Running backs dominate conditioning

By Chadd Cripe
ccripe@idahostatesman.com

Boise State’s competition at running back apparently started during winter conditioning.

Senior Ian Johnson, sophomore D.J. Harper and freshman Doug Martin were three of five players to reach the highest level in a new scoring system used by strength coach Tim Socha. Sophomore Jeremy Avery likely would have been close to that level, but he missed the winter testing with an injury.

Johnson, whose run at the Heisman Trophy in 2006 helped attract Martin and Harper to Boise State, led all skill players in all three major lifts — the bench press, back squat and hang clean. He also bulked up to 200 pounds and ran the 40-yard dash in 4.51 seconds.

Harper established a team best with a 4.43-second 40. However, burners Kyle Wilson (cornerback) and Avery did not run because of injuries.

Martin also would have competed with Harper for the fastest 40, but he wasn’t 100 percent on testing day, Socha said.

“They are going to help us tremendously,” coach Chris Petersen said of the running backs, “not only on offense, but on special teams. There’s just a good bunch of athletes there and we’ll figure out a way to get them all on the field.”

The other two players to reach the highest level in Socha’s system: tight end Chris O’Neill and defensive tackle Sean Bingham.

•••

The first day of spring practice Monday was apparently the place to be in Boise. In addition to visits from most media outlets in town, visitors included former Boise State players Daryn Colledge (offensive lineman, Green Bay Packers), Ryan Dinwiddie (quarterback Winnipeg Blue Bombers), Ryan Clady (expected first-round draft pick, offensive lineman) and Orlando Scandrick (NFL prospect at cornerback) and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith (in town to work out Clady).

•••

Petersen was happy with the effort on the first day of spring ball. He and his coaching staff pushed an increased tempo and Petersen liked the results.

The Broncos practiced in helmets Monday. They won’t put on full pads until Friday, which is when it will become more clear who is making progress and how well the team is adapting to the new tempo.

“Everybody in the country is going to show up in spring ball and have a good first day in terms of effort and attitude,” Petersen said. “The whole trick is to be consistent and persistent every day.”

•••

Petersen opened spring practices to the media with a couple of rules — no injury reports and no detailed practice reports. If those rules are violated, he will close practice again, as he did for the entire 2007 season.

•••

Read more about the first day of practice in Tuesday’s Idaho Statesman. Also, I’ll have a report on the offensive line in Bronco Beat after Tuesday’s practice.

Put it online I already saw it on 7.

BRONCO BEAT?

"BRONCO BEAT", WHO OWNS THE TRADEMARK FOR THAT? THERE ARE SEVERAL BUSINESSES IN BOISE THAT USE THE WORD "BRONCO" THIS AND "BRONCO" THAT AND THEY EVEN USE BLUE AND ORANGE COLOR SCHEMES AND SOME EVEN USE HORSES SIMILAR TO BOISE STATES, DO THEY ALL HAVE PERMISSION, ARE THEY PAYING ROYALTIES? CABELLA'S IS SELLING BLUE AND ORANGE DOG TOYS THAT DON'T HAVE A HORSE LOGO ON THEM NOR DO THEY MAKE MENTION OF BSU! WHAT'S THE STORY BEHIND THE "BLUE AND ORANGE STORE" AND THEIR DEALING WITH BSU?

LITTLEBOYBLUETURFTOWEL.COM

RE: BRONCO--Some clarifications

Bronco Motors was founded in 1971, before such claims were made and also during the BJC era. The graphic image associated with Bronco Motors may also predate any agreements and may use an abandonded image once used. If no claim to the image is asserted over time it might be argued that it has become public domain or a fair use item. Also note that since no infringement charges seem to have been filed after the incorporation 37 years ago, it is generally considered that such arguments are invalid under copyright laws. You can lose the right to argue or protect a mark or document through failure to argue against other marks and usage over time. It must be reasonably defended.

The towel issue...If the towel is based on a design coryrighted or trademarked (people seem to be highly confused by the two concepts' meanings and mix them up or equalize them) PRIOR to the introduction of the accused violator there may well be a valid option to litigate. Trademarks and copyrights must be considered UNIQUE (whether in a generic sense or specific to a type of product, service or concept) to allow such an argument. If the field design is trademarked or otherwise lrgally protected and defended, it is like to be upheld. Also at stake is the perceived image or exclusivity or the item as linked to football. BSU has a strong argument on this point. It can be argued that school team names such as Hoyas, Tar Heels or Boilermakers could be protected like this whereas "Aggie" is a common name for Agricultural College teams (i.e. A&M type names). "Ute" is not a unique name as it represents the indigenous people that gave the state of Utah it's name foundation and has a history over centuries of use.

