Note who gets to do the rankings; not the guys you mention. To me, the ranking is a reflection of ESPN’s bias. How does a 2-2 team with a loss to a certain 3-1 team get ranked above that 3-1 team?

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Oct 1, 2008 3:19 AM MDT up 0 recs

Shower Yankings instead of Power Rankings,

cause these MSM guys are all a bunch of jerk offs.

by The Gun Young on Sep 30, 2008 5:58 PM MDT 0 recs

Bottomline.

They’re right. The San Diego Chargers are a better football team than our Denver Broncos right now. Yeah, we won the game against them earlier this season, but the difference was a blown call by a ref, not our superiority. Don’t get me wrong, a win is a win, but that’s what the official standings are for; power rankings are not about records. If we played them on a neutral field tomorrow, would you really expect our guys to win? I hate when we play the victims of some mass media conspiracy…

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Sep 30, 2008 6:41 PM MDT 0 recs

i respectfully disagree to a point

If you are going to rank team, then the bottom line should be wins and losses. Last I checked Denver is 3-1 and SD is 2-2. SD maybe better than Denver but they lost to the Broncos. Plus they both have played games in Oakland Denver wiped the floor with Oakland whereas Sd needed to score 25 points in the 4th to win. All things considered equal right now Denver is a better team. Will they by December who knows, but as for today the last day of September the Broncos are better

Love is a razor and I have walked the line on that silver blade

by broncfanstuckinsd on Sep 30, 2008 6:50 PM MDT up 0 recs

Cool.

If you think the bottom line should be the teams’ records, then look at the standings. In my humble opinion, power rankings should be lists in which you’re reasonably confident that a team would defeat, on a neutral field, every team ranked below them.

As for the Raiders logic, that’s an unsound use of the transitive property. Are the Pats and Falcons better teams than we are because they beat the only team that’s beaten us? How do you deal with the circular logic of the Broncos beating the Raiders, the Raiders beating the Chiefs and the Chiefs beating the Broncos?

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Oct 1, 2008 4:22 AM MDT up 0 recs

I was using

it as a comparison.As you stated SD is better, where Denver has beaten Sd and beat up Oakland. Like it or not these games are used to copmare 2 teams. But really this arguement is basically pointless. While I think Denver doesnt get its due, the bottom line is in the standings. Right now Denver is 1 up on SD.

Life what do you mean life, I aint got no life- captive honour

by broncfanstuckinsd on Oct 1, 2008 11:23 AM MDT up 0 recs

1-1/2 technically

until Dec 28th that is.

"It's all over Fat Man" - Tom Jackson to John Madden 1977 AFC Championship Game

"I love your analysis of our team. Its kinda like watching a spider monkey trying to figure out a jar of peanuts.. you know whats going on.. you know whats in there, but to actually figure it out, is just a bit beyond your mental skills..."
- Bronco Dano

by DesertBroncoFan on Oct 1, 2008 11:47 AM MDT up 0 recs

The Chargers struggled to beat the Raiders, a team we manhandled.

They didn’t do anything until the fourth quarter, and they played like crap in the first half. They didn’t deserve to win their game any more than we deserved to beat the Chiefs. I think that if we played the Chargers 10 times on a neutral field, it would be pretty even. They might win 6 of the games, or they might win 4. And do not ever blame a game on the refs. We dominated them for three quarters, and they couldn’t stop our offense. They had three chances to keep us out of the end zone, and they failed on all three of those plays. If they had won the game, it would have been on a fluke fumble and they wouldn’t have deserved it. See how it al forms a nice circle.

Sorry if I came across too negative. I didn’t mean to be a troll, but those are just my thoughts on the situation.

3-0.

by papigrande on Sep 30, 2008 6:52 PM MDT up 0 recs

You are what you are.

The best team is the winner. The best team is the one with the better record. You are what your record says you are. On the field, winners win, and losers make excuses.

