Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Collegiate Sports Discussion > College Football

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-29-2002, 08:06 PM   #1
govols
Rookie Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4
govols is on a distinguished road
Question What do you guys think about this 6-team playoff proposal?

My proposal for a 6-team playoff provides as follows:

Each conference champion(regardless of what conference) is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs provided that the team wins a minimum of 10 games, satisfies a "Stregth of Schedule sliding scale requirement"(See SOS SLIDING SCALE CHART below for an explaination), and no more than 6 conference champs meet both of the above requirement. For the purposes of this playoff system, the highest ranked independant team = conference champions. In the event that more than 6 conferences qualify, the same 10 game minimum win requirement and "SOS sliding scale requirement" would apply; teams with an undefeated record would automatically qualify; and the remaining spots would be filled by the highest rated qualifying conference champs(who would be ranked anyway for seeding purposes). In the more likely event that fewer than 6 conferences qualify(only 5 would qualify this year), the remaining spots would be filled by the top rated teams meeting both the minimum win requirement and SOS sliding scale requirement. If fewer than 6 teams meet both the minimum win and SOS sliding scale requirement requirements, then a playoff with only the teams that qualify will still be played.

In the typical 6-team playoff the top 2 teams get byes through the first round. In a 5 team playoff, once again the top team gets a bye through the 1st round. In a 4 team playoff there would simply be 2 rounds. If only 3 teams qualify then the top team gets a bye in the 1st round. If only 2 teams qualify, then they simply play each other. Finally, if only one team qualifies, then the top "non-qualifying team" picked by a special selection committee will play in the NC game against the sole qualifying team. In no event will 2 teams from the same conference play for the national title.

This season, such a 6-team playoff may have provided the following 1st round matchups:

1. Miami* - Bye
2. Ohio St.* - Bye
3. Oklahoma* vs. 6. Notre Dame*
4. [email protected] vs. 5. Georgia*

Of Course these are merely projections as of November 29, 2002, and they could certainly change depending on how each of these teams finish out their regular season. The winner of the Iowa/Georgia game would then play Miami and the winner of the Oklahoma/Notre Dame game would play Ohio St. The top 5 bowl bidders could host these games with a rotation allowing each bowl to host the N.C. game every 5 years.

Wouldn't this be great for college football? Not only would it produce great matchups, but it would also provide a set of rules that apply equally to everyone without regard for their conference's status as a "BCS" or "Non-BCS" conference. I believe that it also safe-guards the sanctity of the regular season and in college football by making it extremely difficult to get into the title game after losing. It also provides better access to the mid-majors because if would allow an undefeated Marshall, or Bowling Green or perhaps 1 loss Colorado St. or Fresno St. team to make the playoffs by merely meeting the mininum win requirement and "sliding SOS requirement." Finally, and most importantly it would distribute the proceeds to all 117 NCAA Div. I-A programs rather than simply allowing the BCS-Conferences to hoard up these proceeds!

WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK OF THIS PROPOSAL? IS IT A VIABLE COMPROMISE BETWEEN THOSE WHO FAVOR A FULL FLEDGED 16-TEAM PLAYOFF AND THOSE WHO OPPOSE PLAYOFFS?


SOS SLIDING SCALE REQUIREMENT

Number of Losses/Mimimum Strength of Scedule

0 Top 98%(1st-114th)
1 Top 70%(1st-81st)
2 Top 35%(1st-40th)
3 Top 2%(1st or 2nd)

SYMBOL KEY
* This symbol denotes that I have projected the team to win their conference and qualify pursuant to the rules set out above. In the case of Notre Dame, N.D. qualifies as a confence champion because they are the highest ranked independant and they meet all of the above requirements.

@ This symbol denotes that the team would be projected to win an at-large bid in this hypothetical playoff system.

PS, for those of you who favor a playoff visit www.bcs-sucks.com. It's a great site!
govols is offline  
Old 11-29-2002, 08:20 PM   #2
NickHammy
Sports Virtuoso
 
NickHammy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Columbus,Ohio
Posts: 4,236
NickHammy is on a distinguished road
Default

I agree with the 6-team playoff (I stated this in another thread) but I'm not sure I like how the teams are chosen...I think your should just take the top 6 teams in the nation. Just make it an easy system...take an average of the polls and the top 6 teams go in the playoffs.
__________________
Ohio State Buckeyes
NickHammy is offline  
Old 11-29-2002, 09:25 PM   #3
MountaineerDave
Where am I?
 
MountaineerDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,661
MountaineerDave is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by NickHammy
I agree with the 6-team playoff (I stated this in another thread) but I'm not sure I like how the teams are chosen...I think your should just take the top 6 teams in the nation. Just make it an easy system...take an average of the polls and the top 6 teams go in the playoffs.
By doing this, you've just committed 6 of the same 6 teams to play year-in/year-out. Like it or not, you'll always have ND, Michigan, FSU, Florida/Tennessee, and Miami and Oklahoma. The polls will always reward history over the present, like it or not. Texas almost never is field-worthy of a top 10 ranking, yet there they are, year-in, year-out.


(Of course, I'm not speaking scientifically here).

I don't disagree in principle with a 6-team slate, but I fail to see how this fixes the inequities of the BCS system, or any system, for that matter.

The SOS sliding scale has some inherent problems. We'll take USC as an example, since they played this year's toughest schedule. Say they beat Wazzu, K State, Colorado, etc., but lose to Arizona, Notre Dame, and Stanford, and two Pac10 losses is good enough for conference championship? Does a team who loses to this year's 'zona, and Stanford and a home game to ND REALLY deserve a playoff berth.

Or take ND... say they lose their games to BC, Navy and SC. Do they really deserve a berth in a playoff? Given the state of the armed forces academy football programs, would anyone who lost to an armed force be worthy of a playoff berth..

Also, that you wouldn't have 6 teams every year isn't just confusing, it's another inequity. You claim that it takes the science out of it, but you realize that BYU is gonna stand there claiming a 4-loss season that still results in a MWC championship is just as worthy as a 3-loss ND or a 2-loss USC.

Playoffs have a goal that is unnatural is a game whose best aspect is tradition.

Dave
MountaineerDave is offline  
Old 11-29-2002, 10:15 PM   #4
#47
Sports Virtuoso
 
#47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 2,017
#47 is on a distinguished road
Default

Nick......take the top six teams by average in the POlls? I dont think we need to give the pollsters any more weight then they already have.........which is way to much. These guys do not follow the games, I could site dozens upon dozens of facts that supports the fact they dont watch games.

Govols there are some interesting aspects to your proposal.

All undefeated teams automatically qualify, is no good though. Just because you are undefeated, does not mean you have played a worthy schedule. Boise state is 11-1 this year. There are presently only 6 teams in the country with one or fewer losses. they certainly are not near to being one of the top 6, much less top 15 teams in the country.

I think the SOS sliding scale chart is much better then what we have now, that is if I understand it right. But I think it should be taken a little further even, I want teams rewarded for playing the toughest schedules. I'm still not sure they are by this system. You have Iowa seeded fourth, ahead of Georgia and ND even though they all have the same records and Iowa has played the easiest schedule. So that leads me to believe there is not enough weight involved in the SOS. USC has lost one more game, but by far has played the toughest schedule, so what your telling me is, play weak teams and dont lose.

I agree with Dave, we cant change every year from 6 team to 4 team to 5 team to 2 teams.

Notre Dame cannot just qualify as a conference champion just because they meet all the requirements. There are no independents they are competing with.

In no event will 2 teams from the same conference play for the NC?????? Well, lets say 2 teams from the same conference go undefeated and also have the top 2 SOS's in the country? Does that mean we seed them against each other, even though they earned the right by playing the toughest schedules? Dont forget teams in each conference(OSU an Iowa for example) dont play each other.

Some interesting points though. I'll way in some more on some of them.
__________________
USC Football.........
22 in a row!
2003 and '04 NC's in Football.
33-1, the last 34 gms.
Heisman #6.
#47 is offline  
Old 11-29-2002, 11:37 PM   #5
MountaineerDave
Where am I?
 
MountaineerDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,661
MountaineerDave is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by #47
Nick......take the top six teams by average in the POlls? I dont think we need to give the pollsters any more weight then they already have.........which is way to much. These guys do not follow the games, I could site dozens upon dozens of facts that supports the fact they dont watch games.

Govols there are some interesting aspects to your proposal.

All undefeated teams automatically qualify, is no good though. Just because you are undefeated, does not mean you have played a worthy schedule. Boise state is 11-1 this year. There are presently only 6 teams in the country with one or fewer losses. they certainly are not near to being one of the top 6, much less top 15 teams in the country.

I think the SOS sliding scale chart is much better then what we have now, that is if I understand it right. But I think it should be taken a little further even, I want teams rewarded for playing the toughest schedules. I'm still not sure they are by this system. You have Iowa seeded fourth, ahead of Georgia and ND even though they all have the same records and Iowa has played the easiest schedule. So that leads me to believe there is not enough weight involved in the SOS. USC has lost one more game, but by far has played the toughest schedule, so what your telling me is, play weak teams and dont lose.

I agree with Dave, we cant change every year from 6 team to 4 team to 5 team to 2 teams.

Notre Dame cannot just qualify as a conference champion just because they meet all the requirements. There are no independents they are competing with.

In no event will 2 teams from the same conference play for the NC?????? Well, lets say 2 teams from the same conference go undefeated and also have the top 2 SOS's in the country? Does that mean we seed them against each other, even though they earned the right by playing the toughest schedules? Dont forget teams in each conference(OSU an Iowa for example) dont play each other.

Some interesting points though. I'll way in some more on some of them.
Schedules, schedules....

I, of course, presented the system you want, 47, and it went sadly, sadly ignored.

There is a falsehood stated in the proposal regarding the position of the Big 6 v Other 5 conferences. You suggest that your proposal evens that field, and that just ain't so. The Other 5 almost never reach a point in the polls where they outrank the #2 team in no fewer than 3 and usually all 6 of the Big 6 conferences.

I would want this stipulation: If you have to win your conference in a championship game, you get an automatic bid. Of course, the Big10 would institute a CG instantly. Then, you have 4 automatic bids... I don't know. This whole playoff thing is the work of the devil, especially when my kid's been sick and keeping me up at night.

Dave
MountaineerDave is offline  
Old 11-30-2002, 12:31 AM   #6
bama4256
Baseball Fanatic
 
bama4256's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Marshalltown, Iowa
Posts: 6,484
bama4256 will become famous soon enough
Default

Welcome GoVols to SC. Your proposal sounds sane, but the NCAA will never go for it-at least in our lifetime. lol
__________________
Keith "baseball nut" Thronson
bama4256 is offline  
Old 11-30-2002, 01:51 AM   #7
govols
Rookie Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4
govols is on a distinguished road
Default I'm going to try to respond to some of your concerns.

this is technically a response to Dave's post, but I am going to attempt to respond to all of your concerns, so bear please with me.

First, I concede that not having 6 teams every year would be both confusing and unnecessary; thus, I would change this part of the proposal to simply call on the selection committee in the event that 6 teams didn't qualify to select the remaining teams giving preference to conference champions over teams with the same number of losses and similar stregnth of schedules. So 6 teams would play every year!

Nick, there are a number of reasons why we should not simply choose the 6 highest ranked teams to play in the playoffs.

First, simply picking the highest ranked 6 teams would destroy the sanctity of the conference title because for example(hypothetically speaking) a 10-2 Texas team that failed to win its conference could get into the playoffs ahead of a 10-2 Washington St. team that WON its conference with as strong of a strength of schedule(SOS) simply because the pollsters vote Texas ahead of Washington St. My playoff system would recognize the sanctity of the conference title by selecting teams who won their conference ahead of teams with the same number of losses and similar SOS's who didn't win their conf. title. On the other hand, my 6-team playoff would not reward undeserving conference champions like FSU, North Texas, Louisville, ect. because these teams would simply not meet the mandatory minimum win and Sliding SOS requirements.

