Observations on Final Four Eligible Teams

tipyerbartender1 · Dec 2, 2014

I've contended for years that a D1 playoff, home sites, neutral for the championship game, copy the NFL ... would generate more money than they could spend ... Yes, the bowls make money. But no one watches them.

s--k · Dec 2, 2014

I don't have any interest in seeing FBS/IA College Football being like any other sport. I love this sport. I don't love any of the others, I just watch them for entertainment sometimes. Just because NFL has 12 team playoffs, or the NBA has 16 team playoffs, or that there is an NCAA basketball tournament, or any sport with playoffs of varied degrees. Who says that major college football has to do things the way everyone else does? Why can't they have a system of their own?

There is never, never 16 teams, or 12 teams, and rarely are there even 8 teams, or 6, that have the kind of resume and regular season accomplishments to justify a national championship shot.

I like the 4 team model like we have now so long as it is limited to conference champions only - this way the conference races act as a step in the process to determine the best and most deserving.

And saying the "best" and/or "most deserving" aren't mutually exclusive, but rather they are much the same.

If results on the field dictate that a team is a conference champion, they are for all tense and purpose the best team in that conference and thereby most deserving to potentially move on to the next step. And just the opposite is true, if a team is not able to win their division or conference, the results on the field have dictated that they are not the best nor most deserving team to advance to a national championship playoff.

Here are the last 10 years final BCS standings where I show who would've and who would not've qualified for a 4 team playoff using conference champions only. This is basically the same thing that Phil Steele has showed in his magazine for years, BUT Phil does not use conference champions only so these teams that I show will be different than what he proclaims it should look like.

2013 BCS
1. FSU (13-0) ACC Champ
2. Auburn (12-1) SEC Champ
3. Alabama (11-1) *eliminated lost to Auburn, finished 2nd in SEC West*
4. Michigan State (12-1) Big Ten Champ
5. Stanford (11-2) PAC 12 Champ
6. Baylor (11-1) *unfortunate odd team out as Big XII Champs*
7. Ohio State (12-1) *eliminated lost to Michigan St in B1G Title game*
8. Missouri (11-2) *eliminated lost to Auburn in SEC Title game*
9. South Carolina (10-2) *eliminated finished 2nd in SEC East*
10. Oregon (10-2) *eliminated lost to Stanford and finished 2nd in PAC 12 North*

The only team in 2013's top 10 that has a legitimate complaint here is Baylor. They did however lose to Ok St by 32, so they can't really blame anyone else but themselves for such a horrible loss. Everyone else here lost to teams ahead of them, no need to play them again.

2012 BCS
1. Notre Dame (12-0)
2. Alabama (12-1) SEC Champ
3. Florida (11-1) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC East*
4. Oregon (11-1) *eliminated lost to Stanford and finished 2nd PAC 12 North*
5. Kansas State (11-1) Big 12 Champ
6. Stanford (11-2) PAC 12 Champ
7. Georgia (11-2) *eliminated lost to Alabama in SEC Title game*
8. LSU (10-2) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC West*
9. Texas A&M (10-2) *eliminated did beat Alabama, lost to LSU and finished 3rd SEC West*
10. South Carolina (10-2) *eliminated finished 3rd SEC East*

There are no top 10 teams that have any gripe about not advancing to a playoff. Florida didn't win their division, neither did Oregon, LSU, Texas A&M and South Carolina. That and Georgia lost to Alabama. Pretty cut and dry. Notre Dame is not in a conference, but they always had preferential language in the BCS that allowed them to qualify as if they were.

2011 BCS
1. LSU (13-0) SEC Champ
2. Alabama (11-1) *eliminated lost to LSU and finished 2nd in SEC West*
3. Oklahoma State (11-1) Big XII Champ
4. Stanford (11-1) *eliminated lost to Oregon and finished 2nd PAC 12 North*
5. Oregon (11-2) PAC 12 Champ
6. Arkansas (10-2)*eliminated lost to LSU and Alabama and finished 3rd SEC West*
7. Boise State (11-1) *eliminated finished 2nd Mountain West*
8. Kansas State (10-2) *eliminated lost to Okla St and finished 2nd Big XII*
9. South Carolina (10-2) *eliminated lost to Arkansas and finished 2nd SEC East*
10. Wisconsin (11-2) Big Ten Champ

This is going to ruffle alot of feathers as Alabama did in fact win the BCS National Championship against LSU and I don't think they should've gone. In reality, LSU won the game that meant the most in the regular season propelling them to the conference championship. Alabama did win the BCS Title game. So now what do we know? We know that LSU beat Bama once and Bama beat LSU once? Does that prove anything beyond they each won 1 game against each other? I like keeping everything single elimination in this sport. Nobody else in this top 10 as any legit complaint, all lost to teams ahead of them or weren't conference or division champions.

