teke184

I'm surprised that it took him a year to make it back onto suspension... I called him coming back and getting another suspension immediately 2 years ago, when he first bugged out on the Dolphins.

If the Texans take Mario Williams, the Saints are *really* in the catbird seat at #2. They have no interest in Bush but, because AJ Hawk, D'Brickashaw Ferguison, Haloti N'Gata, and others are going to still be available a few slots down, they may be able to get a good deal from Green Bay or the NY Jets to swap picks.

And, much like in the case of former LSU player Lester Earl, he'd probably have been aware of the benefits his family was receiving because of who he was. I mean, this was a friggin' HOUSE, not a throwback jersey or a pair of sneakers. You'd think that Reggie would ask his parents "How are y'all affording this? I don't go pro for another year." UPDATE- According to the story Reggie Bush is telling on TV, the house was leased from the man in question. He claims that "there is really nothing for USC to worry about", although I doubt it. This is an organization that suspended Erick Barkley from St. John's because he traded cars with someone (and actually took a net loss on the deal, IIRC).

It doesn't matter to Bush anymore because he's still getting paid as long as he signs a contract before he can get hurt. It may mean a LOT to the NCAA, USC, and the Downtown Athletic Club and, if proven true, would probably be the biggest case of an ineligible player in NCAA history because that player won the Heisman and came a few ticks of the clock away from winning a national championship. Imagine how fucked it would be if USC had won but Bush was declared ineligible... that would mean that Texas would have won the national title by forfeit and Young getting the Heisman as well. To put this in perspective, it would be similar to a basketball player shaving points and jumping to the NBA, thereby screwing the university while still getting a payday. John "Hot Rod" Williams did this to Tulane in the mid-80s, getting drafted while the university ended up on probation because of him.

That was a 50-50 shot given that the SWC was the conference involved. IIRC, Baylor and Arkansas were about the only teams in the conference NOT on probation at some point in the 80s. Wasn't SMU on some harsh, almost "death sentence" probation around this time? Their program has never really recovered either. SMU got the "Death Penalty", or total cessation of football for one season, because they had a "slush fund" they used to pay their players. They couldn't even field a team the season after that, when they were allowed to play a limited schedule. They were on a downhill slide before that, but they've never had a winning season since then.

That was a 50-50 shot given that the SWC was the conference involved. IIRC, Baylor and Arkansas were about the only teams in the conference NOT on probation at some point in the 80s.

Random thought- Has a Heisman Trophy winner ever subsequently had their accomplishments in their winning season wiped from the record books due to ineligibility? If not, this could end up being a first.

No, it isn't going to affect Bush's draft position. However, if true it takes some of the shine off of USC's accomplishments, much like Alabama in the early 90s. In Alabama's case, a player on their National Championship team (1993?) had signed with an agent shortly after beating Miami in the Sugar Bowl and then played another season afterwards. It resulted in the team forfeiting all their games the next season and contributed to the coach resigning shortly thereafter IIRC.

If White stayed, it would have been White Booty and Bush. John David's older brothers, Josh and Abram, committed a Booty-To-Booty pass on at least one occasion at LSU. Top that.

Wow... I'm surprised Wroten dropped to the end of the 2nd round. I know the reason I passed on him was that the Saints need an LB much more than a DT. Why did everyone else pass on him? His January bust? A lack of need at that position?

I'd agree with Jason... The book took a nosedive around the time U Go Girl died and the book changed from X-Force to X-Statix. The only thing I remember liking about the X-Statix issues was the relationship between Anarchist and Dead Girl, complete with them doing road-shows in which people could shoot Dead Girl for a fee.

More probable cause to change Adam's name from "Pac-Man" to "Dumbass"...

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy... I'm not just referring to his dickishness with the Divas. I'm also referring to him bailing out on the Marines and getting a dishonorable discharge. Him getting a developmental contract right after that was probably the worst thing anyone could have done for him, because it taught him he'll always be bailed out by someone.

The Losing Edge alone makes Randy Marsh the best character. "You think you're better than me?" *Takes off shirt* "Watchagonnado? Watchagonnado?"

