This annoys me greatly...

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Lance McAlister also referenced this on his blog and when I read it, I couldn't believe the Bengals' weren't even mentioned in any of the "13" matchups.

But of course, Dallas were mentioned the most, along with the Chargers and Saints:

SI Story

Once again, the Bengals' are getting little to no respect or notice - would be good bulletin board material for them I think.

I really hope the Bengals' give us a chance to shove it down the media's throats when they're unable to talk about Romo and Terrell Owens and the Katrina Saints and "LT" obsessively at some point....and realize the best WR, QB and a top 5 RB are all residing in Cincinnati - yet no one seems to know about them.

[MacD BengalFan]

I noticed it as well and I believe it comes down to the Bengals are the Bungals and that they are not capable of making it to the Super Bowl because of thier past history. I disregarded the entire article after I didn't see the Bengals listed. What non-sense.

[BengalChamps]

I was annoyed at first too, but then i realized that the Bengals have not qualified for the playoffs yet and if they do, they will be on the road for every game.

What the Squeelers did last year is VERY unlikely and probably wont happen again for 10 years.

I hope the Bengals prove me wrong!

[Spor_tees]

I was annoyed at first too, but then i realized that the Bengals have not qualified for the playoffs yet and if they do, they will be on the road for every game.

What the Squeelers did last year is VERY unlikely and probably wont happen again for 10 years.

I hope the Bengals prove me wrong!

They could host the AFC champioship game if they are the #5 seed and win the first 2 games and the other wildcard wins too. Unlikely...but hey this season has been strange already.

[TJJackson]

If you read the whole thing, you will indeed find that the Bengals are mentioned in the description of the Chicago-Indy matchup, noting that either way, it'd be the first matchup of black head coaches in the Superbowl

Nonetheless, your main point stands....that the writer did not see fit to mention the Bengals as a possible super bowl contender, which is somewhat ridiculous

[membengal]

No biggie, it just spared us having to read a warmed over joke about the Bengals' arrest issues and the game being played in Miami, full of temptations.

[HoosierCat]

Banks isn't saying the Bengals won't make it to the Super Bowl or that it wouldn't be a good game. He's just looking at possibilities from a journalistic angle, i.e. what would be the best storylines. If he did the same article about the AFC Championship, the possible Freezer Bowl rematch would be among the top ones, I'm sure.

[BlainThePain]

They mentioned on Around the Horn (I think it was that show but I'm not positive) that the Bengals winning the Super Bowl this year would be the NFL's worst nightmare because of image problems.

[MacD BengalFan]

And if it did come from ATH, Mariotti was the one who probably said it. I lend no credance to Mariotti and anything he says. What they don't tell you is San Diego have had as many players arrested this year as the Bengals and they may also win the Super Bowl, but that doesn't seem to phase anyone. What a bunch of hypocrites.

[CBin2k7]

And if it did come from ATH, Mariotti was the one who probably said it. I lend no credance to Mariotti and anything he says. What they don't tell you is San Diego have had as many players arrested this year as the Bengals and they may also win the Super Bowl, but that doesn't seem to phase anyone. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Exactly, they don't mention that SD has had as many arrests this year as the Bengals. Nor do they mention that their best player on D got suspended for 4 games because of steriods. Or that Baltimore's starting RB has spent the off season in a jail cell.

It's all about the Bengals and their issues. Hypocrites

[derekshank]

I in no way want to try to defend the number of arrests the Bengals have had. It's a problem, and to call it anything else is living in denial.

That said... I don't understand why people think it would be an image problem for the NFL. Was it an image problem when the Raiders were consistently going deep in the playoffs? They were the bad-news bears, and everyone knew it - but it didn't hurt the NFL.

Also, I don't know why the media wants to think this is a Bengal problem. It's an NFL problem. The Bengals had the worst off-season of any NFL team, and NFL news is slow in the summer - so it was the the center of attention. Since the season started, the Bengals have had an average number of arrests for an NFL team... but we remain the center of attention.

We made our own bed... so now we'll lie in it, but a responsible journalist would look around the league and see that the problem is league-wide - not just in Cincinnati.

[bengal4life]

The media's job is to turn up contraversy and apperently it's working.

[MacD BengalFan]

The media's job is to turn up contraversy and apperently it's working.

Sorry, but the media's job is to report the facts and that is what they are failing to do. As stated earlier in this thread, it is an NFL problem not just a Bengals problem and until the media realzies that they will continue to focus on the Bengals and not look at the rest of the league. The next thing you know the media will have you believe that the Bengals should be kicked out of the NFL because of these problems and the possibility of it tarnishing the NFL's image.

