rawaction

Welcome. Thanks for the info. I was pretty sure Atlee had pretty solid stuff once he moved to full-time closer duty. He was underwhelming as a starter, though.

Yeah, I admit that the young WRs haven't been too healthy, which is a problem. But I wouldn't pay the money for a #2, when Muhammad is really best suited as a 2.

This is the obligatory annual move to bring in a mediocre LHP. Thankfully, this year the Cubs aren't counting on that guy to be their primary LH reliever (Pratt, Bartosh, S. Randolph).

Man I am fired up about Pie. I hope he hits well and strikes out less in Iowa this year. If he comes along that will give the Cubs some flexibality with regard to Pierre and Jones. I am just as fired up about Guzman/Marshall though. If those two reach thier potential it opens up a lot of options and cash for the Cubs to pursue other avenues whether via trade or free agency. If Guzman, Marshall, and Pie are all 100% and reach their potential, the Cubs' will get an All-Star OF, and 2 top of the line starting pitchers added to the talent they already have. The Cubs would be able to throw all kinds of money at Lee, Prior, and Zambrano, and still afford to go out and get a couple more players to create an elite team.

Wasn't Atlee throwing 97mph a couple years ago?

I told you folks 2 years ago that Pie can turn on a ball and split the RCF gap. He's not gonna hit a ton of HRs, but he will be among the league leaders in triples every year he plays until he loses a step.

What's with wanting to pay big money to a WR? Moulds is getting up in age. Why pay an old guy to be a #2 when you have 2 guys who showed they could develop into legit #2's who are very, very young? The only way I pay big money (over $3-4M) to a WR is if it pushes Muhammad to the #2. I'd much rather hope Bradley and Berrian can develop (remember they played almost exclusively with a incompetent QB), than spend on someone who isn't likely to be much better to justify the salary difference.

I don't understand why everyone has a problem with UCLA as a #2 seed. I think they are better teams than any of the #3's. Actually, I think all the 4's are better than all the 3's. I pretty much agree with everything you said (except Kansas). I was hoping IU would beat OSU to give them a 7-seed. They lose that game and end up with a 6....3 seeds better than Wisconsin who tied with them in conference and split the single season matchup with them. IU had a similar bad streak as UW, but had theirs in the middle of the season.

So anyway... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/03/13/bc.fbn.redskins.freeage.ap/index.html That's great. Not a big Archuleta fan. I love the Redskins theory of just spending on big names. That method has never worked. Pittsburgh, New England, Denver, St. Louis have won all the recent Super Bowls with predominately drafted and developed talented.

There's no scenario where Villanova doesn't win the title.

Yeah.

Bring on them Buckeyes! Good win. This should put our seed higher than Wisconsin's at the least. We have 1 less loss, 1 less in the conference. And we have won 5 straight vs. 4 of 5 losses by UW. Great game defensively. Roderick Wilmont makes this team work. Best defender on the team. Great knack for hitting the big shot.

\ I believe this hinges on their perimeter game, beyond Dials they haven't much, if anything inside, if they continue to shoot the 3 as they have lately they'll go down in the 2nd Round. On the other hand, if they have another stretch as they did against UM, MSU and Illinois, they'll make the FF. I think they have the veteran talent to withstand their struggles. They have 4 senior starters. And for their recent struggles, they've still won 6 games in a row.

LET'S GO HOOSIERS! WE OWE YOU WISCONSIN!

And Duke pulls one out. Good effort by Miami.

Oh well, OSU wins. Good effort by Penn St. I think OSU will at least be a Sweet 16 team. They are in no way an easy out.

I think it's true for some, maybe many. I think some black youth, as well as white youth, see the culture surrounding basketball and, to an extent football, as much more glamorous (although that might not be the right word) than the culture of baseball. Basketball stars are much bigger celebrities than baseball stars. And baseball is a much more humbling game. Football stars have a greater tough guy aura, while baseball players just aren't thought of as elite athletes. If you wanted to do it just for money, baseball is probably your best bet. But if you're 14, thinking over your options, the lure of the college basketball star, or college football star, or straight to the NBA star is far greater than the minor league baseball player or college baseball player. There's a very limited cool factor for those last two. I think you've hit on another important area here aside from the MLB v. NFL/NBA. Even in the college (probably even highschool) ranks football and basketball players get much more attention or "glamour" or whatever you want to call it. How many college baseball stars can the typical baseball fan run out off the top of one's head? Whereas with college football and basketball, the stars are very well known around the country. Having said that, this logic would apply to athletes of any race, not only African American youth. Ok. I guess I see your points. Groupie love is much better from basketball and football at the amateur level. But again, I think it's that way because baseball is considered a boring game.

Claxton with his 4th foul with 7:11 to go. Penn St.'s lead from 9 to 2 after the FTs. Gonna be tough to pull this out now.

Duke and Ohio St. down at the half. Only Villanova seems to want a #1 seed.

Walker at 1B. Brandon Wood for the Angels. I'd like to see this game.

FWIW, completely agree.

His really good year was last year. I think he'll go back to his 200 IP, 4.00 ERA type season, but this time won't have the Yanks offense to give him 18-22 wins.

Probably a little, but still there are 300 more MLB roster spots than there are NBA roster spots. If you don't make it in the NBA, you are the equivalent of a minor leaguer in baseball. The pay is actually worse, if I'm not mistaken. And I would probably say that more baseball players actually come right out of HS. Ones that graduate from college usually aren't talented enough to make big money in the majors. And that still doesn't help the argument against football, where kids have to stay in college for 3 years and get physically abused while doing so.

That's completely unfair. Basically what I get from this is....black people don't play baseball because it's not as glamorous. That's completely untrue. First, baseball is the easiest sport to break into professionally because of the minor leagues. Secondly, baseball pays the highest salary, so there is more opportunity to get that "bling" as you call it. Baseball is less physically demanding than football. It's much less based on God given genetics (height, jumping ability, athletic ability) than basketball.

Both are out if it were up to me. Michigan's done, without my say-so. FSU is probably one of the last teams in at best. Michigan's resume is much better than Syracuse's, and especially FSU's. Even with today's loss. Main question will be what sticks in the minds of the committee tonight and tomorrow while they pick the field. I'm having a tough time seeing how Michigan's resume is much better than Syracuse's. KenPom's breakdown showing their records v. different ranges of RPI's is very similar, and Syracuse has a much better SOS. Add in the fact that Michigan is fading hard while Syracuse appears to be coming on strong and I'd say that Syracuse has a better case. FSU has wins over Maryland, Duke, and Miami in the last month. Granted Michigan has had injuries, but FSU's resume is just as good/bad. I agree with TT, Cuse has a better one than both.