Todd McShay at Scouts, Inc. does “a preseason look ahead at the 2006 NFL draft landscape” (Insider Subs.) by position (meaning juniors and seniors). Two things I noticed, Louisville has a lot of players littered throughout these lists, offering further reasons why Louisville is getting all the early love coming into the BE. How they handle the expectations is something else. The BE has been a killing field for pre-season selections the last few years. The other is that while Pitt may not place a lot in the top-5 part, there are several at least making the “others” portion.

Tyler Palko came in at #11 on QBs.

Wide Receivers
…
4. Greg Lee*, Pittsburgh
Lee had a breakout season as a sophomore in 2004, when he finished sixth in the nation with 1,297 receiving yards. Another season like that and it will be awfully tempting to take off for the NFL.

John Simonitis was listed #6 for Offensive Guards.

Outside Linebackers
…
3. H.B. Blades*, Pittsburgh
Another in the long line of Blades with NFL tools. H.B. led the Panthers with 108 tackles last season and will be back to wreak havoc as a junior in 2005. He lacks ideal height (5-11), but is well-built (245 pounds) and athletic. He also hits like a truck.

Josh Lay made the list at #19 for Cornerbacks.

Also, ESPN the Magazine has a brief article on Coach Wannstedt on the college football page (pg 116, issue dated May 9 with Rashard Lewis and Shawn Marion on the cover). Nothing in there really that hasn’t been covered in various articles: Wanny re-learning the college games and the officiating; changing the offensive philosophy; and speed on defense.

Wow. I think the longest I’ve gone without posting on PSB in a year or so. We are definitely in the dead period.

Now I know we’ve discussed the Pitt changes in name and unis. We aren’t the only ones considering a back to the future in name.

The boys over at the Marquette Hoops blog are wondering what the nickname of their school will be. The announcement is tomorrow.

In Cincinnati, they are “updating” their logo. They weren’t going to reveal it until sometime after they officially joined the Big East, but it got leaked. The students wereren’t impressed.

The old C-Paw was fine and the university’s decisions on the entire process of revitalizing its brand were quite ugly.

The new C-Paw is simply an italicized version of the old one. And the claws on the old one didn’t resemble sixes. The older C-Paw, the one the students have come to know and love, isn’t even that old. It was created only 15 years ago to be exact. So what is the problem with a 15-year-old logo?

Not to mention the money and who did it.

The worst thing about the new paw is that the design was outsourced. Why would the university ask a design firm to invent our new logo when we have one of the best design schools in the nation, DAAP, within our grasp?

What a waste of resources!

To think, that $35,000 went to a company instead of a scholarship for a student or for reward money. Just imagine…

A contest, where students, from all schools in the university could send in their submissions and a panel of students, a student vote or a panel of alumni could have picked the best one. Then that student would win a monetary reward or a scholarship.

It would have been a way to get students involved in some of the decision-making on campus and given the university the image that the administration takes the students and their opinions into consideration.

This outsourcing decision makes it seem as if the like university is acting as a corporation. They spent $35,000, which to most college student sounds like a lot of money, but to corporation University of Cincinnati it is just pennies. It seems inconsiderate to outsource an uninspired new logo when there are thousands of students here with more creativity.

Obviously it’s about stimulating sales. They aren’t abandoning the “C-Paw,” just altering it.