What's the deal with the experts?

What's the deal with College Football News? How about the other "experts crowd?"

I think CFN has picked against UConn against Duke and Maine. Now, UConn is one of the worst 2-0 teams out there? That may be so, but can the people making these predictions actually watch the games? No way any of these guys commenting have seen UConn play this year. I doubt they saw any more than the first half against WVU last year. It's just not credible.

UConn was going to lose to Duke, remember, a lot of "experts" picked it, then UConn blows them out of the water and suddenly it isn't a good win for UConn because "it's Duke. "

Hold on for a minute. You can't have it both ways.

When you pick Maine to upset UConn, and Uconn goes on to destroy Maine (non-competitive game), you can't then come back and say, "Well, its Maine."

It also bothers me when I hear the criticism of the schedule. Yes, I think the OOC games are terrible. But the criticism is duplicitous.

Is UConn's first three games soft? Without a doubt. It's Rutgersesque.

But, there are those who think UConn is one of the worst BCS teams out there this year. I read it in a dozen preview magazines. If UConn is as bad as everyone predicted, then they are playing the schedule they should be playing.

Right?

Temple, Duke etc. are supposed to be UConn's peers, right? So why shouldn't they play them and get credit for beating them?

There is a breakdown in logic here. There is such a rush to bury UConn because everyone predicted they would be terrible that the wins and on the field results are dismissed. Results are just ignored.

It's "just Duke, Just Maine, Just Temple"?

This is only my second year of covering college football, but I am stunned at the industry that has developed surrounding these games. It's such a hype machine. People make predictions and forecastings and the team is viewed through that prism until conventional wisdom hits them over the head (USF beating Auburn). Every league, every coach, every analyst has an agenda and bias.

I got a sporting news clip given to me by a colleague that said that "UConn might not be able to recruit the athletes in the Northeast it needs to be successful as a program. Those athletes would rather look at Rutgers, Syracuse and Boston College."

Say what? Does that make any sense at all? Think about it. Is there something preventing UConn from competitively recruiting these guys?

Two years ago, UConn was the rising tiger and Rutgers was never going to be able to recruit New Jersey. Considering the caliber of the last two UConn classes, the TSN statement is a joke.

Whatever happened to independent observation? I know there are a lot of games, but instead of saying UConn is terrible, say the truth, we'll find out how good UConn is Sept. 29 in Pittsburgh.

For the record, I think UConn is far better than last year. They have a quarterback and much more depth on the lines and are bigger and stronger and older. It's night and day.

How much have they improved? I don't know. Pittsburgh is the first big test. If they fail it, fine. Then bury them.

But, I can hear the excuses already coming. Pittsburgh's hurt, Virginia isn't good. Louisvlle really doesn't have a defense. South Florida can't play in cold weather. Rutgers is overrated because of an easy schedule.

It goes on and on. Just watch the darn games.