Soxbadger

I one time remember them saying the Big 10 final was after the selections were in. I would say if Minnesota beats Illinios I would be disapointed as a Minnesota fan if they did not make it. Ive always thought the Gophers are a tough team, especially with the press and if Grier is going.

I would say if Indiana wins the Big 10 tournament, you could see a 6. Beating Wisconsin, OSU, and potentially Illinois would warrant being a top 25 team.

The difference between 5-8 and 7-10 is 8 teams. It just all depends on how everything shakes down, if the Big 10 is getting high seeds, then Wisconsin may get a higher seed. If the Big is getting lower seeds then Wisconsin could be on the low end. Its all kind of dependent, if OSU is 1, Illini a 2, I would think most of the Big 10 seeds are going to be pretty good. On the other hand if OSU is a 2, Illini a 3, I would think the Big 10 are going to get lower seeds. In all actuality, once you go down below a 4 or 5 seed, dropping seed wise is not that bad unless your going to have to play a 1-4 seed in the first round.

Yeah it appears Gullickson had a really nice game though, and Ill take the loss if it means come tournament time Gullickson is a viable player. Ray Nixon though shot terribly, from the ESPN updates I think the only shot he made was a dunk, lol. Anyways with a bunch of other good teams losing in their tournaments, the loss doesnt hurt that bad. Guessing Wisconsin can be anywhere from a 5 to 8 seed.

Didnt get to see the game, but the box score makes it appear that Wisconsin couldnt shoot at all, they made like what 2 3 pointers and still were in the game? I had a feeling that they might lose, Indiana in Indiana is always rough.

Balta, Im just taking this argument as if I have to accept everything in the book as true. Im even giving the book the benefit of the doubt that they will have found some compelling evidence that Bonds knew he was doing roids, or even as much as went out of his way to do roids. Even then I say its nothing. The league wont do anything, its a past crime, people dont like to go digging through old closests. I guess I just dont see the outrage. Players in baseball have been cheating since the day it began, players will be cheating until the end of time. Some players are cheaters, some players are good guys, and some players are some where in between. I mean we all have played games, and I would venture to say most of us have tried to get the "edge" in a way that was "technically" against the rules. But so what, its just a game. No one lives or dies, in fact the only argument against steriods is that the player himself may get injured. The argument "Oh its something the old players didnt have" could be said for a million things modern athletes have. The game is not played in a vacuum. Anyways, I just think some of the reactions are pretty outrageous. The only bans of note in baseball have been for gambling and in both cases the argument was that people were "throwing games". Im sorry but to the game of baseball its much worse to have players who are willing throw the game for money, then players who are willing to go to the extreme to win. I dont condone what he did, but I certainly can not say that in much lesser circumstances I have chosen not to always play by the rules.

No actually I am arguing: I can not make a good argument on the evidence unless I actually can see the evidence myself. How anyone in here can claim anything is beyond me. But in my experience I doubt that any criminal charges will come from it. That is just my gut feeling.

Slowik, Exactly. How can some one come in here and say that this book for sure will have information of him doing anything. No one has read the damn book yet they are going to jump down my throat when I post a viewpoint that is contrary to theirs.

Balta, I do not consider any book to be true, I believe it to be "based on true stories" because authors are always going to take liberty with the stories they tell. History is not what actually happened, it is what people said happened. So when Canseco says he went 1 for 100 and really went like 2-100 who cares, its artistic license.

SS2K, The fact people actually believe that the owners and baseball were naive to the use of steriods is what is laughable. If anything ever happened the whole thing comes down like a house of cards, Canseco alleged that GWB knew that the team was using roids back when he owned the Rangers. This is nothing more than selling newspapers, books, and magazines.

Has anyone here actually read the book? So your saying I have no facts when you have not teven read the book? Some of these arguments are asinine and you have the audacity to attack me. Go back and check my record, I was the only person who said unequivocally: They will not press charges against Wayne Gretzky. No one here is saying that Bonds is above the law, I am just telling you how it is from a prosecutor's point of view. Unless there is something in that book that is so compelling that not one person would acquit, they are not going to touch the case. First of all in a court case you have rules of evidence. In a book, you have nothing. Hearsay is perfectly fine in a book, but in a Bonds case you are not going to be able to touch it. Second if it is a criminal trial you have, beyond a reasonable doubt. That means all Bonds lawyer will have to prove to 1 juror is that there is some doubt whether or not Bonds actually knew what he is doing. Third, you are not going to get anyone to testify against Bonds. These are not flipper witnesses at 26th and California, Bonds has more to offer than the US govt. That is the reality of the situation, you want to believe the media, go ahead, they dont know jack about the law. You honestly think 2 reporters have more information that the prosecutor who was handling BALCO, they used the grand jury testimony for god sakes. Do you even know how a Grand Jury is different from a petit jury (normal one)? And god damn now you go and compare Bonds to Rose and the Black Sox. 1) The Black Sox were caught throwing the World Series. That is cheating to lose. The White Sox were destroyed by their Comiskey, and the first Baseball Commisioner Landis. Baseball did not care how a court proceeding went, as in a court proceeding it was going to be almost impossible to convict any of them. They even admitted doing it, and still they were unconvictable (now tell me how they are going to convict Bonds haha). To make a lesson of the players Landis suspended them for life to make sure that baseball had legitimacy and at the urging of the owners et all. Bonds will have plenty of support within the MLB community, no one is going to want to see Bonds kicked out and next thing you know the Giants are pissed and want Big Mac gone, then next thing you know every team is attacking every team. That makes a whole lot of sense. 2) Pete Rose, if you look at the history of the original Pete Rose ban, it was not supposed to be a life time ban. Reports are that Giammati and Rose had a deal that he was going to be readmitted, but unfortuantely that same season Giammati died of a heart attack. Fay Vincent took over who was a complete dick and makes the ban stick. He also tried to make Steinbrenner resign and a whole list of s***, Vincent Now you want to come in and argue with me, fine, but here are the parameters. In order for you to refer to the book, you need to actually bring the words from the book. Quote the passage that has the grand jury testimony and then post the fact that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that bonds was actually lieing. Im not arguing Bonds ever did steriods, I really could care less. Im just saying that this is hype, and the book wont unconver some great conspiracy or get anything done. All it will do is sell a million or so copies and not even provide as good of a read as Canseco's book, which the media immediately discredited and called him a liar. I enjoy debates too, its my job.