Now, here are some specific examples for you to study.

1. General usage of a product name as a word defining a process as an ordinary term.

See: google (googling) for search engine and searching, xerox(es, ed) for copying, kleenex in the context of facial tissue.

Note that a capitalized form often is used to denote the actual trademarked use of the phrase (I'm going to get a coke VS. Coke, or Pepsi). Coke is more heavily protected perhaps as they use that form AND Coca-Cola to brand their products and therefore Coke is protected strongly as a high-profile identifier and Coca-Cola works hard to keep the trademark associated only with their cola.\

2. Style defining a trademark and denoting detrimental imitations and colloqualizations toward an established brand and mark.

See: Toys 'R' Us. In the late 1990s and early 2000s the famous toy seller initiated a number of lawsuits across the country after it won a ruling stating that the style of both the name format and the R, single and also reversed as in the logo was being violated by businesses using variations (Cars R Us, Glasses R Us etc). They won or forced many name changes by establishing that the R was a unique brand identifier owned by them and other companies could be found in violation and detrimental to the brand's image.

The example of the recent "and More" trend has not generally been established as unique nor a significant force in the trademark consciousness. It is more of a generic way to add a statement (you guessed it) that their range of services and products is broader than the businesses name suggested. "The New Dodge" or "The New 101 K-POP" is not a trademark as the term "new" has it's usage regulated by law and cannot be extended in that manner indefinitely (something must become old) compared to New Holland or New Process which ARE company names or brands, not an age qualifier. "K-POP" itself could be trademarked but there is the likelyhood the station with the actual KPOP call letters assigned by the FCC might have dibs.

"Old Navy" obviously has no problems. "Original Formula" is valid as long as it is just that, and Coke has no troubles as they did change the formula (although they stopped making it)...the public adopted the term "New Coke" as synonymous with disaster/unwanted and a previous fiasco link "Edsel" and so the promotion of "original formula" Coca-Cola must be allowed for whatever term the company finds necessary. "Original recipe" is valid as long as it does follow the first recipe closely (modifications for less spoilage and lower cost are allowed as long as the original method is preserved, I would guess and all things must improve some in most cases). Coke is rarely made solely with sugar and no fructose products anymore.

Outlet/outlet store and dollar store/5 and 10 cent store: These are generic terms while adding a unique term can be trademarked often (Only $1.00, Dollar General, #city# Grocery Outlet, a chain of discount seconds groceries and a corporate trademark.

As you can see, having a UNIQUE BRAND AND INDENTIFIER is a good defense, combined with PRECEDENCE (first use or surviving example) and staying away from a name that is too much like another that has those elements on it's side can help a lot although they are no certain clincher. Historical and geographic factors and identification can also matter greatly and names that slander or dishonor/are malicious might be be challenged (if you named your business "Microshaft" you would expect to be renaming or closing it).

Now, the bronco icon of Bronco Motors doesn't cause a problem because it is rather generic, does NOT substancially harm the images used by BSU (themselves often similar to those adopted by the NFL team Denver Broncos (they are not infringing on the name or logo concept either as their has never been a cauaul connection between the two and the current logos for either are noticeably different-the stylisms are common themes for wild horse based graphics without a similar unique concept). Blue and orange uniforms can only be registered as trademarks for the style of their layout. Neither have offending qualities. It is well-known that amateur youth teams often adopt the colors and styisms of a team they like. This seems to be encouraged by college and some pro teams as long as unique marks aren't exploited or denigrate the team image.

In Gilligan English, "Yeah, Skipper, and they like having the kids as fans"!

I hope this 9th grade essay was helpful to you. I edited it enough to be able turn it in for a grade, had I been a student.

I wish there were a spelling checker integrated into this platform. This took almost an hour to finish and correct and I should have used a word processor. I could edit and update and streamline forever until it was a book, but I'm leaving it at that.

Get the combination shampoo and solve this problem.