Second, simply picking the top 6 teams would not provide deserving midmajors an opportunity to play for the title because preconcieved notions about these schools would prevent them from ever getting into the top 6 even if they finished unbeaten. In contrast, under my system, the following midmajors in the past 12 years would have gotten a shot in my hypothetical 6-team playoff:
(1) 1991 Eastern Carolina, who finished 11-1; SEE www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/EastCarolina.htm#1991 ,
(2) 1998 Tulane who finished 12-0; See http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Tulane.htm#1998 and,
(3) 1999 Marshall, who finished 13-0; See http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Marshall.htm#1999

# 47, your concern that teams with tough competition should be rewarded is well noted, but at the same time you can't crown a 10-2 national champ simply because they played the toughest schedule in the nation. Also we may simply have a fundamental disagreement about the value of going undefeated. For example, I firmly believe that both the 1998 Tulane team, and the 1999 Marshall team should have at least had an opportunity to play for a national title in a playoff type of system. You probably disagree, arguing that they didn't play hard enough competition, but I would simply respond that those kids didn't schedule the games, they just played them. After finishing unbeaten against I-A competitionthey deserve better than simply wondering "What if we had only been given an opportunity to play against Tennessee or Florida State?" Now, my playoff would still encourage midmajors to schedule tough competition because it would eliminate unbeatens with absolutely deplorable competition. For example if La-Lafayette, South Florida, or Arkansas St. would have finished unbeaten last season, they WOULD NOT have made the playoffs under my 6-team playoff system. Also, it would encourage midmajors to play tough OOC competition because if they played tough enough competition, they could still lose a game and get in the playoffs. For example, Colo. St., who played a brutal OOC schedule this season with games against Virginia, Colorado, UCLA, Louisville, and Fresno State could have made the playoffs under my system this season with a loss; however, they lost 2 games so they don't qualify. Similarly, Boise St. was unable to qualify with only 1 loss because their competition was so weak. On the other hand, if Boise State had have beaten Arkansas rather than losing 41-14 and went undefeated, then they would have made my 6-team playoff, and in my opinion they should under such a scenario.

Mountainer Dave, your assertion that my original post stated a falsity about placing Mid-majors under the same set of rules as every one else is simply not correct. My proposal does place Mid-majors under one set of rules that apply equally to every-one. You argue that typically the second and third place teams in the top 6 conferences rank ahead of midmajor conferences, but that fact is irrellevant since my proposal guarantees that conference champions go in ahead of teams with the same number of losses and a similar SOS of schedule who have not won their conference. Thus, for example, if Colorado State would have beaten either UCLA or Fresno St. earlier this year, which would have meant that they would have met both the minimum win requirement and Sliding SOS requirement; they would have been gauranteed a spot over a Texas Longhorn team that failed win its title regardless of whether Texas was ranked higher than CSU. Also I could not agree to your stipulation because that may lead to undeserving teams getting into the playoffs. For example, this year there are 2 teams in tne SEC and Big 12 conference championship games with 3 losses, Arkansas & Colorado. Not to degrade either of these teams, but neither is any where close to deserving an opportunity to play for the national title in my opinion. Also, if you made such a rule then all 11 conferences would institute a playoff in order to not be disadvantaged and then we would have 11 automatic bids in a 6-team playoff, which obviously couldn't work.
govols is offline  
Old 11-30-2002, 02:44 AM   #8
govols
Rookie Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4
govols is on a distinguished road
Default One other thing that I forgot to mention

The statement stating that "In no event will 2 teams from the same conference play for a national title" was only reffering to the playoff scenario where only one team qualified and they other team was selected by a special selection committee. However, since I agree with all of you that having fewer than 6-teams per year would simply be confusing and unnecessary, you can simply ignore this particular sentence because under my playoff it is possible that 2 teams from the same conference could play each other in the title game. For example, if Ohio St. was hypothetically(I am of course not actually suggesting that OSU should be ranked ahead of Miami) ranked #1 ahead of Miami and Iowa was seeded #4 or #5, then they would play each other if Iowa won its first two games and OSU one its semi-final matchup.
govols is offline  
Old 11-30-2002, 04:22 AM   #9
Anthony
Moderator
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 8,374
Anthony is on a distinguished road
Default

The entire system needs to be restructured. Schools like Marshall, East Carolina etc. should be reclassified as Division I-AA, with what is currently known as Division I-AA being renamed I-AAA - or better yet, I-B and I-C respectively, which would cause far less confusion. Then give the new Division I-AA (or I-B) its own post-season tournament, just like the present I-AA has, and restrict any major-college playoff system to the true "big time" schools.