2010 BCS
1. Auburn (13-0) SEC Champ
2. Oregon (12-0) PAC 12 Champ
3. TCU (12-0) Mountain West Champ
4. Stanford (11-1) *eliminated lost to Oregon and finished 2nd PAC 12 North*
5. Wisconsin (11-1) Big Ten Champ according to conference tie breaking rules
6. Ohio State (11-1) *eliminated lost to Wisconsin and lost 3-way Big Ten tie breaker according to conference rules*
7. Oklahoma (11-2) unfortunate Big XII Champ left out
8. Arkansas *eliminated lost to Auburn and finished 2nd SEC West*
9. Michigan State (11-1) *eliminated lost 3-way Big Ten tie breaker according to conference rules*
10. LSU (10-2) *eliminated lost to Auburn and finished 3rd SEC West*

One team has a legitmate complaint here, #7 Oklahoma. They did lose at Missouri by 9 and at Texas A&M by 14. Not horrible, but not exactly the kind of season that would typically justify a national title birth either.

2009 BCS
1. Alabama (13-0) SEC Champ
2. Texas (13-0) Big XII Champ
3. Cincinnati (13-0) Big East Champ
4. TCU (13-0) Mountain West Champ
5. Florida (12-1) *eliminated lost to Alabama in SEC Title game*
6. Boise State (13-0) unfortunate WAC Champ left out
7. Oregon (10-2) unfortunate PAC 12 Champ left out
8. Ohio State (10-2) unfortunate Big Ten Champ left out
9. Georgia Tech (11-2) unfortunate ACC Champ left out
10. Iowa (10-2) *eliminated lost to Ohio St and finished 2nd Big Ten*

This season there are quite a few strong conference champions in the top 10. But clearly in a year like this where 5 teams went undefeated, that is the bar, 2 loss conference champions pale in comparison. So then Boise actually has the biggest beef, but they were in the WAC then. They beat one ranked team, Oregon by 11 at home.

2008 BCS
1. Oklahoma (12-1) Big XII Champ according to conference tie breaking rules
2. Florida (12-1) SEC Champ
3. Texas (11-1) *eliminated lost 3-way Big XII tie breaker according to conference rules*
4. Alabama (12-1) *eliminated lost to Florida in SEC Title game*
5. USC (11-1) PAC 10 Champ
6. Utah (12-0) Mountain West Champ
7. Texas Tech (11-1) *eliminated lost 3-way Big XII tie breaker according to conference rules*
8. Penn State (11-1) unfortunate Big Ten Champ left out
9. Boise State (12-0) unfortunate WAC Champ left out
10. Ohio State (10-2) *eliminated lost to Penn St and finished 2nd Big Ten*

I'm sure you will have noticed that by only taking 4 conference champions rather than just top 4 teams it opens the door for non power conference teams that have had exceptional seasons. Such as Utah right here. Utah famously beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl to end this season. There were also many people who thought USC should've been in the championship hunt, here they are included. It was a strange year in the Big xII since Texas indeed beat OU, however the Big XII choose to break their 3-way tie with OU, UT and TT out-of-house and put it in the hands of somebody else. They could've used points for (or fewest points against more politically correct) and broke the tie in house, but they didn't. So by the rules laid out before the year started, those rules allowed OU to represent the Big XII. Alabama lost to Florida, Florida advances as SEC Champ.

Some other teams have gripes. But any team that loses at Iowa (Penn St), do they belong in a national title hunt? Boise again is on the outside looking in. Had they been able to move to MWC sooner they would've had more strength in their schedule and MWC teams (TCU and Utah) each had their shots as MWC Champs. The WAC was just not on the same level.

