ThreeTimeBilliken

Why? How many millions of "Johnny Football" shirts were made and NCAA didn't blink an eye.

He has a jersey.The shirt I saw was blue with the silhouette of Jordair's hair in white. Saw them in Sec 114 vs Dayton Like this The shirt had "Jordhair" printed in white

It doesn't have his likeness or name.

My son would like a Jordhair shirt. Anyone know where you can get them? Thanks in advance.

I realize the Billikens had never won both the regular season league title and the conference tournament. But our last league title was Missouri Valley in '56-'57. Our only conference tournament title was C-USA in Romar's first year. Is that correct? Thanks

Combination of poor referees and poor shot selection is not good.

Are you guys serious? Rhode Island had an RPI of 267. If we do not win the A-10 tournament, we will not go to the NCAA tournament. We were a bubble team before this game. The bubble has popped.

Didn't firstrow get seized by the Feds?

That dude ended up breaking in to a motel, holding a maid hostage, and threatening then-President Clinton. He's serving time now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=110126/OklahomaState Warning: Long Read and you will tear up.

Hard to tell. Only the first clip is accurate. The sound is not properly synched in the replays.

No big deal. I figured people on here would know the individual. I was wondering if he does it to be a distraction or for attention. Once you see it at the beginning of a game, it seems the distraction effect would diminish.

I know what Green Man suits were originally designed for. I've seen "It's Always Sunny ..." If your going to do it, do it big. Make use of it. Talk to someone who broadcasts the game and see if they can superimpose an Erkle or Stamos face on you during the broadcast. Ok, all joking aside, what is the purpose of waring a Green Man suit to the game? I seriously want to know what he is try to accomplish. Attention? Distraction? What gives?

To the tip of the hat, 15"- 18" I'd guess.

Couldn't find one, so I made my own.

Did you read the report. http://www.scribd.com/doc/42690639/SLU-Basketball-Police-Report No "train" occurred. It appears they wanted to, but it never happened. She had consensual sex with two guys. When she said no to the third, he respected her wishes. She unrolled the condom for each of them. More importantly, they did nothing that she herself didn't do. Yet, they get suspended and she gets sympathy. Would I want these guys hanging with my daughter? Probably not. Did this Catholic university treat two of their athletes unfairly? Certainly. Did this Catholic university suspend two athletes while not suspending the female who participated in the very same activities? Certainly. My point is this: On one hand, we have two college kids who tried to play a girl. Probably not a wise move, but certainly not an unexpected one for 18 year old boys. On the other hand, we have a Catholic university who: 1. Treated these individuals differently based on gender. 2. Ignored their own procedures and policies in doing so. 3. Gave a punishment that far exceeded the deed. all with no apparent concern for the future of these two boys. You tell me, who committed the greater wrong here, the boys or the university?

Serious question - What "horrible choice" did they make? I still haven't figured this out. By all reports, KM had consensual sex with a girl (he even practiced safe sex and she helped put the condom on). WR simply watched. I don't see where they made a horrible choice. Does anyone really expect WR to inform authorities that his buddy had consensual sex? I've yet to figure out what these two did the was suspension worthy and that she did not also do and yet went suspension free. Please explain. My loyalty also remains with SLU, but that includes it's player representatives. I cannot sit back and approve of university sanctioned disparate treatment.

My Suggestion for Chaifetz

Not a catenary arch as the Gateway Arch is. But I'm certain that shape would not be permitted.

Having sex with an intoxicated person is not against the law. (Incoherent yes, just intoxicated, no.) If both parties are intoxicated, then who committed the crime? When I lived in Clemens, we had 24 hour visitation rights. A girl could be in your room at anytime. By the way, what is "scotch free"? If I get to molest someone AND get free scotch, I'm there.

And yet whether such an assault even occurred has never been established. We really don't know that anyone was "a victim".

And if both the guy and the girl are intoxicated? Who violated the policy at that point?

These guys are fools if they write an apology that says anything other than "I'm sorry you mistook our actions." The statute of limitations on sexual assault has not run. Any apology can be used as probable cause to re-open the criminal investigation. And, no, you cannot have an enforceable clause that it can't be used in a criminal case.

You, sir, are an idiot. This had nothing to do with RM.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/slu/article_ea1cd948-d70a-11df-9ba1-00127992bc8b.html