CBS has an interesting article on Chris Polk. Not much new info, but some quotes, etc.

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/10931513

good link, like the last quote, "(Defensive backs) don't expect receivers after they catch the ball to try and run them over," Polk said. "After I catch it I go full speed trying to run them over."

First!!!First!!!First!!!First!!!First!!!First!!!First!!!First!!!First!!!

2Tite Bac 4 U'r amuzemnt, ya'll

...nothing worse than a 'first' post, except a 'first' post that isn't even first. Geez.

Chris - please enter a guilt plea for the charge of stupidity - do your time - then never be stupid again - OK?

not guilty? the cops had to pry his drunk .240 blowing ass out of the vip area and he isnt guilty? umm good characte rmolding tyrone, LYING

What happened to Romeo Savant? I think I missed something.

Nate

No doubt Polk and Jake are going to make for some fun football in Husky stadium and throughout the PAC10. Win, Lose or Draw it will be fun. No Draws. Just wins and fun. I'm excited!

Doug,

It seems like you and I just don't agree on anything. You say he is guilty. Guilty of what? From what you read, is he guilty of the 2 following charges?

1. Criminal trespass
2. Minor in possession

Also, this is not on Ty, Izbicki's attorney told him to enter a not guilty plea. How does this refect on Ty's character molding? The punishment will be the character building part not the stupid mistake that the kid made.

Ok, to point and obvious point out, Izbicki is not lying. Think about it, was the charge against him, being intoxicated in public? NO. Since he blew a .240 he was obviously drunk but that is NOT THE CHARGE against him. It is minor in possession. Splitting hairs here but did he actually have alcohol in his possession at the time the cops came? No doubt it was in his body but on him? Gotta prove that he was actually physically caring it and not just drunk. So we don't know if he is lying. From what I read, no where does it state implicitly that he had alcohol in his possession.

Lastly, criminal trespass, he may have been invited in to the VIP section but than asked to leave because he was drunk and he refused to leave. Again, we don't know. Criminal trespass implies he was in that roped off area, illegally. Was it really illegal? It wasn't a abandon warehouse or someone's home. It was a roped off area for VIPs.

I bet all this gets dropped for a minor misdemeanor for being drunk in public. The others are too hard to prove. Plus we all weren't there so we don't know what really happened.

All in all pretty minor stuff happened, he didn't assault anyone, he didn't steal anything. He was just drunk in public. To me the bigger, non-legal isssue is that the kid got so drunk. I know he's in college but he needs to be more responsible than that.

In America you are innocent until PROVEN guilty! Which is why most people plead not guilty. It has to be proven, with evidence.

Remember the OJ Simpson trial. Found not GUILTY!