2007 BCS
1. Ohio State (11-1) Big Ten Champ
2. LSU (11-2) SEC Champ
3. Virginia Tech (11-2) ACC Champ
4. Oklahoma (11-2) Big XII Champ
5. Georgia (10-2) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC East*
6. Missouri (11-2) *eliminated lost to Oklahoma and finished 2nd Big XII*
7. USC (10-2) unfortunate PAC 10 Champ left out
8. Kansas (11-1) *eliminated finished 2nd Big XII North*
9. West Virginia (10-2) unfortunate Big East Champ left out

A notoriously strange year. Ohio State lost at home to Illinois (ugh) on the 2nd to last game. Then championship week saw WVU lose at home to Pitt as 3 TD favorites. This was also the year that USC lost at home to Stanford as a 41 pt underdog. Enough said there. There really was no great teams this year. Maybe not even worth crowing a champion this year LOL!

2006 BCS
1. Ohio State (12-0) Big Ten Champ
2. Florida (12-1) SEC Champ
3. Michigan (11-1) *eliminated lost to Ohio State and finished tied 2nd Big Ten*
4. LSU (10-2) *eliminated finished tied 2nd SEC West and previously lost to Florida*
5. USC (10-2) PAC 10 Champ
6. Louisville (11-1) Big East Champ
7. Wisconsin (11-1) *eliminated finished tied 2nd Big Ten, had lost to Michigan, did not play Ohio St*
8. Boise State (12-0) unfortunate WAC Champ left out
9. Auburn (10-2) *eliminated finished tied 2nd SEC West, did beat Florida, but were arguably 3rd or 4th best team in league*
10. Oklahoma (11-2) unfortunate Big XII Champ left out

Boise again as WAC Champ gets short end of stick. But the only other team here as a champion that has a complaint is OU - this is the year the poor officiating cost them the game in Eugene and they also lost to Texas by 18. The other teams all lost to teams around them. This was also the year that Michigan lost to Ohio St and some were thinking they could rematch them, I don't know why we need to see them play again.

2005 BCS
1. USC (12-0) PAC 10 Champ
2. Texas (12-0) Big XII Champ
3. Penn State (10-1) Big Ten Champ
4. Ohio State (9-2) *eliminated lost to Texas and Penn State finishing 2nd Big Ten*
5. Oregon (10-1) *eliminated lost to USC and finished 2nd PAC 10*
6. Notre Dame (9-2)
7. Georgia (10-2) unfortunate SEC Champ left out
8. Miami (9-2) *eliminated finished 2nd ACC Coastal*
9. Auburn (9-2) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC West*
10. Virginia Tech (11-1) *eliminated lost ACC Title game to Florida St*

Some years you just don't need more than two teams, anything more is pointless really. 2005 is a perfect example of that. Including Penn St and Notre Dame is a stretch. Georgia would've been more deserving than Notre Dame so maybe if you expand it they come into the fold, but really all we needed this year was USC and Texas.

2004 BCS
1. USC (12-0) PAC 10 Champ
2. Oklahoma (12-0) Big XII Champ
3. Auburn (12-0) SEC Champ
4. Texas (10-1) *eliminated lost to Oklahoma and finished 2nd Big XII*
5. California (10-1) *eliminated lost to USC and finished 2nd PAC 10*
6. Utah (11-0) Mountain West Champ
7. Georgia (9-2) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC East*
8. Virginia Tech (10-2) unfortunate ACC Champ left out
9. Boise State (11-0) unfortunate WAC Champ left out
10. Louisville (10-1) unfortunate CUSA Champ left out

A perfect year for the 4 team conference champion model. Auburn is included of course as is Urban Meyer's undefeated Utah team. In a year when 4 strong and deserving teams go undefeated it would water it down to include these other 1 and 2 loss ACC and CUSA teams. Texa and Cal already lost to teams ahead of them, so they aren't worthy. Feel bad for Boise, a reoccuring theme.

The question that I would have is if you feel 4 is enough, and there is sometimes a 5th team that deserves it do you craft a system that would always incorporate that 5th team at the expense of getting teams 6-8 that don't deserve it? Life isn't always fair and really if you are 5th (as in 1-5) or 5th (as in 5th best conference champ whatever your rank) there are definitely going to be reasons to point the finger at themselves as to why they aren't where they want to be. Can't make everyone happy.

Would you like me to go 2003-1998?