Its not fact, its in a book, written by people who want to make money. A book that calls Bonds a liar, cheat, etc is more likely to sell than a book that says "Bonds is a great philanthropic human being." As for steriods being illegal, what does that have to do with the price of oranges? We are talking about baseball, not about the US. During some parts of baseball drinking alcohol was illegal, does that mean if a baseball player drank during prohibition that we should revoke their records? No, they are mutually exclusive. US laws have nothing to do with MLB, except to the extent MLB is governed by US law. A spit ball, like steriods gave players a leg up. Who cares if they are illegal or legal, no one would be caring if the book came out and said that "Bonds has been smoking mad amounts of weed for the last 20 years". The issue is whether he gained an advantage playing, atleast for MLB, not the legality of the actions.

How did Palmeiro look like a hero when Congress was thinking about charging him with perjury? None of this matters, its all water under the bridge. Bonds never was caught, he never had a bat break that had cork in it, he never was found cheating on the field. All anyone will ever have against him is inneundo and rumor. I doubt they will try and prosecute for perjury, Im not even sure if he was sworn in, or what exactly the type of grand jury proceeding it was. I am sure that Bonds had a pretty good lawyer so its doubtful he went in and said something stupid. Probably spent hours prepping him, etc. In the end, so what? Bonds broke unwritten rules of baseball that were not even enforced until recently. Should we go back and look at every pitcher who may have thrown a spit ball or doctored it, etc? As a game part of the unwritten rules are that its okay so long as you do not get caught, and that will never change.

There is almost 0 incentive for a Big Ten team to play an MVC team unless that team is in their home state and there is some sort of rivalry. Teams like Wisconsin play Marquette (Big East) and UW- Milwaukee (Horizon) who are both home state teams and comparable to MVC teams. It just really does not make sense to make a Big 10 versus MVC, when many of the Big 10 teams have absolutely no relationship with the MVC and it would be a burtal ratings draw except for the MVC fans. I doubt many Big 10 fans are going to get all excited because they are playing SIU, Witchita State, etc. That is just the nature of the beast.

Ager, Brown, Tucker comparison Ager (G): PPG 19.1 | APG 2.6 | RPG 4.2 Brown (G): PPG 18.2 | APG 2.7 | RPG 4.4 Tucker (F): PPG 18.9 | APG 1.7 | RPG 5.7 Its hard to argue Tucker doesnt deserve to be there with his ppg and rpg, especially compared to Augie and Brunner: Brunner (F) PPG 14.2 | APG 1.8 | RPG 9.7 Augie (F) PPG 13.4 | APG 1.9 | RPG 9.1 Dials (F-C) PPG 15.3 | APG .6 | RPG 8.0 D. Brown (G) PPG 14.7 | APG 5.6 | RPG 2.9 Its all pretty close when looking at these players. My opinion is they made sure Tucker was there because he is basically the entire Wisconsin team and every game Wisconsin plays the teams first and last goal is: Stop Tucker. I think it would just be hard to drop Tucker who is clearly the top player on his team.

Well as always you have to preface this stuff with, Bonds is a public figure, therefore for him to be successful on any suit he would need to show actual malice, ie that they actually knew what they were printing to in fact be false. Secondly, there always should be serious questions of why these reporters have more information than a grand jury? Probably will make some money off of this, but as for any perjury charges etc, unlikely. Same as the Gretzky case, prosecutors dont want to touch this type of stuff unless it is 150% chance of conviction. You take Bonds to the mat and lose, you may have ruined your career.

lol I knew Brad Cieslak never even realized he made it to the pros.

Mcphee has the highest level of hottness to singing. That being said the best 3 female singers are, Paris, Meliss Tucker, and Mcphee. I like the girl from FLA too. Hard to tell who will win at this point because unless your a moron your picking songs that you should be killing up there.

