The widely-accepted "defending champion deserves to be number 1 in power rankings" is a subjective bias that sort of defeats the whole purpose of objective 'power rankings' (If one can call power rankings objective to begin with). The Steelers were the champions of the 2008 NFL season. Then there was free agency, the draft, coaching changes, Tom Brady's recuperation, etc. Whether or not they won the last game played last season is irrelevant to objectively rating the NFL as it exists moving forward. I don't see how one can mount a defense against that.
Say the Steelers win their first 3 games by hairs. Tennessee seems like a quality win at the moment. Chicago and Cincinatti are likely mediocre teams. Assume Carolina also starts 3-0 against Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Dallas and wins each game by a touchdown or more. Doesn't giving the Steelers the benefit of the doubt as the #1 seem logically wrong? That's just hypothetical. I don't give a rat's ass about Pittsburgh or Carolina.
My point is, what is the purpose of objective power rankings if you're going to let something that has nothing to do with the "here and now, moving forward" decide your top spot? The Steelers won the 2009 Super Bowl, not the mythical 2009 Power Rankings championship.
My own subjective bias says that getting exposed by a wide-open offense that zips short slants and the such on national television before barely defeating a 9-7 team from the junior circuit should draw more questions than laurels. After all, they might have to go through Indy and New England to even get back to the Super Bowl.