I can see all of those but the Killer Bees. I liked them, but I'm sure that you could find guys who should go in before them just from their own time period. For example, I think that Mr. Fuji should make it as a combination of his in-ring career as a tag guy as well as his managing career. For another, I'd go with Hacksaw Jim Duggan. Ken Patera is a guy who *SHOULD* be in but, even in his old age, he's still an asshole and can't handle questions about how he ended up in jail.

Most major "news" outfits lost most of their journalistic principles sometime between the 40s and the 70s. It's just been more obvious ever since the OJ trial brought the tabloidization of the judicial process back into focus. Now their motto is similar to the quote attributed to William Randolph Hearst... "You provide the pictures, and I'll provide the war."

Depending on the nature of the injuries involved, they may be either rape-related injuries OR the types of damage caused by consentual rough sex. If the DNA of the players can't be matched, it doesn't get them off the hook but it DOES open the question up of "Did she sleep with her boyfriend? Some guy she picked up at a club? Some john she met at work?" The situations where it's unquestionably rape tend to be ones with a lot of graphic damage and tend to yield good evidence if a rape kit is done immediately. While this may be a question of PR rather than law, having 98% of the Duke team DNA tested by request of the victim's lawyer and, subsequently, results come back showing that there is no DNA match between any of the players and the evidence found on the victim looks REALLY bad. By asking for DNA samples rather than, say, a hair sample with a root, it implied that there was semen found and that they could run a check against it. By coming up with no matches, it gives the perception that either she's lying or that the evidence is not in her favor. If she made it up, she's playing a high-stakes game of poker with her life, the lives of those players, the families of everyone involved, and the law. In theory, a liar would be found out when the case went to trial and would be lucky to just get off with humiliation. In practice, a liar may be able to con one of the sides into "folding" by getting a payoff to change her story and go away, especially if she's about to name someone and that person thinks that there's a chance they'll either get punished if it's a straight he-said-she-said case OR they think they'll get off but they'll be OJed (be popularly assumed to be guilty no matter the verdict). There is also the possibility that either she lied about the party to cover something else OR someone twisted her story to come out with the allegations out now. My stance on this case comes from my spot as a spectator at my college when 5 members of a rival fraternity, including several prominent members in Greek Life (Rush Counselors, Intra-Fraternity Counsel officers, etc). In *that* particular case, the only unquestioned facts are that a sorority member went to that fraternity house and was involved in sexual activities with 5 members of the house. What's disputed is whether that was consentual or not. No one apparently knew about it at first, although word leaked out to some people, which ended up with that sorority member being called before her house's Standards Board. (When I went through Rush, one of the houses referred to the Standards Board members as "A bunch of fat chicks who make themselves feel better by telling the other members they can't smoke while wearing their letters and so forth) The story gets wonky here, but the incident goes from that house's Standards Board to the University Police, who perform an investigation. It's since been assumed that either the member or the Standards Board decided it was non-consentual and referred it to the UPD for investigation. All five members were arrested by the UPD, who subsequently turned them over to the city lockup. Those five guys ended up with their pictures on the front of the campus newspaper with the giant headline "(Fraternity name removed) SUSPENDED". All these guys had to move off of campus due to a restraining order that had them suspended from the school immediately and forced them off of school premises, be it in the fraternity house or, in the case of one of them, in the Freshman men's dorm which was right next to about 5 female dorms, including the sorority dorm. Charges ended up being dropped which, from what I gather, was due to a lack of cooperation from the sorority member. Four of the five members of that fraternity returned to school the next semester as if nothing had happened. The fifth member, a freshman of my year, was not sent back that next semester. (He was also from another state that was several hours away, so him having to move back home on short notice over this may have limited his options) The fraternity in question, while not punished over this *particular* case, was suspended for 1 year by the university for a variety of offenses including a massive amount of underage drinking citations during that school year. It was the only fraternity at the school to receive a serious level of punishment in quite a few years. The most any other house received was a reduction in the number of bids they were allowed to offer in Formal Rush in a particular year. (I'd have to find my copies of the school's newspaper from then to get more specific... The newspaper's only been online since 2003 and I'm not close enough to campus to look through the archived copies there for the information.)

