bcl412

This is going to be bad.

If Michigan State wants to pull off another home loss that would be nice (this one would be really, really bad).

The way I see it is everyone knows the Bulls have no chance. So I can enjoy watching the games with out getting too up tight. If the Bulls pull off an upset then we celebrate.

I remember one game (it might have been this one) where it looked like JoBo was going to blow it and the Pujols hit one that looked like it was gone by a lot. Instead it landed in the left fielders glove on the warning track for a Cubs win.

Hopefully this Bulls team shows up the rest of the year. I'm still holding out for a huge first round upset.

Just rewatching these replays Nashville looked like they did a lot of flopping out there and got away with it.

That call of Huet was really bad.

yuck

I wonder how much likability would factor into this. Bonds, Rodriguez,Sheffield and Giambi were all kind of hated already by a lot of casual fans. There steroid use just amplified it. If someone like Jeter or Pujols admitted use. I wonder what the reaction would be.

There's an amazing lack of historical context going on here. Anabolic steriods were really first developed in the 30s, and refined in the 40s. They (specifically Dianabol) were approved by the FDA for use in '58. It wasn't until the 60s when they realized the negative side effects of abusing steriods, namely enlarged prostates and shrunken testes, among others. The International Olympic Committee didn't ban steriods until the 76 games. The government's first attempt to regulate steriods came in '79, but that didn't control much, much less ban anything. The first act that actually banned steriods for non-medical purposes was anti-drug abuse act of 1988. The whole era where athlete's "had" to use steriods to be competitive didn't arise until the mid 70s. Considering they weren't legal, and they weren't even addressed by the IOC until 1975, I don't think it's fair to single out the NFL for what was going on in the 70s. Those Steeler's teams overlapped the time when we first started to realize how bad steriods were. That's not to say they get a free pass in the least, quite the contrary. Those guys were still using them after the international governing bodies addressed it. But, considering what we knew then and what was going on, I think the NFL acted much more prudently with regards to the problem than the other sports. Could they have done more, and could they have done more sooner? Yeah. They don't get a free pass. But let's not start crucifying people for doing something that was perfectly legal, within the rules, and accepted at the time. Let's learn from it and do the right thing now instead. You have to separate out the historical context from the current context, though. It may have been more acceptable to do steroids in the 1970s and its legality was not completely addressed until the late 70s/early 80s. That is definitely a fair assertion. However, I was referring more to the current backlash against that use. As I said above, if Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted to steroid use to help him achieve the home run record, he would be strung up. Numerous people in the media and in politics would be shrieking for his records to be stripped. They would advocate him even being banned from the Hall of Fame. However, if Lawrence Taylor came out tomorrow and said the same thing about his records, there would not be anywhere close to the same kind of backlash against him. The same is true today. Look at the reaction A-Rod has gotten for his steroid use and compare it to the reaction Shawne Merriman got for his steroid use. The gulf between the two in terms of media coverage and outrage is astoundingly large. Merriman did not get a free pass for his actions, but the difference in terms of public outrage is huge. That's the whole point of what I was trying to get at. There is a double standard in terms of attitudes towards PED use in football and baseball. The reason for that double standard is a unclear to me, since athletes in both sports have incentive to use them for injury recovery and performance enhancement. The only thing I can really think about is the over-romanticization of baseball compared to football, but even that seems to be on shaky ground, in my mind. I think it all goes back to the numbers. Baseball's numbers are romanticized(as you said) and footballs aren't. Another thing is football is a game of brute strength so people really don't care how you get that strength. Baseball is perceived as a mental game (even though it isn't as mental as people make it out to be) and bringing the artificial strength aspect into it bother's people. But I think the main reason that people don't get into an uproar about steroids in the NFL is because of the helmets. First and foremost, they look like gladiators so people really don't care what they do to be strong. They just want them to be strong and hit somebody. Plus people don't know the superstars like they do in baseball (well they do but it's not the same.). I think if Payton Manning, Tony or TO came out an admitted steroid use it might just hit the uproar of someone who does it baseball. That is because people are able to put a face to these people.

