CFB Rankings Week #3

braves said:
see I don't even think they are really coy about it anymore, pretty much anyone that follows this sports knows ratings play somewhat of a factor in this

also, this is a sport that used to determine a champion by polls, so I'm ok with the system now. Add more teams, then I fear Ville/Clemson, OHio State/Michigan, etc doesn't mean as much.

I can live with Western Michigan not getting a shot.
Click to expand...

If they have stopped being coy about it, why not just set up a separate tourney for the non Power 5 conferences? I mean either they come out and say no other teams have a realistic shot of making the playoff, or they let teams without a loss into it.
 
takeit said:
This will probably be the case with tOSU though. Right now PSU holds the tie breaker and would go to the conference championship game. For tOSU to go, they have to win out and have PSU lose to Rutgers or Michigan State (my guess is they win both of those games).
Click to expand...

Right. If they both win out, and PSU makes the B1G title game over tOSU, then tOSU should have zero shot of making the playoff. Especially since PSU beat tOSU on the field already this season. Who could possibly justify tOSU getting in over PSU when they actually played a game this season that PSU won and PSU won their division?
 
Jayhawk Nation said:
If Western Michigan thinks it's team is worthy of consideration on the national level, schedule better power 5 opponents in your non-con schedule. If we are whining about 'you have to give undefeated teams a chance' then none of those smaller conference teams will ever schedule difficult because they will just get in if they go undefeated. Not all teams and conferences are created equal. Sucks but that is what it is. If anyone thinks WMU could keep it within 28 of Bama in a meaningful game by all means convince me.

I am usually one to give the smaller schools a fair shake but to be at least considered for the playoff I think you need to have beaten a top 25 opponent at least once during the year.
Click to expand...

But they did beat TWO B1G schools this season, both games on the road too. The argument is usually that they need to schedule games with Power 5 schools...now that they've done that and actually won both games, we should say they need to schedule games against "better" Power 5 schools? Why don't we say that the Power 5 schools they played should just get better and not be so shitty?

Not to mention, most of the Power 5 schools will refuse to play games against non Power 5 schools if they feel there's a chance they may lose, so what are they supposed to do?
 
Lareux said:
But they did beat TWO B1G schools this season, both games on the road too. The argument is usually that they need to schedule games with Power 5 schools...now that they've done that and actually won both games, we should say they need to schedule games against "better" Power 5 schools? Why don't we say that the Power 5 schools they played should just get better and not be so shitty?

Not to mention, most of the Power 5 schools will refuse to play games against non Power 5 schools if they feel there's a chance they may lose, so what are they supposed to do?
Click to expand...

not only that, they will rarely do a home and home with a non power 5 school. They almost always get to play at home.

Is Iowa better than NW? Just asking.
 
This sounds good, and I feel the pain....
Only, ONLY problem I have with ALL this talk is this.....

I firmly believe that this year IF The Fighting Tom Hermans(HOU) is undefeated right now.....
They would be Top 4....

Agree?
 
twinkie13 said:
Assuming they would've won out.....

Right?
Click to expand...

The may be, but probably not until after the beat Louisville (winning out all season)...which would be a much bigger feather in their cap than anything WMU has done this season. If they were ranked in the top 4 right now, the whole thing would make even less sense as they've only beaten Oklahoma up until this point.
 
twinkie13 said:
This sounds good, and I feel the pain....
Only, ONLY problem I have with ALL this talk is this.....

I firmly believe that this year IF The Fighting Tom Hermans(HOU) is undefeated right now.....
They would be Top 4....

Agree?
Click to expand...

I agree. It is illustrative of the flaw to the system as well. Meaning it is all about subjectivity rather than performance. So if you are thought to be good before the season starts (they were before getting injured), and you are ranked high early from one of these conference then you have a shot if you go undefeated. In other words, per Sagarin right now, Tulsa, USF, Temple, Navy to name a few teams from that conference have currently played a harder strength of schedule than has Houston. Yet were they undefeated they wouldn't have a shot any more than Western Michigan does. Houston would because they might have been the best team last year and didn't get a shot to prove it. Again the subjectivity, of people who are wrong a lot, gets in the way of the objective way of determining a champion on the field of play. I was going to bring up this point earlier in the thread to show how ridiculous subjective determinations are as a criteria for being allowed to compete for a national title. And of course last years Houston who went 13-1 with their only loss being a game where they didn't have Ward at QB but Postma instead, didn't sniff the playoffs. A year too late ....