The problem typically isn't what DNA can match as much as determining what is from the attacker(s) as opposed to the victim. As such, it means that the contents of the rape kit performed on her will determine the limits of the testing that can be done. Semen is an easy one because of biology, as it's obviously not hers. Blood, once typed to show that it doesn't belong to the victim, can narrow down possible suspects or, given a good enough sample, do a DNA match. Hairs can also be tested but, depending on whether this dancer's runway was shaved, may be hard to determine if they're hers or the attacker's. However, the fact that they tested the entire team, save for the lone black man, based off of her description seems to indicate that they don't have any hairs to test against because you'd think there'd be a set of hair colors to look for. Ex- If a hair found is blonde or red, that excludes a lot of people that they'd be checking from the team. They could also check a blonde hair to determine whether it's been bleached or is natural, which could further narrow down suspects. My guess is that she DID do the party, nothing happened there, she went home afterwards and was smacked around by her boyfriend, then decided to make a little money off of the situation. While it's usually impolite to impune the credibility of a rape victim, it's easier to do in this case since she narrowed the field of suspects to about 48 guys and all of them came up clean on the DNA tests. EDIT- BTW, Ripper... I think the threat of lawsuit and singling out specific team members IS a likely motive because people who have plans on going far in life don't like to leave a trail of serious allegations in their wake.

And I reiterate Porter's point... Take this shit to the NFL Offseason thread.

Well, the rest of C-USA shouldn't be sorry to see him go. There's been a lot of shit said over the years by Memphis b-ball fans about the other programs in the conference and how they should have been invited to the Big East since Cal was coaching them. Maybe now Larry Eustachy can get my alma mater, Southern Miss, back to respectability in the conference.

Sounds like Lute's still pissed he got his ass whipped with a slobbered-on towel when Tark was at UNLV.

In addition to Florida, LSU also appears to be bringing many of their players back next year. The only senior is Darrell Mitchell, so he's gone. The main question is whether Tyrus Thomas can be convinced that he needs another year or two of seasoning (and a chance for some payback on the Gators) before heading off to the pros.

With the 34th pick overall in the 2006 draft, the New Orleans Saints pick... DeMeco Ryans, OLB, Alabama Ryans has a talent for knowing exactly where the ball is, is a hard-hitter, and played in a complicated defensive scheme at Alabama, so he shouldn't have mental problems adjusting to the pros. His downsides are seen as being about 2 inches shorter than most teams would like and his 40 time is good but not jaw-dropping. Ryans should be the perfect kind of player to fill the Saints' long-standing holes in their defense.

I'm up for a 2nd round of picks.

What I'd say is that, if someone doesn't like the way the tourney plays out, wait until next year. Each tournament is unique due to various factors and this one just happened to be the one where the seemingly impossible became possible. An 11th seed made it to the Final Four for the second time ever. No 1st seeds made it to the Final Four for the first time ever. No teams from the Big East, Big Ten, or ACC made the Final Four, which is a rare occurrence given that these are the conferences who usually win or place highly (Syracuse, UConn, Villanova, Indiana, Michigan State, Michigan, Duke, North Carolina, etc.) I think this tournament is going to go down in history much like the 1985 one did, as that one is infamous for underdog #8 seed Villanova winning it all, being the worst seed ever to do so. There's a good shot that #11 seed George Mason will go to the title game and they'll either play basketball bluebloods UCLA (most consecutive NCAA titles in history) or the only other team to make the Final Four as a #11 seed, LSU (done in 1986). The reason I took offense to his article is that I didn't recall seeing too many articles like this around 2000, when #8 seeds Wisconsin and North Carolina made it to the Final Four, but that's because those are two blue-blood programs despite their records at the time and, besides that, overwhelming favorite #1 seed Michigan State still won it all. The inference by him writing this now as opposed to back then is that, because there's no clear favorite, the tournament is therefore a dud and the rules should be changed as a result. My feelings are that it's wrong to knock this year's Final Four teams by harping on their perceived faults instead of celebrating their success at unseating favorites within their brackets.