The purpose of the rankings is supposed be to rank and separate teams with the same record. That,s where the debates should be. The rankings change every week, so to rank teams with a worse record above those with a better record is BS, and Bias. But it is everything sell out media sources want – controversy creating, reaction invoking, website hitting, fan attention.

by The Gun Young on Sep 30, 2008 7:05 PM MDT up 0 recs

They are who we thought they were?

by hai17 on Sep 30, 2008 9:41 PM MDT up 0 recs

Yes, and we don't want to "let them off the damn hook!"

Hey, I think I am getting thirsty for a beer?

by The Gun Young on Sep 30, 2008 10:34 PM MDT up 0 recs

Like I Said Above:

“As for the Raiders logic, that’s an unsound use of the transitive property. Are the Pats and Falcons better teams than we are because they beat the only team that’s beaten us? How do you deal with the circular logic of the Broncos beating the Raiders, the Raiders beating the Chiefs and the Chiefs beating the Broncos?”

As for some nits to pick: we dominated the first half, but they won the third quarter (10-0) and even the fourth (11-8) for a 21-8 lead in the second half. Like I said below to HT: I agree that they still had their chances to win the game after that and I’m not advocating that we be stripped of the W. That said, that’s for the standings and this is for power rankings, which are two different things in my mind.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Oct 1, 2008 4:25 AM MDT up 0 recs

We've discussed the call here ad nausum.

It didn’t affect the outcome of the game. SD didn’t cause the “fumble”, and they still had several chances to stop a score and then the 2 pt. conversion.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Oct 1, 2008 3:22 AM MDT up 0 recs

Now THAT'S Silly...

They didn’t “cause” it, so it shouldn’t count or matter? And how does a fumble that they clearly would have recovered – with the lead and the ability to kill the clock – not “affect the outcome of the game”? I agree that they still had their chances to win the game after that and I’m not advocating that we be stripped of the W.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Oct 1, 2008 4:16 AM MDT up 0 recs

you seem

to rip on Denver a lot. Thats fine, some of your points are well taken. HOWEVER denver beat SD no matter what your take on the fumble call is. If SD is so much better than Denver they would have either stopped Denver on the 4th and goal or on the duece. They didnt. When it comes down to the end of the season what will be remembered is Denver won that game. Bitch moan and complain all you want about what transpired the Sd had their chances and failed

Life what do you mean life, I aint got no life- captive honour

by broncfanstuckinsd on Oct 1, 2008 11:26 AM MDT up 0 recs

Hochuli...

….made a mistake because the hand is faster than the eye. He blew the whistle to stop play to prevent injuries. This was a mistake by a good ref that is totally excuseable. Unlike, for example, a 98 yard kick return by Dante Hall against the Broncos a few years ago, where there were three very obvious blocks in the back by the Chiefs that weren’t called (the first was so obvious a blind guy could have seen it, and tape showed a Ref looking right at it from about 4 feet away). Anyway, you-know-what happens.
Chargers should have been happy that the drop by Cutler resulted in a loss of yardage and a loss of down. And they should stop whining.

If there's gonna be a collision, you better start it. Larry Csonka..

by bradley on Oct 1, 2008 11:37 AM MDT up 0 recs

Not sensical.

First off, I’m starting from the premise that “what ifs” don’t count. The call was not a fumble, so it wasn’t a fumble. If we are going to play the “what if” game, and you want to count the play as a “fumble”, it is reasonable for me to do the same thing and ask who we are going to credit for the fumble. SD did nothing to “win the game”, which includes causing the fumble (that never happened).

And if you really want to go deep into it, why are you assuming that SD would have recovered? The whistle was already blown? Even if we sink to playing “what ifs”, Denver still wins the game. Bad call? Sure. But it wouldn’t have changed a thing.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Oct 1, 2008 12:49 PM MDT up 0 recs

Well Then...

I guess we were watching two different games. As Hochuli stated, the play should have been ruled a fumble. The replay shows that Cutler, the only Bronco remotely close to the ball, clearly goes after the fumble until the Charger defender recovers. The only what-if is “what if the ref hadn’t blown the call” and the only outcome would have been “San Diego wins”. By the way, you could argue that the fumble was caused by the pressure applied by the SD defender on Jay (if there was no one there, could he not have settled and grippped the ball better); regardless, should bobbled snaps or missed handoffs not count as turnovers? The Broncos won the game and no one can dispute that. Moreover, they deserved the win (I believe there are games when either team can deserve the victory, regardless of the outcome). I’m tired of arguing about this (judging by the MHR and MSM power rankings, I think my point of view is more generally excepted) and I hate that this makes it seem as though I’m not a solid fan. I’m reasonable and objective, is all.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Oct 1, 2008 10:22 PM MDT up 0 recs

You're missing the point.

