There should be no pre-season college football polls

Georgia is ranked number one in both the Associated Press and USA Today college football polls to start the season. In fact, the Bulldogs are the pick of most experts to win the national championship. They have a lot of experience returning this year especially on defense.

However, I have never understood the need for polls before the start of the season. The polls are supposed to rank the top 25 teams in the country, but how is that possible if no games have been played? True, the pre-season polls are largely ceremonial and play an important roll in adding to all the pre-season chatter related to the sport. But don't these polls give an unnecessary advantage to teams that have not earned anything yet?

Every year, it seems like there is at least one team that is ranked low in the polls or not at all, but they emerge as one of the top teams. However, because they began so low, it was more difficult for them to reach the top than it was for teams that were bestowed high rankings without playing a game.

When Tennessee won the national championship in 1998, we began the year ranked tenth and had to slowly but surely jump teams on the way to the top. Conversely, the Volunteers started the 2005 season ranked third, but stank it out and finished with only a 5-6 record. Clearly, the Vols were vastly overrated that year.

Polls should not be issued until the first week of October. By then, all the teams have been playing for a month, and we should have a pretty good idea of who the better teams are. It will not guarantee that teams won't get overlooked, but it will greatly reduce the possibility. If we aren't going to have a playoff system, then we must look at ways to refine the current system. And this is one way.

ESPN's 25-hour pregame show another example of overkill

ESPN's decision to air a 25-hour pregame show in advance of Thursday's LSU-Mississippi State football game can only be described as overkill. What is the point of this? I enjoy college football probably more than the average person, but the prospect of spending 25 hours with all of ESPN's college football talking heads makes my head woozy just thinking about it.

The marathon begins on Wednesday at 6 p.m. CT and will continue until game time the following evening at 7 p.m. CT. Given ESPN's penchant for favoritism, this program has a chance to be a real train wreck. Even though it is leading up to a Southeastern Conference game, I find it hard to believe that they will not spend a substantial amount of time flogging their pet teams and conferences.

Just imagine how many times they will mention Ohio State and Michigan or imply that the Big 10 conference has the football credentials of a conference the caliber of the SEC. ESPN definitely has a raging love for the Big 10.

Or, how many times will Lou Holtz sing the praises of South Carolina and Notre Dame, both of which are places he coached at? Or, how about Lee Corso talking up his beloved Florida State. Or, how about Kirk Herbstreit singing about his alma mater Ohio State.

I know this is only sports, but I don't think it is asking too much for the most prominent sports network to at least keep up the pretense of objectivity when it comes to their reporting and commentary. However, that does not happen. Commentators openly campaign for programs that they have connections to.

I may watch a little bit of this program, but I can't imagine spending much time with it. College football is special, but some folks want to exploit it until it is worn into a fine powder. It's too much, too soon in the year.

USC is the consensus No. 1, but should we have polls this early?

USC is ranked number one in both the Associated Press and USA Today college football polls to start the season. In fact, the Trojans are the pick of most experts to win the national championship. They have a lot of experience returning this year especially on defense.

The Southeastern Conference is well represented in both polls. LSU and Florida are both ranked in the top 10. Tennessee is ranked fifteenth in each poll. Also, Georgia, Auburn, and Arkansas are ranked in both polls.

However, I have never understood the need for polls before the start of the season. The polls are supposed to rank the top 25 teams in the country, but how is that possible if no games have been played? True, the preseason polls are largely ceremonial and play an important roll in adding to all the preseason chatter related to the sport. But don't these polls give an unnecessary advantage to teams that have not earned anything yet?

Every year, it seems like there is at least one team that is ranked low in the polls or not at all, but they emerge as one of the top teams. However, because they began so low, it is harder for them to reach the top than it is for teams that are bestowed with high rankings without playing a game.

When Tennessee won the national championship in 1998, we began the year ranked tenth and had to slowly but surely jump teams on the way to the top. Conversely, the Volunteers started the 2005 season ranked third, but we stank it out and finished with only a 5-6 record. Clearly, the Vols were vastly overrated that year.

Polls should not be issued until the first week of October. By then, all the teams have been playing for a month, and we should have a pretty good idea of who the better teams are. It will not guarantee that teams won't get overlooked, but it will greatly reduce the possibility. If we aren't going to have a playoff system, then we must look at ways to refine the current system. And this is one way.