Anyway, thanks for pointing it out because I forgot all about it but it does clearly illustrate how stupid the system is.
 
Lareux said:
The may be, but probably not until after the beat Louisville (winning out all season)...which would be a much bigger feather in their cap than anything WMU has done this season. If they were ranked in the top 4 right now, the whole thing would make even less sense as they've only beaten Oklahoma up until this point.
Click to expand...
Maybe
But had they continued on and won out....IN

Granted, it takes an odd year for it to happen but we can all agree that given what has happened and they went undefeated...IN the 4, yes?
 
twinkie13 said:
Maybe
But had they continued on and won out....IN

Granted, it takes an odd year for it to happen but we can all agree that given what has happened and they went undefeated...IN the 4, yes?
Click to expand...

Well yes, but again they would have beaten Louisville.
 
I'll be my own devil's Ad here and say that, hey...

Maybe the UH of WMU get a decent starting spot(bad system, I know)
And maybe get scheduled by the P5(has started some, UH and example)

There is a chance....but it had to be pointed out
 
And from the political standpoint, I have to wonder if the only reason Houston had the high preseason ranking is because they were being considered as an expansion team to one of the power 5 conferences.
 
clowncar said:
And from the political standpoint, I have to wonder if the only reason Houston had the high preseason ranking is because they were being considered as an expansion team to one of the power 5 conferences.
Click to expand...

By the conference that then decided not to expand even though that means they still cannot have a conference championship game which will, more than likely, continue to prevent them to having a team make the playoff unless they are undefeated. You can't make that level of stupidity up.
 
clowncar said:
I agree. It is illustrative of the flaw to the system as well. Meaning it is all about subjectivity rather than performance. So if you are thought to be good before the season starts (they were before getting injured), and you are ranked high early from one of these conference then you have a shot if you go undefeated. In other words, per Sagarin right now, Tulsa, USF, Temple, Navy to name a few teams from that conference have currently played a harder strength of schedule than has Houston. Yet were they undefeated they wouldn't have a shot any more than Western Michigan does. Houston would because they might have been the best team last year and didn't get a shot to prove it. Again the subjectivity, of people who are wrong a lot, gets in the way of the objective way of determining a champion on the field of play. I was going to bring up this point earlier in the thread to show how ridiculous subjective determinations are as a criteria for being allowed to compete for a national title. And of course last years Houston who went 13-1 with their only loss being a game where they didn't have Ward at QB but Postma instead, didn't sniff the playoffs. A year too late ....

Anyway, thanks for pointing it out because I forgot all about it but it does clearly illustrate how stupid the system is.
Click to expand...

You can't get in on your merits, you have to build a reputation first. Then, when you build a reputation you become a victim of your success and nobody wants to play you (i.e Boise).
 
Alan Tongue said:
You can't get in on your merits, you have to build a reputation first. Then, when you build a reputation you become a victim of your success and nobody wants to play you (i.e Boise).
Click to expand...

Exactly. The ol' Catch 22.
 
Lareux said:
Right. If they both win out, and PSU makes the B1G title game over tOSU, then tOSU should have zero shot of making the playoff. Especially since PSU beat tOSU on the field already this season. Who could possibly justify tOSU getting in over PSU when they actually played a game this season that PSU won and PSU won their division?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they already had their mini-playoff, and Penn State won. If it's a choice between the two, head-to-head -- the mini-playoff -- is always the first tie-breaker whether it's the NFL, college, or high school.

By the way, it's entirely possible that when it's all over the Pitt Panthers will have beaten both the ACC and B1G champions.
 
I would rank top 9 as follows, beyond that I don't know. The 3-7 ranking is difficult. Ultimately even though I classify Clemson and Michigan as having bad losses, they have better wins in my opinion over the teams I rank 5-7 giving them the edge.

1. Alabama 10-0 - 6 wins vs teams with winning records - best wins vs 7-3 USC, at 7-3 LSU, at 7-3 Tenn, vs 8-3 WKU. Questionable performance, none.

2. Ohio St 9-1 - 4 wins vs teams with winning records - wins vs 7-3 Tulsa, at 8-2 Oklahoma, at 8-2 Wisc, vs 8-2 Neb. Quality loss at 8-2 Penn St (perhaps even fluky loss). Questionable performance against 5-5 Northwestern.

