Soxbadger

Steelers played a pretty poor game but I think if the Steelers were at full health they win the game.

I think Paul is surprisingly still in the game given the score.

Giants also have a good front 4, if they can get pressure it makes it harder for GB to spread the field, go empty, etc.

A few weeks ago I said that the Giants were a team that could give the Packers trouble. Balta, I think 2 firsts, 2 seconds and 2 thirds could sway me to deal Luck. Regardless Im not advocating giving Luck away, more saying that it seems you can really rip some one off, and thats when you take advantage.

Zen, Thats why I pointed specifically to the OK game. While the Big 12 isnt great on defense, OK is usually solid (Bradford cant play his own team haha). More to the point, Ok is probably the best defense either Luck or Griffin played this year. Not sure USC is on the same level.

Doesnt passing a physical mean that Manning is completely healthy? And if Manning is healthy, the Colts can be contenders pretty quickly. (edit) Let me clarify, even if Manning is dealt, I still think that the Colts should strongly consider trading down. I just always prefer multiple first round picks.

Whitesoxfn99, You have to use something. And the argument "Ive watched them play and this is my opinion" really doesnt foster much discussion. I personally think Luck is good, but not so much better than other QB's that I wouldnt want multiple picks. Balta, If Manning is 100% the Colts can become contenders quickly. And that is the point, the only way they can trade Manning for a fortune is if Manning is deemed completely healthy. Otherwise youd have to deal him for cents on the dollar and in a rebuild the quickest way to get back to being good is trading for multiple first round picks, which trading the #1 overall would accomplish.

The same way that the Chargers got Rivers when they traded Manning or the Chargers got Brees when they traded Vick. If the 3 is going QB, they may be interested in trading up for Luck. Simply just have to look at the teams. 4-6 is where the 2nd QB will go (imo), Rams have Bradford, Vikings have Ponder/Ball so unlikely to take another QB. You hope that one of those teams really wants Luck and you trade with them once their pick is up and RGIII is still on the board.

Im not really a big believer in people who make comparisons based on the college a guy went to (if Luck didnt go to Stanford would anyone say Elway? The answer is no, Elway had tremendous athleticism and one of the best college arms in history.) Ive seen most of Luck's games and Id personally rather trade the #1 for multiple #1 and 2s. To many top 5 QBs have completely busted for my liking, I think in general the better move is to always trade for more picks. I think Luck is solid, I just think if Im the Colts Id be much happier getting a bunch of talent and a QB like Griffin. Im not sure people realize how ungodly his numbers were. 72% completion, 37/6 td/int. and he played in the Big 12 where he faced Ok and had one of his best games. If I can get RGIII and 4-5 draft picks or Luck, Id take the picks. RGIII under Manning, that would be nice.

Wisconsin really needs to start winning games or they may eventually be a bubble team.

Why do you say Rodgers was no where near Luck? Rodgers had QB rating of 154 and 66% pct completion, Luck had a QB rating of 160.7 with a 70% completion rating. Statistically Luck isnt even the best QB in this draft, that would be RG III or Russel Wilson, who both sport better QB ratings (both broke the all time NCAA record, Wilson with rating of 191.2 and RG III with 189.5).

It really doesnt matter if its a CO corp DE corp or otherwise (or at least it shouldnt, Im not a MT lawyer so I dont know MT law but this is how it would work in IL) because in order for the Corp to do business in the state it would have to register as a foreign corp (or LLC) and at that point it is only granted the powers the state confers upon it. So in Colorado they may be allowed to do X, but in MT X may be against the law.

If you read the ruling Montana went pretty far out of its way to determine that the ruling was based on their interpretation of the Montana law. The reason this is important is that Corporations are only given power by the state they are registered in, not by the Federal Govt. Therefore in order to overturn this, the Supreme Court would have to basically rule that states cant create certain rules on Corporations, even though the Corporation only has rights granted to it by the state. The difference is important, because Citizens United was a federal law attacked in federal court. The ultimate argument Montana will make is that a corporation does not have any rights that are not granted to it by the state and Montana does not grant corporations the right to anonymously run ads. Also more complicated arguments will include that Montana when applying Montana law is interpreting its own constitution and therefore Federal review is inappropriate. This is going to much harder for the Roberts court because it pits 2 big money corporations versus states rights. Not a good place for a "conservative" court to be. Because if they rule in favor of MT, any state can make a similar law and it basically would make Citizens United irrelevant.

lol I would try and defend myself, but seeing as its the internet and it was a hilarious comment anyway, I will just own up to it. Not to mention Steve set the bar hilariously low with his comment so I probably only look like half a douche. Also there are a lot of guys who would do a lot more for court side seats. I know Id slut it up real nice for a lady with tickets.