And instead of six teams qualifying, why not seven? The bad thing about having six is that there is a greater difference between being #2 and #3 heading into the playoff than there is between being #1 and #2 (since the #2 team gets a bye into the semifinals and the #3 team doesn't). And just think of the marketing possibilities - if a team qualifies for the playoffs, it can be said to have made it to the "Magnificent Seven" - just like they have the "Final Four" in basketball.
Anthony is offline  
Old 11-30-2002, 03:43 PM   #10
#47
Sports Virtuoso
 
#47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 2,017
#47 is on a distinguished road
Default

Well I thought maybe your plan had a little validity to it GOVOLS until you cited that under your system, the '98 Tulane, '91 ECU and '99 Marshall teams would all have made your playoff set up.
That is a joke.

'91 ECU..........9-1 record before bowls. 10-1 but one win was against a 1AA team, so 9-1.

There one loss was to a 6-6 Illinois team.
7 of the 10 teams they played had losing records.
Combined records of the teams they played...........49-61.

This is not even close to being a worthy team. Next:

'98 Tulane:

11-0 record, very nice on the surface.
Combined records of the teams they played.......45-80, OUCH!
8 of there 11 games were against teams with losing records. PLEASE!

Next:

'99 Marshall

11-0(12-0 but one game was against a 1AA opponent)
Combined records of there opponents, 52-72.
6 of the 11 teams they played had losing records.

Not one of these teams is worthy of playing in a NC set up, if they are in yours, I do not need to read any further.

You also can use the argument, that because the kids did not make the schedules, they should not have to be hindered by not being involved in a playoff because the schedule was so weak. When they agreed to there scholarship offer, they knew what type of schedules they would be playing. Not one of those kids signed with ECU, Tulane or Marshall thinking they would get the opportunity to play for the NC.

You can never justify having a system that would put teams such as this in a NC playoff, playing these type of schedules.
__________________
USC Football.........
22 in a row!
2003 and '04 NC's in Football.
33-1, the last 34 gms.
Heisman #6.
#47 is offline  
Old 11-30-2002, 05:10 PM   #11
#47
Sports Virtuoso
 
#47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 2,017
#47 is on a distinguished road
Default

Dave, on another note, when did you present the system I want? I certainly did not ignore it, maybe I missed it, but I did not ignore it?
__________________
USC Football.........
22 in a row!
2003 and '04 NC's in Football.
33-1, the last 34 gms.
Heisman #6.
#47 is offline  
Old 11-30-2002, 09:59 PM   #12
govols
Rookie Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4
govols is on a distinguished road
Default

So I guess in your opinion if a team doesn't happen to play in the SEC, Big East, Big 12, Big 10, PAC 10, or ACC, they don't deserve to play in any major bowl or playoff no matter how well they play!!

Its not as if my playoff system would open the floodgates to undeserving midmajors. In fact, under my system only 3 midmajors would have made the playoffs in the last 12 years, so 69 of the 72 playoff spots would have still went to teams from what are currently the BCS-conferences.

By the way, where were all the Midmajor haters like you when Virginia Tech made the national title game with a schedule that featured I-AA James Madison and I-A opponents with a combinded record of 54-62? I guess that's all right since they are a well recognized program from a major conference!!

Give me a break!

Despite what people like you say, who want BCS conference teams to mantain their monopoly, we need a playoff system now that doesn't discriminate against teams solely because they play in a certain conference rather than another conference!

<<Admin edit: Keep self-promotional links in your signature>>
govols is offline  
Old 11-30-2002, 11:00 PM   #13
#47
Sports Virtuoso
 
#47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 2,017
#47 is on a distinguished road
Default

Actually in another thread titled, "Playoffs, Playoffs? We just want to win a game!" I stated that VT had no business being in that NC game that year.................maybe you should read some other threads OR ask if one thought they would have deserved to be in the game, then you wouldnt look so stupid making that comment.

