Hardy Pyle

The new show, Six Days To Sunday, will debut Sept. 16 at 8:30 and will air every week ... The first show will feature Buffalo Bills linebacker Takeo Spikes. ...

no it was TB. We were sacking Shawn King all over the field. Then Cowart got hurt, it was a cheap shot. After that game, I think the Bills started to spiral downwards that season.

I went to the SF/Bills game with the Northstar Crew last year. First rate all around. Tailgate was awesome....they always made sure a drink was in your hand and they treated us really well. I'll be sure to visit them when I'm back in SF.

Alexander Keiths...or Pilsner. So are you going to the bar where we met before the San Fran vs. Bills game?

Do you need to be an ESPN Insider to get this or do they have a webpage? Thanks.

Chaser

The fact he likes the Bills is the kiss of death.

Are best player doesn't even play for our country! Owen Hargraves, the best player to ever come out of North America. But he was a product of Soccer Canada...so we can take some pride in that. Sort of like Lennox Lewis. But they all take off where the money is, Britain.

Thanks if you can provide a link.

I think for the MLS to really take off, they need a big name signing and some players. Kind of like how Gretzky was signed by the WHA back in the day. I really have no interest in watching MLS...but if a team signed Robinho or Robben or someone like that who is a young star. I'd watch the MLS. It's the players that will attract people. But you need a profitable league or a rich tycoon to make the investment in the players and the league.

McGee....kickoff return for a touchdown. The strenght of our team is defense. Let the team run it with McGahee, let the o-line tee of on some defensive players. If we go 3 and out, so be it. I'd like to see the first few possessions more conservative and then really open it up.

how about the English loss to N.Ireland...1-0. Pretty devastating.

They should have the games in Canada and Mexico! Gidde up!

How about Cleveland. I think they'll be pretty bad.

Goal Line offense!!

was saying about what New Orleans. Basically flat out calling the rescue efforts racist. I could not believe the reporters and the anchorman. I was appalled. At one point, to put an exclamation point on the whole racist story line, they showed a white man, who's 8 ft fence had fallen down, and he met his black neighbour for the first time. The BBC really really seems to have a thing against the US. I'm use to watching the Canadian news and the US news. The US news generally gives a pro-USA view. Canadian news, a slightly more balance view. But the BBC was big time anti-american. That really surprised me, because I thought the Canadian news, with all our recent disagreements with the US would me more anti-american than the BBC. The only reason I point this out is I'm sure most american's generally only watch american news. It's always interesting to see what the rest of the world is reporting. And the BBC news reporting really shocked me. The sum of their reporting was that the rescue efforts are based on race and that everyone has a gun and it's shoot to kill. Showed an old 80 year old couple with a revolver that they were loading and they've received instructions from the Marshall to shoot to kill.

Who would be your pick?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi.../content.4.htmllink

I wasn't impressed with either team. Mexico's sloppy defending lost them the game. I thought the Mexican's had better linkage and showed better imagination in the buildup and near the 18 yard box. The US showed no offensive imagination no ability for any midfield build up but defended well and won the lose balls. The US also had a very high work rate more than you typically see by other teams. It was a choppy game with lots of hard tackling. The highlight was Beasley's clinical finishing. The US got the result they needed, they really seem to have Mexico's number, which is suprising because Mexico is, in my opinion, the more skilled team and higher ranked team by FIFA.

Well, should be a fiercly contested match. May the most skilled team with the ambition and imagination win the game.

...I just found it interesting....but I don't know if it's true or not. Typically, car tanks are about one-quarter full. If buyers start keeping car tanks three-quarters full, the added demand would quickly drain the entire system of gasoline supplies.—Today’s WSJ

Should be an interesting game. As a neutral, I think I will be cheering for Mexico because I view them as the more creative and attacking side. But, we'll see how the USA play's them. I haven't watched the USA team for sometime, who are the key players to watch? Eddie Johnson is suppose to be a good talent. I think the talents of Jared Borgetti might be too much for the USA. But it will be interesting. Mexico was one of the better teams and top of the division in World Cup 2002 before they were upset by the USA. But I definitely love watching the mexican brand of soccer. Very entertaining.