Where did I say anything to the contrary? I asked "Boot PSU for what?" I never mentioned the 1st amendment, its not even govt action how could the 1st amendment apply? I already previously stated this wasnt a freedom of speech argument. I merely asked the question, Why should PSU be booted for players having an opinion? And followed it with a flippant remark about restricting peoples opinions.

Southsideteacher is a lady, so I think she has unlimited access to female parts. If a girl blew me off for sports I would think it was hilarious and then get her tickets to the game so she cant blow me off next time. (haha there was a hilarious innuendo slip where I said "so she can blow me off next time", but the sentence was supposed to say "cant" the innuendo was supposed to be implied)

SS2K, Where did I make it a freedom of speech argument? I said: I dont think kicking PSU out of the Big 10 because of what explayers said makes any sense. The players have a right to their opinion (its not 1st amendment by the way, no govt action). Hickory, None of that has anything to do with the Big 10, nor does it make sense that PSU would be booted for in house sabotage.

The difference between guys like Rose/Kobe and Wade/Lebron is astounding. I just cant imagine Rose/Kobe sitting on the bench in a 3 overtime game unless their leg needed to be amputated. What I found striking last night was that Wade/Lebron could have dressed and played, but they seemed more concerned about wearing college professor outfits and cheering on the sideline. At minimum youd expect them to dress and be ready just in case.

Bmags, Your missing the point. I dont care that PSU hired another coach, I dont care if they hire a no talent hack or the best coach in the world. That does not change the fact that the explayers have the right to speak out about how they feel PSU is treating the football team. So far no one has promoted a good argument for why Arrington is so out of line saying that PSU is basically washing its hands of the "old regime" and therefore he, as a player who played for the old regime, is not going to help PSU. I dont even know why you mentioned punished or the talent level of the next coach., It has nothing to do with Arrington or the other players statements. Notice none of them said "the new coach sucks" they all said "the new coach isnt from PSU". The second part is a fact, they arent happy with it, they have a right to their opinion and PSU should not be kicked out of the Big 10 because players have opinions. As for the quality of the coach, the players being punished, etc, no idea what relevance that has to Arrington's argument, that hes not from PSU. (Much like Rich Rod was not a "Michigan man", and no one said that Michigan should be booted from the Big 10 because some players wanted a coach who played for Michigan.)

Strangesox, What are you talking about? Someone proposed that the Big 10 should kick PSU out for players having an opinion on who their coach should be. Your response has nothing to do with my statement, allowing people to have free speech, allows people to be judged for their speech. But why would ex PSU players speaking their opinion on who the coach should be, ever play a role in whether they are a Big 10 institution? Are you agreeing that PSU should be punished by the Big 10 because some of the players have different opinions? Is that your stance?

Correct me if Im wrong, but so far there have been no accusations that any player or Bradley participated in a cover up or rape.

Boot PSU for what? This is America, they have the right to their opinion. These players put a lot of time and effort into PSU, there are no allegations that any of these players committed any wrongdoings. They are making a statement, that outside of Sandusky, PSU has been one of the cleanest programs in all of football. I am pretty sure that they are one of the schools that have never had any sanctions by the NCAA (I believe the other school is BYU). I doubt PSU really cares (what the players say), they didnt even care about Paterno at the end of the day.

Barring some dramatic change of heart all indications are that Howard has no interest in Chicago, regardless of how much sense it may make to everyone else.

Wisconsin has played terrible the last 2 home games. I think they are about 10% from 3.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/...ing-partnership Sounds like the end of Pac/Big expansion. Probably did the numbers and it just doesnt make sense to add 2 more teams if at least 1 wont be in the top half in revenue.