I wish I had this channel :(

Yes, and that point is when a teams stop saying "here's a whole bunch of money to throw off on the side with a pitching coach to see if you can get your arm back." You can't tell me you would turn down real money to sit in the Arizona sun and throw pitches, with a bunch of women watching you and "oohing and ahhing." Come now. You say Mark should be realistic. So let's look at what his life is really like right now. It's not too bad. I'd take it. Add to that the fact that he gets paid to be a part of a MLB clubhouse, he gets to watch games from the dugout, he gets to travel the country and add to that all the benefits that a MLB player gets I don't think him trying to play again is a bad thing.

I think we can beat both Detroit and the Sharks. We have played the Sharks really well in all of the games this year. We lost on a late goal, lost in overtime and beat them in their building in game the Hawks pretty much controlled. I think the Hawks match up really well vs the Sharks. They've played Detroit well in some games and got beat handily in other games. Last year though, the Hawks owned them. I think the struggles against Detroit are more of a mental thing. I think they can beat them but probably won't.

Considering the league's main broadcast channel is VS. it's not in the best standing. Bad call's and the lessening of physical play isn't going to help the league. They're trying to promote the league by adding fake goals and decreasing fighting... come on. Yep, that's the thing. Are there really any physical,must see rivalries at this point? None that I can think of. The only rivalry that is really promoted is Pitt vs Wash and that's because of the superstars involved.

Considering the league's main broadcast channel is VS. it's not in the best standing. Bad call's and the lessening of physical play isn't going to help the league.

For some reason I see Prior coming back in a few years, when he is an afterthought really (although he kind of is now) and being a decent pitcher. Or maybe that is just what I hope he does. Nobody deserves the career he's had.

I don't really care that he has an opinion. I care that the media publishes every opinion he has and the only reason why is because they are disparaging.

I enjoyed the Michigan game. :D

Koivu's penalty in the last 10 seconds pissed me off. "There is no punishment so I'll just do the most blatant hold possible"

Big win for the Hawks and Jake Kelly is a stud. Michigan is pretty much done now after that one. Iowa has a solid core with Kelly, Peterson, Gatens and Cole. I think they are two years from an NCAA birth and they will make the NIT next year. I'd say they have a shot for the NCAA next year but the Big Ten is going to be tough again and I don't really know who they'll pass. Hopefully we can get into a crappy tournament this year and get some more experience for this team.

Does anyone else think Iowa's uniforms look like women's uniforms? (This is their first game with these.)

By public, do you mean the media? The same group of media that has pretty much tied steroids to professional wrestling and Major League Baseball, and virtually, no one other than them does it. I'm still trying to figure out how the NFL hasn't been "probed" yet for their use of PEDs, or is that just widely-acceptable in football? By public, we mean the media, the fans, the sponsors, the whole nine yards. The NFL smarted up and took care of this issue a long time ago. They've been testing for steroids and what not for a very long time. I don't know why you think it's widely accepted in football. Remember way back when when Jim Miller got suspended for an over-the-counter supplement? That was 10 years ago. PEDs are certainly more frowned upon in the NFL and have been for quite awhile. Shawne Merriman disagrees with you Not sure what your point is. He was suspended for a quarter of a season, you're acting like nothing ever happened to him. I'd like to see the NFL apply stiffer penalties on the first positive like that, especially with steriods instead of simple otc supplements...but that doesn't mean they haven't had an aggressive testing policy for considerably longer than MLB now. There is testing now, if Pujols tested positive during this season I guarantee he'd be treated ten times worse than Merriman. Merriman's steroid use is barely talked about, and if his stats warranted the hall of fame he'd get it. If Pujols (or some other star tested positive for steroids it would be debated if he would get in at all, even though his number say sure fire hall of famer.)

you cant post that without posting this announcer always cracks me up I think this one was more about Roy wanting to regain some credibility. It was a year later than that original brawl. Vernon who is about 6 inches shorter than Roy really kind of embarrassed Roy. Av/Wings were must see tv back then though. I hated both the Wings and Aves (still do) but those were some intense fun games. I can't remember a game where there wasn't a bunch of fights. When they met in the playoffs it fairly relevant in all sports, not just hockey if I remember right.

If there is a strike I'm not going to give up something I love because other people strike, so I would continue watching baseball. However, I think the strike of 93 is still pretty strong in people's minds and I know of a lot of people who wouldn't watch baseball again. That, along with the steroid issue would probably kill the game. I don't think there will be another strike in '11. I think whatever issues that may happen will be taken care of but if it does it would not be good.

:amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: See, I did a good thing drawing the mods here ;)