Schrute · Dec 2, 2014

That was a great post man. Enjoyed the read. I like it at 4

twinkie13 · Dec 2, 2014

tipyerbartender said:
I've contended for years that a D1 playoff, home sites, neutral for the championship game, copy the NFL ... would generate more money than they could spend ... Yes, the bowls make money. But no one watches them.

no one doubts the more money

but that doesnt make it "better"

gps_3 · Dec 2, 2014

twinkie13 said:
UAB is D1

I wonder what kinda funny stuff was happening there......I am sure it will come out

I doubt it. The media has already decided which story will get told.

twinkie13 · Dec 2, 2014

s--k said:
I don't have any interest in seeing FBS/IA College Football being like any other sport. I love this sport. I don't love any of the others, I just watch them for entertainment sometimes. Just because NFL has 12 team playoffs, or the NBA has 16 team playoffs, or that there is an NCAA basketball tournament, or any sport with playoffs of varied degrees. Who says that major college football has to do things the way everyone else does? Why can't they have a system of their own?

There is never, never 16 teams, or 12 teams, and rarely are there even 8 teams, or 6, that have the kind of resume and regular season accomplishments to justify a national championship shot.

I like the 4 team model like we have now so long as it is limited to conference champions only - this way the conference races act as a step in the process to determine the best and most deserving.

And saying the "best" and/or "most deserving" aren't mutually exclusive, but rather they are much the same.

If results on the field dictate that a team is a conference champion, they are for all tense and purpose the best team in that conference and thereby most deserving to potentially move on to the next step. And just the opposite is true, if a team is not able to win their division or conference, the results on the field have dictated that they are not the best nor most deserving team to advance to a national championship playoff.

Here are the last 10 years final BCS standings where I show who would've and who would not've qualified for a 4 team playoff using conference champions only. This is basically the same thing that Phil Steele has showed in his magazine for years, BUT Phil does not use conference champions only so these teams that I show will be different than what he proclaims it should look like.

2013 BCS
1. FSU (13-0) ACC Champ
2. Auburn (12-1) SEC Champ
3. Alabama (11-1) *eliminated lost to Auburn, finished 2nd in SEC West*
4. Michigan State (12-1) Big Ten Champ
5. Stanford (11-2) PAC 12 Champ
6. Baylor (11-1) *unfortunate odd team out as Big XII Champs*
7. Ohio State (12-1) *eliminated lost to Michigan St in B1G Title game*
8. Missouri (11-2) *eliminated lost to Auburn in SEC Title game*
9. South Carolina (10-2) *eliminated finished 2nd in SEC East*
10. Oregon (10-2) *eliminated lost to Stanford and finished 2nd in PAC 12 North*

The only team in 2013's top 10 that has a legitimate complaint here is Baylor. They did however lose to Ok St by 32, so they can't really blame anyone else but themselves for such a horrible loss. Everyone else here lost to teams ahead of them, no need to play them again.

2012 BCS
1. Notre Dame (12-0)
2. Alabama (12-1) SEC Champ
3. Florida (11-1) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC East*
4. Oregon (11-1) *eliminated lost to Stanford and finished 2nd PAC 12 North*
5. Kansas State (11-1) Big 12 Champ
6. Stanford (11-2) PAC 12 Champ
7. Georgia (11-2) *eliminated lost to Alabama in SEC Title game*
8. LSU (10-2) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC West*
9. Texas A&M (10-2) *eliminated did beat Alabama, lost to LSU and finished 3rd SEC West*
10. South Carolina (10-2) *eliminated finished 3rd SEC East*

There are no top 10 teams that have any gripe about not advancing to a playoff. Florida didn't win their division, neither did Oregon, LSU, Texas A&M and South Carolina. That and Georgia lost to Alabama. Pretty cut and dry. Notre Dame is not in a conference, but they always had preferential language in the BCS that allowed them to qualify as if they were.

2011 BCS
1. LSU (13-0) SEC Champ
2. Alabama (11-1) *eliminated lost to LSU and finished 2nd in SEC West*
3. Oklahoma State (11-1) Big XII Champ
4. Stanford (11-1) *eliminated lost to Oregon and finished 2nd PAC 12 North*
5. Oregon (11-2) PAC 12 Champ
6. Arkansas (10-2)*eliminated lost to LSU and Alabama and finished 3rd SEC West*
7. Boise State (11-1) *eliminated finished 2nd Mountain West*
8. Kansas State (10-2) *eliminated lost to Okla St and finished 2nd Big XII*
9. South Carolina (10-2) *eliminated lost to Arkansas and finished 2nd SEC East*
10. Wisconsin (11-2) Big Ten Champ

This is going to ruffle alot of feathers as Alabama did in fact win the BCS National Championship against LSU and I don't think they should've gone. In reality, LSU won the game that meant the most in the regular season propelling them to the conference championship. Alabama did win the BCS Title game. So now what do we know? We know that LSU beat Bama once and Bama beat LSU once? Does that prove anything beyond they each won 1 game against each other? I like keeping everything single elimination in this sport. Nobody else in this top 10 as any legit complaint, all lost to teams ahead of them or weren't conference or division champions.

