stuy119

Maybe this will help stop the talk of Burress to the Bears: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4045389 5 speeding tickets in a month? WTF?

If the ice in Blake Griffin's ears was real, there is not a chance the OU program is clean (unless he already has an agent). Those were gigantic rocks.

It's almost like the refs are trying to negate the home-field advantage.

No kidding. Adrien needs to catch an errant elbow himself to teach him to stop.

No kidding. He needs to learn what a treadmill is. Of course, maybe this goes to show the rumors about him are true - that he's a Type 1 diabetic with a drinking problem. That's not a good combo for Chicago.

It's hard to pass on the best defensive player on the board, so I can understand the move. In the Rams' case, though, resisting that temptation might be best if they want their franchise LT in this draft. Does anyone buy the talk going around of Detroit taking Jason Smith with the #1 pick?

I'm all for it, but I can also understand lessening interest because we're getting into lesser known players. I think we'll have enough interest for a fourth round, but if anybody wants to drop out, let me know and we can spread out the teams a bit. I'm game for a 4th round. If I had thought to look before picking, I would have chosen differently knowing that SD only had 2 picks in the 1st three rounds.

Hell, first Dallas signs Igor Olshansky, then they steal Paul Kruger out from under me in the 3rd round. I'll take a reach and go for upside (a bit too early). San Diego select Ricky Jean-Francois from LSU. The longer I look at this before submitting the message, the more I regret this pick. But it's either RJF or Darryl Richard of GT. Ugh. Screw it, I'm not a pro and won't be paid for doing this. San Diego selects Ricky Jean-Francois. A future bust if there ever was one. Ugh.

Well, today was a bad time to be out on the road all day. In light of Dallas taking Paul Kruger, give me a couple of hours and I'll make the pick before I go to bed.

I hate the two of you.

14-2. Lost on Butler and VCU. That's what I get for listening to the "experts" regarding upsets.

It looks nice. Good work!

xavier beat memphis and mizzou on neutral courts.... that's at least as impressive if not more so. michigan has two road games all year, and those were against northwestern and indiana. if they lose at minneosota they'll be 18-13 and below .500 in the conference. non-conference wins are nice, but they haven't done well enough in conference to get in. That and those wins came extremely early on and don't really show how good that team is. They are capable of beating great teams but play way to inconsistent to be a tourny team at this point. Who cares when the wins came? Teams should make the tournamet based on what they've done, not how good they are. There is no other logical path. It must be an objective, rather than subjective, standard. I guess this comes back to my dislike of the last 12 stat. I don't care if a team lost their last 3 games 80-2 if they hadn't lost a game before that. I don't think there's much of a difference between a team that hobbles into the tourney vs. a team that enters hot. Anecdotally, I think of the Syracuse team that went from bubble to some absurdly high seed by winning the Big East tourney. They proceeded to lose in the 1st round. I want to say Maryland did the same thing. It was my huge issue a few years back when Air Force was given an at large bid seemingly because they created a tough matchup for people. Their resume was complete ass, but the committee thought they'd make for a good game. What's the point of the regular season if what you get done during the first 20 games of it don't matter, and it only matters how pretty you look down the stretch? The same people looked like geniuses when they didn't make Cincinnati the top team overall when Kenyon Martin broke his leg, then lost in the 2nd/3rd round based on their last few games.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47 To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's? A, they have at least 3 wins against top 25 teams (Duke, FSU, UNC) and only lost by 4 to Pitt. B, I would say that the ACC (top to bottom) is a better league than the Big 11. What fictional conference is this? The Big (I can't count past) 10 conference.

I doubt it will happen, but I would like to see the Bears go after Torry Holt. I won't even guess as to what it would take to bring him in, or what offers will be out there. But I wouldn't go more than 3 years (4 max) for a 32 year old WR who has mainly played on turf.

Right about now is when I'm wishing SD had a 2nd round pick, or we could trade for one.

I'm not sure he feels confident enough to go out and scout other FAs vs. his own.

Spreading touches between TO, Moss and Welker seems like it could be a tough fit. Winning, along with a strong chance of going undefeated, cures a lot of those ills. Especially when you have Belichek to lay the smack down if needed. And I could be wrong, but I don't think Welker is as demanding about getting the ball. He seems to just enjoy playing and wants to win - a true gritty team player.

It's tough to not think about TO to NE. They have tons of money, and Brady needs all the help he can get after coming back from surgery. If they were to do this, you can count on all of the draft picks to be OL and defense.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47 To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's? A, they have at least 3 wins against top 25 teams (Duke, FSU, UNC) and only lost by 4 to Pitt. B, I would say that the ACC (top to bottom) is a better league than the Big 11.

I haven't followed enough college basketball to participate in this process, but I wondering why everyone is leaving Boston College out of the discussion as a lock? They are a 20+ win team (20 now, but should get 21), have wins over Duke, FSU, and UNC, and are above 500 in arguably the toughest conference this year. While there were some lows, those are some pretty big points in their favor. I can understand Maryland and VT on the bubble, but not BC. They are a lock IMO.

I can't believe I wasn't able to watch the FSU-Duke game on ESPN tonight. I mean, why wouldn't you have the best game of the night on national TV?

I'm just the opposite, especially if you're only looking at 1 bad loss. Teams that are hot over their last 12 games tend to perform much better in the early rounds of the tournament. Also, the R/N games tend to be against higher rated foes or in-conference games (for the most part), so some losses can be expected. Also, team B seems to have played the toughest schedule. I'll take the team on a hot streak over anything else when all is equal, then defer to SOS.

B, C, A, D

No need to make Roger Goodell get up twice to the podium.