Well I've been making this point on here for years. While it's easy to sift through the predictions of the so-called experts, and highlight all their misses, as opposed to hits, I think the larger point of the original post holds true.
Many of the national sports experts are talking heads. As a journalist myself, I noticed this about mainstream media in general. Most big-time media people have established themselves by knowing a lot about everything, but not much of anything, if that makes any sense. What I mean is they know all the movers and shakers about a particular subject; they're well informed about current happenings and current events, but are fundamentally unable to delve deep into a particular issue (or in the case of sports, teams). They make their cases by skimming the surface -- albeit a lot of surface.
Whenever I hear Peter King and others who cover so much NFL territory talk about teams, it amazes me of how little they know about the grassroots systems of most teams in the NFL, save for the Cowboys, Pats, colts and other "national favorites." So while they will be the first to tell us how Mike Vick may miss the season, they're the least qualified to predict how previously unheralded guys like the Tom Brady's and Terell Davis' or Zach Thomas are likely to emerge into superstars.
For that kind of stuff, it's better too pay attention to the local guys, who while they may be somewhat biased, are better indicators of how a particular system is developing.
I'm a transportation writer and am amazed at how routinely the so-called elite media mess up transportation issues. The NY Times, for example just fudged up a very important trucking issue, spinning it (not surprisingly) into an anti-bush screed, when the issue in question stretches back to 1994 under Clinton. So I wonder, if they mess this up so bad, what other issues in other industries or sectors do they mess up? I bet a whole lot.
Like I said, a lot about everything, but very little about anything in particular.