2010 BCS
1. Auburn (13-0) SEC Champ
2. Oregon (12-0) PAC 12 Champ
3. TCU (12-0) Mountain West Champ
4. Stanford (11-1) *eliminated lost to Oregon and finished 2nd PAC 12 North*
5. Wisconsin (11-1) Big Ten Champ according to conference tie breaking rules
6. Ohio State (11-1) *eliminated lost to Wisconsin and lost 3-way Big Ten tie breaker according to conference rules*
7. Oklahoma (11-2) unfortunate Big XII Champ left out
8. Arkansas *eliminated lost to Auburn and finished 2nd SEC West*
9. Michigan State (11-1) *eliminated lost 3-way Big Ten tie breaker according to conference rules*
10. LSU (10-2) *eliminated lost to Auburn and finished 3rd SEC West*

One team has a legitmate complaint here, #7 Oklahoma. They did lose at Missouri by 9 and at Texas A&M by 14. Not horrible, but not exactly the kind of season that would typically justify a national title birth either.

2009 BCS
1. Alabama (13-0) SEC Champ
2. Texas (13-0) Big XII Champ
3. Cincinnati (13-0) Big East Champ
4. TCU (13-0) Mountain West Champ
5. Florida (12-1) *eliminated lost to Alabama in SEC Title game*
6. Boise State (13-0) unfortunate WAC Champ left out
7. Oregon (10-2) unfortunate PAC 12 Champ left out
8. Ohio State (10-2) unfortunate Big Ten Champ left out
9. Georgia Tech (11-2) unfortunate ACC Champ left out
10. Iowa (10-2) *eliminated lost to Ohio St and finished 2nd Big Ten*

This season there are quite a few strong conference champions in the top 10. But clearly in a year like this where 5 teams went undefeated, that is the bar, 2 loss conference champions pale in comparison. So then Boise actually has the biggest beef, but they were in the WAC then. They beat one ranked team, Oregon by 11 at home.

2008 BCS
1. Oklahoma (12-1) Big XII Champ according to conference tie breaking rules
2. Florida (12-1) SEC Champ
3. Texas (11-1) *eliminated lost 3-way Big XII tie breaker according to conference rules*
4. Alabama (12-1) *eliminated lost to Florida in SEC Title game*
5. USC (11-1) PAC 10 Champ
6. Utah (12-0) Mountain West Champ
7. Texas Tech (11-1) *eliminated lost 3-way Big XII tie breaker according to conference rules*
8. Penn State (11-1) unfortunate Big Ten Champ left out
9. Boise State (12-0) unfortunate WAC Champ left out
10. Ohio State (10-2) *eliminated lost to Penn St and finished 2nd Big Ten*

I'm sure you will have noticed that by only taking 4 conference champions rather than just top 4 teams it opens the door for non power conference teams that have had exceptional seasons. Such as Utah right here. Utah famously beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl to end this season. There were also many people who thought USC should've been in the championship hunt, here they are included. It was a strange year in the Big xII since Texas indeed beat OU, however the Big XII choose to break their 3-way tie with OU, UT and TT out-of-house and put it in the hands of somebody else. They could've used points for (or fewest points against more politically correct) and broke the tie in house, but they didn't. So by the rules laid out before the year started, those rules allowed OU to represent the Big XII. Alabama lost to Florida, Florida advances as SEC Champ.

Some other teams have gripes. But any team that loses at Iowa (Penn St), do they belong in a national title hunt? Boise again is on the outside looking in. Had they been able to move to MWC sooner they would've had more strength in their schedule and MWC teams (TCU and Utah) each had their shots as MWC Champs. The WAC was just not on the same level.

2007 BCS
1. Ohio State (11-1) Big Ten Champ
2. LSU (11-2) SEC Champ
3. Virginia Tech (11-2) ACC Champ
4. Oklahoma (11-2) Big XII Champ
5. Georgia (10-2) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC East*
6. Missouri (11-2) *eliminated lost to Oklahoma and finished 2nd Big XII*
7. USC (10-2) unfortunate PAC 10 Champ left out
8. Kansas (11-1) *eliminated finished 2nd Big XII North*
9. West Virginia (10-2) unfortunate Big East Champ left out

A notoriously strange year. Ohio State lost at home to Illinois (ugh) on the 2nd to last game. Then championship week saw WVU lose at home to Pitt as 3 TD favorites. This was also the year that USC lost at home to Stanford as a 41 pt underdog. Enough said there. There really was no great teams this year. Maybe not even worth crowing a champion this year LOL!