[TJJackson]

That said... I don't understand why people think it would be an image problem for the NFL. Was it an image problem when the Raiders were consistently going deep in the playoffs? They were the bad-news bears, and everyone knew it - but it didn't hurt the NFL.

Different decade, different commissioner, different nfl, different coverage level

Can't make a valid comparison of the two.

Said another way - if those Raider teams were playing now, they'd be talking about them as well

[derekshank]

That said... I don't understand why people think it would be an image problem for the NFL. Was it an image problem when the Raiders were consistently going deep in the playoffs? They were the bad-news bears, and everyone knew it - but it didn't hurt the NFL.

Different decade, different commissioner, different nfl, different coverage level

Can't make a valid comparison of the two.

Said another way - if those Raider teams were playing now, they'd be talking about them as well

My argument wasn't that the Raiders teams weren't talked about (and therefore we shouldn't be). My argument was that those Raiders teams didn't damage the NFL's image (and therefore neither do the Bengals).

[Arizona]

I like most of you, but you live in an rosy orange bubble. Let me reintroduce you to reality.

First, the image issue is real and desperate. The amount of sports coverage today is literally an order of magnitude greater than at any time in the past. Ten minutes after a player gets into trouble, everyone knows. Compound that with the fact that one of your players is getting into trouble constantly. Every team has problems, that's what you get when you give young guys lots of money and fame. But your team is way out in front. When you become an inside joke to NFL fans, it's a bad sign and an indication of a problem.

Second, you haven't earned any respect. There are a handful of teams that have pulled ahead of the pack and lead their divisions, and these teams rightly get the most publicity. You've been on a good run the last month, no doubt, but do you honestly think you've looked better than the Chargers? The Saints? Last year you won the division and got tons of praise and attention b/c you had earned it. Not so this year.

Third, and this is a source of similar arguments in Ravens land, ESPN and the NFL Network are not news outlets, they are entertainment. They are attempting to make money by being entertainment, but being must see TV. ESPN is not the Wall Street Journal. Don't expect objective analysis from them.

[derekshank]

First, the image issue is real and desperate. The amount of sports coverage today is literally an order of magnitude greater than at any time in the past. Ten minutes after a player gets into trouble, everyone knows. Compound that with the fact that one of your players is getting into trouble constantly. Every team has problems, that's what you get when you give young guys lots of money and fame. But your team is way out in front. When you become an inside joke to NFL fans, it's a bad sign and an indication of a problem.

I agree that it's an NFL wide problem... but to say that the Bengals situation is worse than most teams is silly. The Chargers have been cited multiple times... so lets take a look at them.

If Merriman was a baseball player, he'd be known as a cheater. But he plays in the NFL, so who cares if he's on steroids... right? We only care about DUI in this league. Cornerback Cletis Gordon was arrested on drunk driving charges a few weeks ago, and Steve Foley was shot three times by an off-duty police officer who suspected him of driving drunk. We are out in front... but not by much. We've had 8 arrests in a calendar year... while the Chargers have had 5 since the season began. Do the math there, and let me know who has the bigger problem.

By the way... our guys are players like Askew, McNeal, Thurman, Rucker, and Nicholson. You probably haven't heard of most of these guys (I wonder why?). Steiny, Henry, and Deltha have all been disappointing... but the other guys - who cares? Is it a big deal if a guy on the Ravens ground crew gets arrested? No... because he's not important to the team's success. A janitor doesn't have the ability to pull down the credibility of the wall-street journal... but apparently 6th and 7th round picks on the practice squad can hurt the Bengals rep.

We've all recognized that the Bengals organization has been embarrassed by these events... but to claim they are anything more than embarrassing (or in any way rare when looking over the rest of the NFL) is incorrect.

Second, you haven't earned any respect. There are a handful of teams that have pulled ahead of the pack and lead their divisions, and these teams rightly get the most publicity. You've been on a good run the last month, no doubt, but do you honestly think you've looked better than the Chargers? The Saints? Last year you won the division and got tons of praise and attention b/c you had earned it. Not so this year.

Yes... I do think we look better than the Saints. They are a better story than us because of the city they play in... but we pounded them a few weeks ago, and made it look effortless. As far as the Chargers go... well, there aren't many teams that look better than them right now, but we didn't exactly get blown out by them... and lets not forget how much better we looked than the Ravens exactly 2 weeks ago.

[TJJackson]

My argument wasn't that the Raiders teams weren't talked about (and therefore we shouldn't be). My argument was that those Raiders teams didn't damage the NFL's image (and therefore neither do the Bengals).