3. Clemson 9-1 - 5 wins vs teams with winning records - best wins vs 9-1 Louisville, at 7-3 FSU, vs 8-1 Troy, at 7-3 Auburn. Bad loss vs home vs 6-4 Pitt as 21 pt favorite, Pitt had just lost by 23 week prior. Questionable performance vs 5-5 NC St who missed chip shot FG for the game.

4. Michigan 9-1 - 4 wins vs teams with winning records - wins vs 6-4 UCF, vs 8-2 Colorado, vs 8-2 Wisconsin, vs 8-2 Penn St. Bad loss at 5-4 Iowa as 24 pt favorite, Iowa had just lost by 27 week prior.

5. Washington 9-1 - 3 wins vs teams with winning records - wins vs 6-4 Idaho, 7-3 Stanford, at 8-2 Utah. Quality loss home vs 7-3 USC. Questionable performance at 2-8 Arizona.

6. West Virginia 9-1 - 3 wins vs teams with winning records - wins vs 6-4 BYU, vs 5-4 TCU, vs 5-4 Kansas St. Quality loss at 8-2 Oklahoma St. Questionable performance at 5-5 Texas.

7. Louisville 9-1 - 2 wins vs teams with winning records - wins vs 7-3 FSU, at 6-4 Wake Forest. Quality loss at 9-1 Clemson, LV was actually favored in the game. Questionable performances vs 4-6 Duke, at 2-8 Virginia, vs 6-4 Wake Forest (WF led the entire game into the 4th qrt).

8. Penn St 8-2 - 4 wins vs teams with winning records - wins vs 9-1 Ohio St, vs 7-3 Minnesota, vs 7-3 Temple, 6-4 Iowa. Quality loss at 9-1 Michigan, although PSU was dominated. Bad loss at 6-4 Pitt where Pitt led big before late comeback bid. Questionable performance at 5-5 Indiana (misleading final).

9. Wisconsin 8-2 - 3 wins vs teams with winning records - wins vs 6-3 LSU, vs 8-2 Nebraska, at 6-4 Iowa. Quality loss at 9-1 Michigan, home vs 9-1 Ohio St. Questionable performance vs 2-8 Ga State.

I personally have always favored a 4 team championship system where only conference champions are eligible for the pool of teams. I wrote a detailed blog on this topic almost 10 years ago on Phil Steele's website where I gave examples of how it would work in every BCS year. This is different from Phil's article in his annual magazine as Phil doesn't have a conference champion only provision. I believe in using the conference races as an ongoing inseason playoff and every team can start the season legitimately believing they have a chance at a national title with the goal of being a conference champion as the first qualifier. I don't care how the rankings are established, it could be all computers for I care, I actually think I prefer a collection of computers like the BCS used over human pollsters.

Two teams from the same conference should never compete for a national title. 2011 LSU-Alabama, 2003 Oklahoma-LSU and 2001 Nebraska-Miami shouldn't have happened as Alabama, OU and Nebraska would not have been eligible. This method also extends access to the pool for teams such as MWC, MAC, Sun Belt, etc. They don't have to be in the top 4. They just have to be among the highest 4 ranked conference champion...which could be #7, or #10, #12, etc. You go as far as you have to for 4 conference champions, but historically the pool is typically filled with teams among the top 10. Back in the day when people argued about Utah or Boise or TCU competing for a title..that model would've included them.

I don't believe in a system that allows for rematches. So then I don't believe in conference championships as they are determined in many conferences currently. I believe in single elimination. If team A already lost to team B, why create a rematch? It minimizes the significance of the first game and magnifies the significance of the second game for no reason other than the second game is played last. Nothing wrong with the old way of doing things...everyone plays every conference opponent and if tie breakers are needed, use tie breakers to determine the winners (and don't outsource the tie breaking process to a poll, if the normal tie breakers can't break the tie then use fewest points allowed, or most points for, or whatever means is necessary to break the tie in house).

But using a conference champion only model for 4 playoff spots takes so much subjectivity out of the equation and reduces the importance of polls. A poll would still be used to determine the top 4 conference champions, but it largely puts a team's destiny in their own hands.
 
The problem with that s--k is the OC games count for something with the committee.
 
Found this interesting...it was retweeted by Brian Burke, initially tweeted by Sharon Katz (analytics writer at ESPN).