2006 BCS
1. Ohio State (12-0) Big Ten Champ
2. Florida (12-1) SEC Champ
3. Michigan (11-1) *eliminated lost to Ohio State and finished tied 2nd Big Ten*
4. LSU (10-2) *eliminated finished tied 2nd SEC West and previously lost to Florida*
5. USC (10-2) PAC 10 Champ
6. Louisville (11-1) Big East Champ
7. Wisconsin (11-1) *eliminated finished tied 2nd Big Ten, had lost to Michigan, did not play Ohio St*
8. Boise State (12-0) unfortunate WAC Champ left out
9. Auburn (10-2) *eliminated finished tied 2nd SEC West, did beat Florida, but were arguably 3rd or 4th best team in league*
10. Oklahoma (11-2) unfortunate Big XII Champ left out

Boise again as WAC Champ gets short end of stick. But the only other team here as a champion that has a complaint is OU - this is the year the poor officiating cost them the game in Eugene and they also lost to Texas by 18. The other teams all lost to teams around them. This was also the year that Michigan lost to Ohio St and some were thinking they could rematch them, I don't know why we need to see them play again.

2005 BCS
1. USC (12-0) PAC 10 Champ
2. Texas (12-0) Big XII Champ
3. Penn State (10-1) Big Ten Champ
4. Ohio State (9-2) *eliminated lost to Texas and Penn State finishing 2nd Big Ten*
5. Oregon (10-1) *eliminated lost to USC and finished 2nd PAC 10*
6. Notre Dame (9-2)
7. Georgia (10-2) unfortunate SEC Champ left out
8. Miami (9-2) *eliminated finished 2nd ACC Coastal*
9. Auburn (9-2) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC West*
10. Virginia Tech (11-1) *eliminated lost ACC Title game to Florida St*

Some years you just don't need more than two teams, anything more is pointless really. 2005 is a perfect example of that. Including Penn St and Notre Dame is a stretch. Georgia would've been more deserving than Notre Dame so maybe if you expand it they come into the fold, but really all we needed this year was USC and Texas.

2004 BCS
1. USC (12-0) PAC 10 Champ
2. Oklahoma (12-0) Big XII Champ
3. Auburn (12-0) SEC Champ
4. Texas (10-1) *eliminated lost to Oklahoma and finished 2nd Big XII*
5. California (10-1) *eliminated lost to USC and finished 2nd PAC 10*
6. Utah (11-0) Mountain West Champ
7. Georgia (9-2) *eliminated finished 2nd SEC East*
8. Virginia Tech (10-2) unfortunate ACC Champ left out
9. Boise State (11-0) unfortunate WAC Champ left out
10. Louisville (10-1) unfortunate CUSA Champ left out

A perfect year for the 4 team conference champion model. Auburn is included of course as is Urban Meyer's undefeated Utah team. In a year when 4 strong and deserving teams go undefeated it would water it down to include these other 1 and 2 loss ACC and CUSA teams. Texa and Cal already lost to teams ahead of them, so they aren't worthy. Feel bad for Boise, a reoccuring theme.

The question that I would have is if you feel 4 is enough, and there is sometimes a 5th team that deserves it do you craft a system that would always incorporate that 5th team at the expense of getting teams 6-8 that don't deserve it? Life isn't always fair and really if you are 5th (as in 1-5) or 5th (as in 5th best conference champ whatever your rank) there are definitely going to be reasons to point the finger at themselves as to why they aren't where they want to be. Can't make everyone happy.

Would you like me to go 2003-1998?

I love when people do this....first I have ever seen

definitely beats "mute" point

f'ing with you, but appreciate the post bro:shake:

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

wiseplayer said:
I'd be shocked if we don't see double digit spreads in the semis.
The top half of the 4, Bama and FSU are far superior physically than Oregon, Baylor, and TCU. Ohio State is just flat out not deserving of a berth. How OSU played at home vs Indiana and Michigan is all you need to see.

Seems like we may just get a double digit spread in the semis after all....at least, as it stands now with Bama #1 and FSU #4.

