Yes, it's time for a rant about all the useless info Steele uses to inflate his preseason mag. Example, from his "Phil's Forecast" for the Miami Redhawks:
"I may be dating myself but I remember watching Miami in the early 70's when they finished #15, #10 and #12 in the final polls compiling a three year record of 32-1-1. They won three straight Tangerine Bowls, alll over teams that are now in the SEC. Heading into 2003 Miami hadn't been to a bowl since 1986 and had gone 16 straight years with a Mac Title despite 9 straight winning seasons. In Rothelsberger's final season Miami went 13-1 with their only loss being to Iowa (#8)..."
And on and on and on it goes. Line after line of history in what is supposed to be a FORECAST, in other words, looking forward. Please Phil, nobody cares that the Redhawks installed field turf in 2003. Page after page, team after team Steele repeats ancient history that has absolutely nothing to do with how a given team will do this year. I'm not sure whether its laziness or not, but obviously its easier to repeat the old rather than developing something new.
Steele's mag this year is 328 pages. Keeping his team summaries to the last 2 years or so and improving his reporting on what's happening now would greatly improve his publication...and he could probably safe 100 pages or so in the process.
"I may be dating myself but I remember watching Miami in the early 70's when they finished #15, #10 and #12 in the final polls compiling a three year record of 32-1-1. They won three straight Tangerine Bowls, alll over teams that are now in the SEC. Heading into 2003 Miami hadn't been to a bowl since 1986 and had gone 16 straight years with a Mac Title despite 9 straight winning seasons. In Rothelsberger's final season Miami went 13-1 with their only loss being to Iowa (#8)..."
And on and on and on it goes. Line after line of history in what is supposed to be a FORECAST, in other words, looking forward. Please Phil, nobody cares that the Redhawks installed field turf in 2003. Page after page, team after team Steele repeats ancient history that has absolutely nothing to do with how a given team will do this year. I'm not sure whether its laziness or not, but obviously its easier to repeat the old rather than developing something new.
Steele's mag this year is 328 pages. Keeping his team summaries to the last 2 years or so and improving his reporting on what's happening now would greatly improve his publication...and he could probably safe 100 pages or so in the process.