Invalid argument, because image buildup or destruction proceeds much more quickly and on a wider scale than it did then, in this age of full motion video, high speed data connections, and 24 hour a day news coverage.

[bengal4life]

Sorry but as much facts as they are supposed to support they also stir up contraversy. Lee Corso for example bets against the buckeyes almost every week well knowing they will win just to get arguments started with his other broadcasters. I realize what your saying but in certain situations they say the opposite of what everyone wants to hear just to get things stirred up.

[derekshank]

My argument wasn't that the Raiders teams weren't talked about (and therefore we shouldn't be). My argument was that those Raiders teams didn't damage the NFL's image (and therefore neither do the Bengals).

Invalid argument, because image buildup or destruction proceeds much more quickly and on a wider scale than it did then, in this age of full motion video, high speed data connections, and 24 hour a day news coverage.

I still don't buy it. The Raiders were dirty on the field too. Everyone knew it... no one cared.

There is a fundamental assumption in your opinion that people are concerned about whether or not the people who entertain them are law-abiding citizens. There are some of those people out there... but most people just want them to be entertaining and likeable. John Daly is entertaining and likeable... but he's a train-wreck. He's one of the most popular golfers on the tour. Iverson is popular throughout the NBA despite being in trouble with the law, and being a coach killer, and being such a pain in the ass that he's on the trading block.

I just don't see the popularity of the NFL (a violent game in nature) being diminished by the individuals who play the game getting in to trouble. In fact... it is expected that teams will have guys who get into trouble. You don't often ask people to perform violence for a living, and then expect them to be model citizens. People like to pretend to be moralists... but they still spend their discretionary income to be entertained by actors, musicians, and yes... athletes, whose behavior does not match-up with their own value system. The NFL's image is in no real danger.

[Stripes]

I have no issue with the media crapping on the Bengals regarding the arrests (except when they blame losses on said arrests), they've brought that on themselves. Marvin Lewis and Mike Brown would be the first to agree. Still, it can get annoying when the media blows it out of proportion everytime they bring the story up, and that skews the viewpoints of all the unbiased fans out there looking at the Bengals from the outside.

Still, the Chargers might be in second, but they have not had as many problems as we had so frequently through the offseason. Now we've had two more during the regular season, so of course they'll be looked at as one string of events. The Chargers don't deserve the same degree of criticism, and what they have gotten what lambasting they do deserve. Just like the Bengals have.

[Arizona]

The problem isn't what fans think, the problem is what Corporate America thinks. The top dogs in the NFL are afraid of losing ad related revenue and sponsorships and such.

[derekshank]

The problem isn't what fans think, the problem is what Corporate America thinks. The top dogs in the NFL are afraid of losing ad related revenue and sponsorships and such.

Well, you might be right... but as long as the NFL is the most popular sport, the revenue will be there. Corporate America cares less about character and virtue than does the average person. They go where people are... and people go where the NFL is.

[Arizona]

I have to disagree. Peyton Manning isn't the most exciting, most beloved player in football. He's just one of the cleanest. That's why he's selling everything.

Mike Vick is probably more popular, especially amongst younger fans and casual fans b/c he's exciting, but I'm sure the whole Ron Mexico fiasco and the bird flipping have cost him.

Others I put in the get endorsements b/c they are clean category are McNabb and Brady. See also guys like TO and Moss, whose turdishness kills their marketability.

Slightly off topic, but one I don't get is Chad Johnson. He's very likable and clean, I'm surprised I don't see him on TV more.

[derekshank]

I have to disagree. Peyton Manning isn't the most exciting, most beloved player in football. He's just one of the cleanest. That's why he's selling everything.

Mike Vick is probably more popular, especially amongst younger fans and casual fans b/c he's exciting, but I'm sure the whole Ron Mexico fiasco and the bird flipping have cost him.

Others I put in the get endorsements b/c they are clean category are McNabb and Brady. See also guys like TO and Moss, whose turdishness kills their marketability.

Slightly off topic, but one I don't get is Chad Johnson. He's very likable and clean, I'm surprised I don't see him on TV more.

Now you're talking individual players being used for endorsements. That's a different discussion. I'll agree that guys like Chris Henry aren't going to be in Pepsi commercials any time soon. It is too risky. In that situation your product is directly related to the individual player, and therefore could easily be linked to the poor behavior.

However... Budweiser will always feel that advertising during a football game is a safe way to spend their money. Advertising during a Cowboy game doesn't reflect badly on your product... even if having T.O. try to sell it to you would. There is a very real distinction there. As long as people are watching the NFL (and my argument is that they will continue to watch the NFL, even if there are criminals playing) the revenue will come.