Westgate SuperBook has projected the line in the Bama/FSU game to be Bama -11.5.

And FSU was going to be huge favs vs. Oregon, Baylor, TCU, and tOSU.....:rofl:

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

twinkie13 said:
I love when people do this....first I have ever seen

definitely beats "mute" point

f'ing with you, but appreciate the post bro:shake:

:cigarguy:

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

s--k said:
A perfect year for the 4 team conference champion model. Auburn is included of course as is Urban Meyer's undefeated Utah team. In a year when 4 strong and deserving teams go undefeated it would water it down to include these other 1 and 2 loss ACC and CUSA teams. Texa and Cal already lost to teams ahead of them, so they aren't worthy. Feel bad for Boise, a reoccuring theme.

The question that I would have is if you feel 4 is enough, and there is sometimes a 5th team that deserves it do you craft a system that would always incorporate that 5th team at the expense of getting teams 6-8 that don't deserve it? Life isn't always fair and really if you are 5th (as in 1-5) or 5th (as in 5th best conference champ whatever your rank) there are definitely going to be reasons to point the finger at themselves as to why they aren't where they want to be. Can't make everyone happy.

Would you like me to go 2003-1998?

I appreciate the time that went into going through all of this...my only thing with having 4 is that you are leaving out at least one of the Power 5 champions every year. If it were just the Power 5 champions plus 1 at-large bid I think that would be better...but as you said, you can't make everyone happy.

twinkie13 · Dec 2, 2014

gps_3 said:
I doubt it. The media has already decided which story will get told.

thoughts?

twinkie13 · Dec 2, 2014

Lareux said:
Seems like we may just get a double digit spread in the semis after all....at least, as it stands now with Bama #1 and FSU #4.

Westgate SuperBook has projected the line in the Bama/FSU game to be Bama -11.5.

And FSU was going to be huge favs vs. Oregon, Baylor, TCU, and tOSU.....:rofl:

wow, 11.5 huh?

gps_3 · Dec 2, 2014

Andy Staples ‏@Andy_Staples <small class="time" style="font-size: 13px; color: rgb(136, 153, 166);"> 30m30 minutes ago</small>
Wow RT @CarltonLemley: You won't believe what the CFP media guide says about using humans over computers for rankings

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

twinkie13 said:
wow, 11.5 huh?

Yep. They have Oregon -2.5 in the other semi vs TCU.

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

gps_3 said:
Andy Staples ‏@Andy_Staples <small class="time" style="font-size: 13px; color: rgb(136, 153, 166);"> 30m30 minutes ago</small>
Wow RT @CarltonLemley: You won't believe what the CFP media guide says about using humans over computers for rankings

So, using their logic, Baylor will be in ahead of TCU come next week?

twinkie13 · Dec 2, 2014

gps_3 said:
Andy Staples ‏@Andy_Staples <small class="time" style="font-size: 13px; color: rgb(136, 153, 166);"> 30m30 minutes ago</small>
Wow RT @CarltonLemley: You won't believe what the CFP media guide says about using humans over computers for rankings

that is odd....so Bama can have an "off" day on Sat vs Mizzou and still get in?

-just using that as an example, but that is what they are saying yes? Or am I misreading?

twinkie13 · Dec 2, 2014

Lareux said:
Yep. They have Oregon -2.5 in the other semi vs TCU.

Big line....I dont think the world od FSU by any means, but that seems too many to me

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

twinkie13 said:
that is odd....so Bama can have an "off" day on Sat vs Mizzou and still get in?

-just using that as an example, but that is what they are saying yes? Or am I misreading?

No, I don't think they're saying that at all. Not even sure that statement relates to Bama at all...it seems more geared towards Baylor and TCU, where it mentions head-to-head.

What part of that makes you think it relates to Bama?

tipyerbartender1 · Dec 2, 2014

So basically, the argument for NCAAF status quo is life isn't always fair.

twinkie13 · Dec 2, 2014

If all stays can they really put TCU ahead of Baylor given the head 2 head and no 'Ship game?

twinkie13 · Dec 2, 2014

Lareux said:
No, I don't think they're saying that at all. Not even sure that statement relates to Bama at all...it seems more geared towards Baylor and TCU, where it mentions head-to-head.

What part of that makes you think it relates to Bama?

no part does

put Iowa St in there or whomever

To me it seems to say they put whoever the fuck they want in

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

twinkie13 said:
If all stays can they really put TCU ahead of Baylor given the head 2 head and no 'Ship game?