I didn’t say that the play was a bad call. It should have been a fumble, no doubt about it. It was a horrible call, and you waste time trying to convince me of it. You’re missing the context of my argument completely.

In determining the better team, if you are going to determine the better team, ask yourself three questions.

1) DId the Chargers do anything to cause Jay’s fumble? The fumble was not a result of SD’s “superior” defense at all. Jay dropped it.

2) Still, it was a loss of yards and loss of down. Denver still had to score, and still had to score a 2 pt. conversion. At no time did SD do anything to WIN THE GAME. They didn’t outscore Denver, and they didn’t stop Denver.

3) There isn’t even any reason to assume that SD would have recovered. Most likely, Jay would have recovered his own fumble (he was closest). So why assume that the call would have changed a darned thing? The whistle prevented us from finding out.

And Ejru, I’m not questiong you fandom. Another poster did that, and I disagree entirely with that. I know you to be a long time member and a solid fan. A lot of us are split on the issue of where to rank SD relating to DEN.

However, I don’t think many folks support the view that the blown call helped Denver (Guru wrote an excellent piece on the call, and makes the point even better that I do). And while I understand some of the staff and members being divided on the issue (with good arguments both ways), I don’t buy the reasoning employed by ESPN.

You’re a solid fan, and don’t let someone tell you different.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Oct 2, 2008 1:16 PM MDT up 0 recs

Oops!

First line should read “I didn’t say that call on the field was a good call”. You and I agree that the official’s rulling was terrible. That should be clear by the context of the rest of my comment. Thanks : )

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Oct 2, 2008 1:18 PM MDT up 0 recs

Terrible ruling?

Sorry, I disagree. As I said above:

Hochuli made a mistake because the hand is faster than the eye. He blew the whistle to stop play to prevent injuries. This was a mistake by a good ref that is totally excuseable. Unlike, for example, a 98 yard kick return by Dante Hall against the Broncos a few years ago, where there were three very obvious blocks in the back by the Chiefs that weren’t called (the first was so obvious a blind guy could have seen it, and tape showed a Ref looking right at it from about 4 feet away). Anyway, you-know-what happens.

If there's gonna be a collision, you better start it. Larry Csonka..

by bradley on Oct 2, 2008 2:43 PM MDT up 0 recs

Whoa!

It was a terrible ruling, but I never used that as a bat against Hochuli either. I think if you go back and read the many comments I’ve made under different posts, you’ll find no stauncher defender of Hochuli than me.

I don’t claim that I would have made the right call in the blink of an eye, and I’ve made that point too. Hochuli remains one of the top refs in the business. I certainly excuse the call. Never the less, it was clearly the wrong call. Making comparisons to Dante Hall’s return doesn’t diminish the fact that the call was blown.

I think most people agree with me that the call was wrong. I also think that most of us understand that Hochuli did the best with what he had to work with. It’s quiet a leap to say that I find fault with Hochuli just because he made a bad call. I’ve written before that I couldn’t do his job, and I don’t think it’s fair to make the leap that I somehow fault Hochuli for doing the impossible (getting a call right in the blink of an eye).

Again, Hochuli – good. Call on the field – bad. Call’s affect on the outcome of the game – non-existant.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Oct 3, 2008 2:18 PM MDT up 0 recs

Well

I just don’t think Hochuli’s call should be characterized as terrible. It was wrong, as the camera showed, but nothing at all like the lack of a call in the Dante Hall episode I mentioned.

It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. Earl Weaver.

by bradley on Oct 3, 2008 2:29 PM MDT up 0 recs

Never really care about ESPN Power Rankings

The only thing I don’t like about ESPN are their NFL announcers because they totally suck.

All I am concerned with is playing well on both sides of the ball and WINS!!!