CxJisInWQAYaiuC.jpg
 
Picking 4 conference champs out of a hat is more fair than a selection committee picking 4 best conf winners. At least that has some version of equal opportunity
 
comical although expected...... Clem n Mich both lose as DD favs and just drop a spot.... but this is a year where there more undeserving teams then deservin teams...... so mich/ohio st is for a playoff spot and likely the #2 seed and avoiding bama...... and Louisville should be biggest benefactor from that game
 
We were watching it and as people get fired up, you know 2 of the top 6 teams will not be there at the end. tOSO or Mich will be gone and Louisville or Clemson will be gone.

I Hope my Buffs stay in the top 10. They have 2 tough games and if they take care of those they will have another tough game. I am so happy with how they have progressed...

Mike MacIntyre :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:
 
takeit said:
We were watching it and as people get fired up, you know 2 of the top 6 teams will not be there at the end. tOSO or Mich will be gone and Louisville or Clemson will be gone.

I Hope my Buffs stay in the top 10. They have 2 tough games and if they take care of those they will have another tough game. I am so happy with how they have progressed...

Mike MacIntyre :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:
Click to expand...

Mike was a friend of mine back in first and second grade when his dad was on Hootie Ingram's staff at Clemson. He was a nice kid, and I'm glad to see him succeed.
 
Lareux said:
But they did beat TWO B1G schools this season, both games on the road too. The argument is usually that they need to schedule games with Power 5 schools...now that they've done that and actually won both games, we should say they need to schedule games against "better" Power 5 schools? Why don't we say that the Power 5 schools they played should just get better and not be so shitty?

Not to mention, most of the Power 5 schools will refuse to play games against non Power 5 schools if they feel there's a chance they may lose, so what are they supposed to do?
Click to expand...

How can you make a claim to be deserving to be in the top 4 when you haven't beaten a single top 25 team all year?

not saying the scheduling issues are easy to overcome, but go play someone. If w mich would have beaten just 1 top 25 team I would say give them a shot
 
clowncar said:
Picking 4 conference champs out of a hat is more fair than a selection committee picking 4 best conf winners. At least that has some version of equal opportunity
Click to expand...

M.W. said:
S--k, I wish the committee paid as close attention as you do.
Click to expand...

We know it is just so subjective. Lots of people here follow things pretty close, ask them all and you will get dozens of different combinations.

And what is "best". The committee is supposed to get the 4 "best" teams. Well, we've all seen teams we thought were the "best" lose to teams that we didn't think were best.

Ultimately it is either better to leave it purely as a beauty contest as we did for, what 80 years or something and have various polls award a champion based on whatever merit they want...

OR you have to play them off.

I like limiting to 4 teams because I think when you go beyond that you aren't talking about national champion caliber teams. But if we ever go to 8 teams, just make it conference champions only, what are there 10 leagues? I mean so 2 champions would get left out, which by the time you are talking about the 9th and 10th conference champ they would have a weak arguement on inclusion. Probably talking about some team ranked in the 30s , 40s or worse.

Just get the human subjectivity out of it. Because humans don't know who the best teams are. I'd rather average a bunch of computers really.

I just love making it conference champions only because then weeks 1-14 determine the teams eligible to play for the title with perhaps a poll playing some less meaningful role at the end (depending if we are talking 4 or 8 team model). And then every team, coach and player knows what the goal is. #1 win all of our games. #2 win our league. If you do that more often than not you will get a shot at the ultimate prize. Teams can understand those goals, there is no mystery or fair/unfair/best/deserving about it.
 
Top 25 is derived from a subjective preseason poll and subjective decision making after the fact.

Would it have served Washington better (not the only example) to have only beaten Oregon by 3 instead of 50? Stanford too? What happens to an opponent after curb stomping them matters imo, yet sucking the will out of your opponents has an after effect...it's all subjective.
 
s--k said:
We know it is just so subjective. Lots of people here follow things pretty close, ask them all and you will get dozens of different combinations.

And what is "best". The committee is supposed to get the 4 "best" teams. Well, we've all seen teams we thought were the "best" lose to teams that we didn't think were best.

Ultimately it is either better to leave it purely as a beauty contest as we did for, what 80 years or something and have various polls award a champion based on whatever merit they want...

OR you have to play them off.