Winner guaranteed a spot in the FIFA world cup. Should be a good match....bitter rivals for both countries. Really looking forward to it. http://www.nike.com/nikesoccer/justdoit/spot/video.html

Fantastic report. Wonderful. Thanks.

Let's connect the dots. U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow visited Alberta in July. Vice-President Dick Cheney is going in September. Meanwhile, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, headed by another Republican, Christopher Cox, may be on the verge of relaxing its oil reserve reporting requirements. If it does, the theoretical value of Alberta's oil sands will soar. The Republicans are evidently falling in love with the oil sands, located right next door in friendly, OPEC-free Canada, complete with pipelines that cross the border. The question is whether the romance will be consummated by takeovers that would leave the oil sands industry largely in foreign hands. A year or so ago, the Bush White House and its political agents seemed oblivious to the oil sands. But that was before Russia and Venezuela removed their "Welcome Yankee oil companies" signs from arrival lounges and before oil prices went to the then unthinkable $70 (U.S.) a barrel. Now, Alberta and U.S. energy security are uttered in the same breath. Earlier this year, George W. Bush, with Paul Martin at his side, actually mentioned the oil sands -- he called them the "tar sands" -- at the Three Amigos summit in Texas. Since then, Alberta tourism brochures have cluttered the "in" boxes of senior Republicans. Spencer Abraham, the former U.S. energy secretary, spoke about oil at an investor conference in Banff in June. Mr. Cheney will be highest-ranking Republican to traipse north. In Ottawa, Mr. Martin can only dream of such attention. Advertisements For Alberta, the most lavish attention may be yet to come. The SEC is under pressure to overhaul the reporting rules for oil reserves. The current rules are highly restrictive. In essence, the SEC says an oil sands reserve can only be booked as proven and commercially available if it comes with the infrastructure to extract the gooey oil, known as bitumen. If the SEC adopts a looser definition, the bitumen could be booked as a genuine reserve if it could be extracted at current prices using available technology. If that were to happen, Alberta's oil sands reserves would go from 12 billion barrels to perhaps 175 billion barrels, making it, in effect, the next Saudi Arabia. Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a high-profile consultancy in Massachusetts whose clients include companies with oil sands investments, has been lobbying the SEC to relax the reporting requirements. Don Coxe, chief strategist for Bank of Montreal's U.S. sister firm, Harris Investments, predicts the SEC will comply. If it does, oil sands investors will be beaming like babies with a new rattle. That's because reserve life would potentially rise by several decades, and values would be adjusted accordingly. You have to wonder whether Total of France's purchase this summer of Deer Creek Energy, an Alberta oil sands operator, was a bet on SEC reserve reporting changes. If they come, Deer Creek's $1.35-billion (Canadian) purchase price might look like a bargain. Deer Creek may be just the start of a takeover frenzy triggered by the global hunt for long-life oil reserves. Suncor, Western Oil Sands and Canadian Oil Sands Trust (COS) are potential targets. COS looks especially vulnerable because it has exceedingly big reserves and a low dividend yield (1.7 per cent, or less than Exxon Mobil's dividend yield), the result of the management decision to favour debt payments over high distributions to investors. Some investors think COS would be less vulnerable to takeover artists if it were to raise the payouts, which would boost the unit price and presumably help deter value-conscious buyers. COS seems a sitting duck at its current yield. It has a stock market value of just under $11-billion. That seems hefty by Canadian standards. The top five global oil companies, among them Exxon Mobil and BP, have a collective stock market value of about $1.3-trillion (U.S.). To them, COS is a rounding error. But not even oil giants like to overpay for assets. If COS values its Canadian trust status, it would try to make itself more expensive. Canada has a nasty habit of losing control over its big industries. Labatt and Molson are branch plant brewers operated by auto pilot from afar. Falconbridge, one of Canada's two largest mining and smelting companies, is owned 20 per cent by Xstrata and may soon come under the Swiss company's full control. Inco, once a giant among mining companies, now a second-string name, may be next. The oil industry has a few big Canadian players, including EnCana and Petro-Canada, but even more foreign ones. The oil sands are one of the last great Canadian assets. Foreign companies seem poised to pounce on it, and nothing, it appears, would make the energy-crazed Republicans happier. Too bad Canadian investors don't realize the value of the goo in their backyard.