1. Harris was not on the team last year. 2. Wilkinson did not even get drafted in the NBA. This team is more talented than the team last year, it is more talented than the team 2 years ago. Tucker is going to make a push for being Big 10 player of the year, Taylor is making an argument for most improved player in the Big 10, and Nixon/Butch have been nice offenisve compliments, especially since Butch's ankle has been better and Nixon has become more comfortable at guard. Illinois did beat Wisconsin at home, but that was more Illinois playing well compared to anything Wisconsin did wrong, it also was perhaps the worst coached game by Ryan (why he never thought to post Ray Nixon who was being gaurded by Dee Brown I will never understand.) My biggest complaint is people coming in here and saying MSU this, OSU that. Well Wisconsin beat both of them, and completely hammered MSU. It all depends on the day, pretty much the top four teams in the Big 10, MSU, OSU, Illinois, Wisconsin all have equal chances depending on the draw. ::shrugs:: I think there is plenty of evidence to support that.

You think Weber is a better coach than Izzo?

Any stadium that gets Ashley Judd should be 1 over all. I dont care how much noise the Cameron Crazies make, Ashley Judd would be a much bigger distraction.

Here I thought he was going to predict the Red Sox. What do you expect? He has the highest payroll, he better expect a World Series every year.

Its not because Im a Wisconsin fan, go back in the NCAA basketball thread during the time when Wisconsin was not palying well and you well see I said: "Unless Wisconsin picks up their game they are not going to make the NCAA tournament." Also I just do not agree with your assessment of Wisconsin cant match up against big teams, as I think that is their strength. Using G-Town as an example, it only has 1 really big player, the rest are 6'9. Wisconsin will run the swing offense, putting in Chappel, Butch, Tucker, Nixon, and Taylor. They will spread the court so that Chappel and Butch are both at the 3 point arc, meaning that G-Town will have to move its 2 biggest out, or play zone. If they move out, Wisconsin will post Tucker, Nixon, and Taylor, using Nixon's 6'7 as a guard to their advantage, or using Tucker's quickness and fakes to take advantage of the slower bigger player (smaller players actually play Tucker better). If the play zone, Wisconsin will pack the paint with Butch, Chappel, Tucker, and try and get Taylor/Nixon open for good looks beyond the 3-point arc. Its not like Wisconsin is a bunch of sub 6'5 players, almost the entire team outside of 3 are over 6'6. And its not like many teams are running out more than 2 6'10 players. I mean Wisconsin is not as big with out Steitsma, but having 3 6'10 players is something most teams dont have. As for the rest, Illinois lost to Penn State at home, Wisconsin thrashed Penn State 2 times by more than 20 points. Does that mean Illinois is not a good team? All it means is on any given day, that is why the upcoming weeks and tournament are the most important. If Wisconsin splits Iowa and MSU away, and gets to the Big 10 tourney final, they have to be considered a real threat. Outside of ND State, they have only lost away and only 2 of those games have been to non-ranked opponents, Purdue and Michigan. 2 bad games, thats all Wisconsin has had this season. ::shrugs:: I dont think its homerism, I think its just fair analysis. Im not coming in here saying Wisconsin will win the tournament, im saying they should make the sweet 16. Wisconsin tournament record since 2000: 2000- Final Four, eliminated by MSU (NC winner) 2001- Eliminated first round 2002- Second Round, eliminated by Maryland (NC winner) 2003- Sweet 16, eliminated by Kentucky 2004- Second round, eliminated by Pittsburgh 2005- Elite 8, eliminated by UNC (NC Winner) Since 2002, Bo Ryan's first year coaching, Wisconsin has never been eliminated in the first round. And has never been eliminated as a favorite. Every team can lose, but Ryan has been very successful in the NCAA tournament with lesser talent. This year he has as good of talent as he has ever had, and I think they will make some noise.

Im afraid of Randle El, Id rather get a guy like Brandon Williams in the draft than over pay a guy who has never got it consistently done as a WR. I love him as a player, just I think hes gonna get over paid and the Bears dont have the cap space. Also I hope the Bears dont trade Thomas Jones

Well mine is all screwy because I dont have Bush as the top back but ah well here goes nothing. In terms of potential: 1. Ronnie Brown 2. Carnell Williams 3. Lendale White 4. Deangelo Williams 5. Reggie Bush 6. Cedric Benson Brown is the best of the backs because he has the best size/speed/hands of the group. Bush may be slightly faster and may even have slightly better hands, but there is no way that Bush will ever have the Size. Carnell is the second in my opinion because he has the best field vision and instinct of any player on the list. Carnell is a Walter Payton type back, he punishes the defense and plays with his heart. There is no way to measure intagibles, but Carnell's are off the charts. Had he not suffered a slight injury during the year he would of put up rushing numbers for the ages. White reminds me a lot of Brown, but he is going to be slower and not as good of hands. Deangelo is a slightly lesser version of Carnell. Bush Im just not a fan of. Benson Im not a fan of. As for 2nd tier rb's this year is by far and away much better, which is why the Bears pick last year was so terrible. Not only did they not pick Carnell, they picked a position that was stocked this year also.