I like limiting to 4 teams because I think when you go beyond that you aren't talking about national champion caliber teams. But if we ever go to 8 teams, just make it conference champions only, what are there 10 leagues? I mean so 2 champions would get left out, which by the time you are talking about the 9th and 10th conference champ they would have a weak arguement on inclusion. Probably talking about some team ranked in the 30s , 40s or worse.

Just get the human subjectivity out of it. Because humans don't know who the best teams are. I'd rather average a bunch of computers really.

I just love making it conference champions only because then weeks 1-14 determine the teams eligible to play for the title with perhaps a poll playing some less meaningful role at the end (depending if we are talking 4 or 8 team model). And then every team, coach and player knows what the goal is. #1 win all of our games. #2 win our league. If you do that more often than not you will get a shot at the ultimate prize. Teams can understand those goals, there is no mystery or fair/unfair/best/deserving about it.
Click to expand...

The only argument I (and others) keep making about limiting the playoff to 4 teams (and they most certainly need a playoff) is that there are 5 Power conferences. That means that every single year at least one of the Power 5 conference champions will be left out. What happens if all 5 of them have an undefeated champion? Someone just gets left out and it's "sorry we only have room for 4 teams?" The logic behind it is non-existent. You also don't need 5 undefeated teams for it to be an issue...what happens if all of them have 1 loss? What if there's 2 undefeated and 3 with one loss?

6 is probably a better number for the playoff. This way you can take the conference champion from each Power 5 conference, and then the best non-Power 5 team (if they're deserving with an undefeated record, or a great schedule and a loss or something), OR you take the next best Power 5 school. Sure, there's subjectivity in that 6th team, but it's better to have that subjectivity be limited to one team as opposed to what is, essentially, all 4 of them as it currently stands.
 
Jayhawk Nation said:
How can you make a claim to be deserving to be in the top 4 when you haven't beaten a single top 25 team all year?

not saying the scheduling issues are easy to overcome, but go play someone. If w mich would have beaten just 1 top 25 team I would say give them a shot
Click to expand...

The scheduling issues are not only not easy to overcome, they are impossible to overcome unless one of the "big boys" is willing to play them. How about the teams they have played from the Power 5 just get better themselves? It's not their fault they scheduled a B1G team that sucks this year...it's the best they could do since no one else would seemingly schedule a game with them.

Either the argument is they need to play Power 5 teams out of conference or it isn't...it's pretty tough to place the blame on a little guy who the big guys refuse to schedule games with. It's a "rigged system" as it stands right now. Let's be consistent and either be against rigged systems, like we are in politics, or let's be cool with anything and everything being rigged. We can't have it both ways.

But to answer your first question...I don't know, let's ask Louisville.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why does everyone keep saying Louisville has not beaten anyone in the top 25. Check the schedule and rankings yourselves. And as I said I don't think they deserve to be in the playoff as it stands now (though I do think they are better than Clemson---anyone else think conferences should have some latitude to pick the teams in their championship game?)

as to the scheduling...do you have any evidence that western Michigan tried to schedule a good team on their schedule and was refused? Or is it just speculation? Houston didn't have a problem doing it.
 
Problem with that is schedules are made so far in advance

Who woulda known Colorado or Penn State woulda been better than scheduling Oregon or Baylor 3 years ago or whenever they solidify the schedule?
 
Probably much sooner than Colorado, it's a crap shoot

And as was mentioned, it takes two to tango, not easy for some of these squads to even get one of the powers to agree.
 
It's really probably a matter of luck, hoping the year that the mid-major is actually good, the schedule intersects with one of the P5s are actually good
 
Jayhawk Nation said:
Very true. But when was the last time NW or Illy were good? Long before these schedules were made
Click to expand...

Well NW has had to have been at least in the top 25 pretty recently, and probably in more than one year in the last few. What about a team like Iowa? They've historically been pretty good, and are often ranked, but this year they're down. So a non-Power 5 school that theoretically played them this season and beat them, they get "dinged" because Iowa isn't what we're used to? It's a crap shoot, as KJ said, and the non-Power 5 is always on the wrong end of the judgement that takes place.