If a team that plays in one of the conferencers that are not one of the present BCS 6 conferences, then they better go out and play a schedule similar to what Colorado State attempted to play this year. Certainly no less then that. Those teams you mentioned, played lousy slates bottom line and played in weaker conferences. You should not get rewarded for that.

So next time you are going to throw something my way, you might better ask first, you never know what I might have already posted. Its there if you dont believe me, I think you can read well enough to find it.
__________________
USC Football.........
22 in a row!
2003 and '04 NC's in Football.
33-1, the last 34 gms.
Heisman #6.

Last edited by #47; 11-30-2002 at 11:03 PM.
#47 is offline  
Old 12-01-2002, 01:15 AM   #14
MountaineerDave
Where am I?
 
MountaineerDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,661
MountaineerDave is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by govols
So I guess in your opinion if a team doesn't happen to play in the SEC, Big East, Big 12, Big 10, PAC 10, or ACC, they don't deserve to play in any major bowl or playoff no matter how well they play!!
That's correct. 47 does not believe that teams outside the big 6 deserve consideration. He makes stipulations in his response to you, but the bottom line is no. If it ain't Big6, it ain't worth talking about.

This is a philosophy that I personally think sucks, and I have argued with him about it, in the thread he notes, but he is intransigent. 47 would prefer that only Big6 football teams play football, and the rest leave him alone.

Oh, and that USC be granted the National Championship on schedule alone, and that Carson Palmer be inducted into the NFL Hall of Fame before being drafted... (okay, I exaggerated a touch, he just wants the Heisman delivered to Carson tonight.)




Quote:
Originally posted by govols

Despite what people like you say, who want BCS conference teams to mantain their monopoly, we need a playoff system now that doesn't discriminate against teams solely because they play in a certain conference rather than another conference!

www.bcs-sucks.com
I agree that the monopoly of the Big6 sucks, and that 47's position on this monopoly also sucks, however, (and I was going to mention this elsewhere, but this is as good a place as any now) 47 ignores that Big6 teams don't fall over themselves to schedule the likes of Marshall or Colorado State or last year's FresnoState. In the last two years, Marshall's played Florida and Virginia Tech in single year one game series. Florida wants to have nothing to do with travelling to Huntington, and who can blame them. Yes, they trounced the Herd, but Spurrier generally thrashed anyone without a running game to devour possession in the Swamp. Virginia Tech won more handily than the score indicated this year, but you don't see them running to Marshall's home field for more.

This, 47 says, is crap. A "good team schedules good opposition" and everything else is crap. I can understand the philosophy, but it cheapens the art of winning out. And it's an art. It's done by very few teams year to year.

Finally, college football doesn't need a national champion won on the field. It doesn't need a playoff and it doesn't need the BCS. College football needs to return to what it does best: build character, provide entertainment, prepare the studs in the game a place from which to launch their pro careers.

Dave
MountaineerDave is offline  
Old 12-01-2002, 06:17 PM   #15
#47
Sports Virtuoso
 
#47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 2,017
#47 is on a distinguished road
Default

Hey Dave dont be a FU***** idiot, I can speak for myself just fine. I dont need a couch potato speaking for me.

I have no problem with you voicing your opinions, I have complimented you on such, but dont go out an be a bit** and make up quotes for me. I can make my own just fine.

You have voiced many viable ideas in different areas. I have also said you have before, but knowwhere did I go and sarcasticly say to another poster, what a moron you were, even when you have been wrong.

This posters contention that those 3 teams he picked should or could have been in a national championship game is insulting at best. Those team were no more deserving then the local schools intramural team..............that went undefeated, you have to play someone at somepoint.

But I forgot, you believe from your couch, or love seat, that all teams are created equal.................lol.

I save my responses to your opinions........to you. I dont need to go an act like a little squirming bi*** and try and knock another person thru someone else.

Be a man..............not a girl.
__________________
USC Football.........
22 in a row!
2003 and '04 NC's in Football.
33-1, the last 34 gms.
Heisman #6.
#47 is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:45 PM.