"It doesn't dissipate" ~ Mike Shanahan

Cutler's 4th qtr/OT game winning drives: 4

by weazel on Sep 30, 2008 7:28 PM MDT 0 recs

I somewhere in between all of these opinions

On the one hand I agree that wins are all that matters, but if one views the Power Rankings as needing to be reflections of that then they become useless to fans because they are no different from the standings. They are as popular as they are because fans want something more: they want an idea of HOW a team got to where they are int he standings. Enter the Power Ranking. A simple list of 32 teams that tells a more in depth story than the standings. The best ones are very objective, the worst ones are filled with preconceived notions and self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think a power ranking should be more than just a rote transcription of who won and who lost, I think it should take into account how a team is currently playing, and how that has changed throughout the course of the season, i.e. how did these teams get to where they are, and where is that?

For the record I dropped Denver 10 spots in my own power rankings this week, a plummet matched only by ARI laying an egg against NYJ. That was from 3rd to 13th. In related news the Chargers went up two spots, overtaking Denver by one position. I think this both reflects the fact that Denver has been very productive against good teams, but has had good teams be productive versus them, and also that they allowed an unproductive team to produce against them, and struggled to produce themselves. They may have lost to KC last week, but that performance would have been a loss to ANY team in the league. They played badly and they don’t get a cookie for that.

As to the assertion that SD doesn’t belong ahead of Denver, they aren’t in the list that determines playoff seeding, the standings. But on power rankings far and wide, SD has moved ahead of Denver, and rightly so because it is a measure of where these teams are at right now, not two weeks ago. And right now SD would be favored over Denver, even if only barely.

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Sep 30, 2008 7:36 PM MDT 0 recs

just as a side note

my power rankings are based entirely on formulas that are based on win loss records and points forced and against. If I was a football outsider, I would call it a “value-adjusted winning percentage” or VAWP.

My personal observations enter in only after the rankings have been determined, and are added merely as a way of trying to explain the results.

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Sep 30, 2008 7:50 PM MDT up 0 recs

Seems like your sample size is too small right now to be very accurate

hence a team dropping 10 spots in one week, but I’m excited to see your results at the end of the year.

by RaiderPete on Sep 30, 2008 9:19 PM MDT up 0 recs

sample size could be better

but I didn’t share the results until week 3. If it was just win loss, it would be way to small, which is why I added opponents win loss, and points scored and against. My next step is to go with median measurements for each team once they have four full games under their belt. That will slice into the sample size a little bit as well, but I think it will still be more accurate.

By week 6 I think it will be very accurate, and of course, i too am eager to see how it looks at the end of the season.

Regarding the 10 spot drop: 10 spots has a lot to do with other teams rising and falling as well, and so isn’t the best look at at a teams individual performance. The score associated with each team is expressed as a winning percentage and the difference in that score is a better representation. For Denver they dropped 0.126 compared to ARI who dropped .116 OAK ont eh other hand dropped a measly 0.026, being penalized mostly for not finishing the game out with a win. Normally a loss is worth more, but I believe OAK mitigated this by doing a decent job of holding the bolts back, though they didn’t get much credit for scoring against them, since that doesn’t appear to be too difficult to do this year.

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by styg50 on Sep 30, 2008 10:13 PM MDT up 0 recs

I fully agree that rankings shouldn't reflect wins and losses.

On the other hand, ESPN has a record of bias. In this case, Not only did Denver beat SD, not only did Denver have a better record, but Denver played common opponents better (blowout over oak vs near game against oak). I might suspect that SD has a more balanced team, but it hasn’t been shown in my opinion.

ESPN has a record of lowballing Denver. In your case, you have a valid approach. But since we know the ESPN guys aren’t as smart as you are, it is reasonable to assume that they are just ranking Denver lower than SD out of spite.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Oct 1, 2008 3:27 AM MDT up 0 recs

I don't think it is spite,

as much as it fulfills these pundits’ own predictions, and is therefore more palatable to them. But still, on the merits, the Chargers shouldn’t be ranked ahead of the Broncos.

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by TedBartlett905 on Oct 1, 2008 5:40 AM MDT up 0 recs