The new Colts/Saints debate is the latest case study in perception skewing reality. The following is why the Indianapolis Colts are a better football team than the New Orleans Saints. While both teams have tremendous offenses, smart coaches and quarterbacks, professional attitudes and staunch determination. The Colts are a more complete team with more maturity and experience, since for at least the third time in four seasons, they've started 7-0. For that exact reason, however, sports media is over hyping the Saints, evident in power rankings across the nation.

It seems like year after year, the Colts get off to a fast start, become the last unbeaten team in the league, and spend the last week or two of the season resting their starters. Just three seasons ago they became the first team in NFL history to win 13 straight by an average of at least a touchdown. As fans and anchors and analysts we've become so accustomed to the Colts' monstrous regular season success, that it's become nearly impossible for them to impress anyone. While the Saints have certainly played well, I won't deny that, they've done nothing to prove they are better than the Colts while showing at least a few reasons, in my opinion for why they are worse, more on that later.

But between you and me, I hope the Colts get the lowest power rankings possible with the least media hype. Staying under the radar is always a good thing especially for the Colts, just look at their super bowl run. So really I don't mind them not being ranked first, though my BCS experience has conditioned me to believe that rankings are important, so long as the rankings are made with respect and logical reasoning, rather than hype, feel good stories, and flawed perception. All from which the Saints are benefitting, to their dismay I'm sure. What annoys me the most however, are the excuses made for the Saints but not for the Colts, most notably after last weekend. In week three against the Bills, Drew Brees goes 16/ 29, 172 yards, no TDs, no INTs, and a 73 passer rating. All the media talked about was how gritty this Saints team was, being able to beat a horrendous Bills team, currently ranked last in rushing yards allowed, with decent, mistake free play from their quarterback. If that were Kyle Orton's stat line, he would be praised for being such a valuable game manager while Brees is said to have an off day. The next week, same result, except against an unbeaten Jets team, which has since been exposed, I'd say, losing twice to the Dolphins. But when Peyton Manning puts up 347 with no touchdowns or interceptions against an unfamiliar and tenacious Niners team (arguably the greatest 3-4 team of all time), people start asking, "What's wrong with Peyton." Two days later, the Colts drop in the Power Rankings and Peyton drops in the MVP watch behind the Saints and Brees, respectively. While headlines say that the Colts struggle against the Niners, they say the Saints show their fortitude against the Bills, Jets, Dolphins, and Falcons.

While I have come to accept the fallacy that "newer is better", one that I think Obama benefited from, not that he doesn't deserve it, it's another thing entirely to seek to create an icon in the Saints, which I believe ESPN, among other sports publications, is doing. I believe they see the media cash cow which is the story of the immaculate Saints rising from the ashes of once defeated New Orleans to save a city, a people, and an economy in desperate need of hope and a hero. I say this with only the best for the people of the Big Easy, but anything besides reasoned, logical, unbiased coverage of the Saints is just bad journalism and a mockery of "expert" analysis, not to mention irresponsible. While their current run is great for the city, what happens when the media over hypes this team, gets NOLA's hopes up, and they lose in the divisional round after a first round bye and three weeks of meaningless games. I'm not suggesting Katrina 2.0, but the city will be devastated, and the team will have a tough time bouncing back in 2010. Now, back to why the Colts are better. As I stated near the beginning, the Colts are a more complete team. I’m going to say that the offenses are even. The Colts have just as many weapons as the Saints, especially when Gonzalez returns, are just as hard to cover, and are just as dynamic. Some would argue that the Saints have a better running game, and I would probably agree. The Colts have better and more complete backs, however, in Brown and Addai who, in addition to running, both block and receive extremely well. For the Colts though, putting up big rushing numbers are not as important as establishing the run as a legitimate threat for both setting up the play-action and converting in short yardage situations. Note, Joseph Addai has the highest conversion percentage of any back in the NFL since 2006 in converting 3rd and 4th and short and goal line situations. At over 80%, that’s higher that AP, LT, and Brandon Jacobs to name a few. The Saints backs are unreliable, fumbling twice in huge situations Monday night.

Also, I would say special teams are just close enough to be even, a slight advantage going to the Saints, although Colts coverage teams are playing incredibly well this year. For me it’s the defense that makes all the difference. In scoring defense, the Colts are 1st in the league; the Saints are 17th. While highlight reels show Frank Gore’s 64 yard TD run, analysts claim a poor run defense for the Colts, ignoring the fact that they held him to 24 yards on 17 carries outside of that run. When the Saints give up 442 yards and 27 points to the Falcons, their defense is "much improved." It doesn’t matter who the Saints have played and who the Colts have played. Outside the Bills and the Jets, the Saints have had to score in droves since the defense had given up over 20 points in each contest. The only team to go over seventeen points against the Colts were the Dolphins (23 points), a team which would have beaten the Saints if Ted Ginn could catch, scoring 37 against the Saints. Offenses for all teams are less reliable in the playoffs, given elite competition. And when they get there, the Saints will have to be able to shutdown teams much better than the Jets and Bills. Right now, I doubt their ability to do this. While several analysts are comparing this Saints offense to that of the 2007 Patriots, I think they are closer to the 2004 Colts who were able to jump out to early leads and allow there defense to feed on pass desperate opponents.

The Saints defense is opportunistic at best and porous at worst. They allow big plays and have not shown an ability to keep their team in the game by forcing three and outs, but they’ve benefiting greatly from turnovers and, of course, Sharper’s pick-sixes. Come January, if the Saints face a team that could match them point for point, perhaps the Vikings, they better hope their defense can lean on the luck they’ve had so far. I will argue all day with anyone who says the Saints are outside the top 5 teams in the NFL right now, but they are certainly not the best. Their number one ranking is merely a result of hype, popularity, and excitement, not facts. Yes I am a huge Colts fan, and you can say that my opinion is just as biased as those who clamor over the Saints. But I've been paying close attention to sports media, and I think Peter King is the only "neutral" journalist to give the credit, I believe, the Colt's deserve (even though he ranks them second). As our friends at 18 to 88 say, "It isn't homerism if you're right." And in this case I believe I am. Your thoughts?