You guys are right, the schedules are made far in advance, but maybe it's time for OOC schedules to be somehow mandated so that the non-Power 5 schools get a fair shake, and maybe it's time to stop having to schedule games so far in advance...it's 2016, is there really a reason for that practice to continue? There's no reason that absolute creampuffs need to be scheduled by the Power 5 schools when the entire reasoning against the better non-Power 5 schools is that they don't play anyone...because they can't get the big guys to play them. I realize there aren't as many games in football as there are in basketball, but they've seemed to figure out a pretty good system of getting really good non-conference games scheduled, which gives the little guys a chance. It's just a self-fulfilling prophecy all around in football.
 
Utah - 2 losses
USC - 3 losses, including a loss to Utah

Utah only one spot ahead

West Virginia - one loss (to the #11 team)
Oklahoma - two losses (one to an unranked team)

Oklahoma ranked 5 spots higher.

Big 12 considered the worst P5 conference, but have 3 teams ahead of the SEC's second team.

These are the people deciding the national champion, and people seem ok with it
 
My point is simple. Every team should have the opportunity to win and our subjectivity shouldn't even be trusted to pick who the best conference actually is.

The great thing about 8 conferences and each conference winner getting a spot is that we determine an actual champion, with all teams having an opportunity to win the championship. I am adamantly opposed to two teams from one conference making the championship (As in, this is the most ridiculously stupid outcome possible) so if the first round is four mismatches then we get the best 4 teams in the playoff anyway. But maybe, just maybe, houston was the best team last year or utah was that one year, or tcu was that one year, or boise state was that one year ...

I like how TCU gets looks as a title contender with their teams the last bunch of years which are nowhere close to the talent level or performance level of their best mwc teams.

That is really all I care about ... is that each team has a chance to win the title due to winning on the field to an objective, predetermined set of rules.

The selection committee is horrible, the goal posts don't just change yearly, monthly or weekly but reading between the lines of the post alan made it appears the goal posts can move within a minute ... depending what team you are talking about of course.

Sad state of affairs. I hope someday we have a true champion in this sport. All these years and in my mind there are 0 champs.
 
clowncar said:
My point is simple. Every team should have the opportunity to win and our subjectivity shouldn't even be trusted to pick who the best conference actually is.

The great thing about 8 conferences and each conference winner getting a spot is that we determine an actual champion, with all teams having an opportunity to win the championship. I am adamantly opposed to two teams from one conference making the championship (As in, this is the most ridiculously stupid outcome possible) so if the first round is four mismatches then we get the best 4 teams in the playoff anyway. But maybe, just maybe, houston was the best team last year or utah was that one year, or tcu was that one year, or boise state was that one year ...

I like how TCU gets looks as a title contender with their teams the last bunch of years which are nowhere close to the talent level or performance level of their best mwc teams.

That is really all I care about ... is that each team has a chance to win the title due to winning on the field to an objective, predetermined set of rules.

The selection committee is horrible, the goal posts don't just change yearly, monthly or weekly but reading between the lines of the post alan made it appears the goal posts can move within a minute ... depending what team you are talking about of course.

Sad state of affairs. I hope someday we have a true champion in this sport. All these years and in my mind there are 0 champs.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with all that. That is exactly what we need. Objective criteria to determine who plays in the championship (playoffs for it). Though you say 8 conferences...don't we have 10...who gets to pick who the Top 8 are :)

But we don't have it, so until we do lets not be ignorant and pretend that Western Michigan is one of the Top 4 teams in the country. The system sucks. But until we fix it we should at least try to make it work the best way possible. The issues with the Big 12 and everyone else are enough of a problem without trying to pretend Wmich belongs up there.

So best way to say it is yes, they deserve a chance to play for the title in a perfect world...but in our world they don't
 
Noles4life said:
comical although expected...... Clem n Mich both lose as DD favs and just drop a spot.... but this is a year where there more undeserving teams then deservin teams...... so mich/ohio st is for a playoff spot and likely the #2 seed and avoiding bama...... and Louisville should be biggest benefactor from that game
Click to expand...

kinda
agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2daBank
Week 5 ncaa props discussion/plays
Replies
44
Views
740
He Hate Me
He Hate Me
bookieassassin
WEEK 10
Replies
31
Views
2K
HUNT
HUNT
Colin Wynner
CFB Week 2 Pick'em Pool Betting Trends
Replies
3
Views
287
Colin Wynner
Colin Wynner
bones
ESPN, Handicapper Scores WEEK #6
2 3
Replies
101
Views
3K
bones
bones
bookieassassin
WEEK 3
Replies
32
Views
2K
bookieassassin
bookieassassin
Back
Top