Not based on that statement. Which is what I just said in post 114.

KJ · Dec 2, 2014

Losing to WVU is much, much worse than losing to Baylor, and TCU actually has the Minnesota win while Baylor did nothing OOC. Head to head is worthless.

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
Losing to WVU is much, much worse than losing to Baylor, and TCU actually has the Minnesota win while Baylor did nothing OOC. Head to head is worthless.

Sure, but their statement from the CFP media guide, that was just posted, says the exact opposite.

KJ · Dec 2, 2014

Lareux said:
Sure, but their statement, that was just posted, says the exact opposite.

Interesting, I read it as though Baylor might be worthy but TCU definitely is. As a human, I firmly believe TCU is and I'm still not sure Baylor is.

dilaudid8 · Dec 2, 2014

TCU no way this team is winning

tipyerbartender1 · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
Losing to WVU is much, much worse than losing to Baylor, and TCU actually has the Minnesota win while Baylor did nothing OOC. Head to head is worthless.

Maybe sorting it out on the field would be better than ranking which loss was worse.

KJ · Dec 2, 2014

who is the non-champion in that scenario if it is referring to Baylor?

gps_3 · Dec 2, 2014

twinkie13 said:
thoughts?

There is no doubt that University of Alabama BOT politics played a role, but the idea that they have had a vendetta against UAB football is laughable. Yes, Gene Bartow angered many in Tuscaloosa when he turned in the Alabama basketball program for violations, and stated in his complaint that they likely learned cheating from Coach Bryant. That was the start of a very contentious relationship between UAB and UA. UAB on more than one occasion went against the BOT suggestions, and always expected/demanded that UA finance it. Most notably, the supposed blocking of UAB hiring Jimbo Fisher. Before UAB fired Watson Brown, they met with the BOT and were given a budget to hire a new coach. UAB offered Jimbo an amount significantly outside that budget. UAB was told that if they wanted to pay him that, they would have to raise the money themselves. They were unable to do so, and ended up with Neil Calloway.

The decision to close the football program was likely made before this season. Bill Clark was only given a 3 year contract, and no OOC games were scheduled past next year. At the heart of the matter that noone wants to talk about is that UAB has lost some of its prestige in the academic world as far as attracting top faculty and research grants, which basically built the school. The entire school is undergoing a review, and at the heart of the matter is that athletics, football in particular, are not deemed as necessary to campus life by the people who make the decisions, of which the UA BOT is a major part. People are pointing to attendance numbers, but the truth is that thousands of tickets are given away each week to get people to the game. For the Marshall games, several schools were given tickets that were sent home with the students. So while there may be 20K people there, ticket revenue is actually reflective of a much smaller number. Legion Field is a dump, and it is in a pretty shady neighborhood. UAB has been wanting to build an on campus stadium, which would be great IMO, but there's nobody to finance it. UA doesn't want to pay for it, they have most likely already earmarked all the money their football program brings in, UAB has no huge booster that I am aware of, and the corrupt Birmingham government won't have the city finance part of it unless they can somehow get a huge share of it.

I am sad that UAB had to take this measure. I have a degree from there and I want the school to succeedin all things, but the football program was destined for failure since it's beginning. Like I said, the relationship between UAB and UA has always been contentious, but this is not a case of Alabama dooming a program because it was seen as some kind of threat. UAB did itself no favors by constantly biting the hand that fed it, and not surprisingly, UA was reluctant or flat out refused to rescue it.

KJ · Dec 2, 2014

tipyerbartender said:
Maybe sorting it out on the field would be better than ranking which loss was worse.

They did, and unfortunately Baylor lost to an average WVU team

Tired of people making excuses, don't lose and leave it up to opinion, just quit with the excuses and bring back the BCS

s--k · Dec 2, 2014

tipyerbartender said:
So basically, the argument for NCAAF status quo is life isn't always fair.

Well, or another way to say it is you can't make everyone happy. If you have 4 then there are going to be 1 or 2 teams who think they should be in. If you have 8 somebody 9 or 10 will be bitching because some team #7 or 8 is in over them. If you have 16, just the opposite will happen, bunch of people will be asking what they hell they are doing in.

I wanted to post those years just so we could all see, I could've gone to 16 every year, but doing so just shows what I think we already know from this year. You get into 3 loss teams that lost to a couple of teams ahead of them. It just seems so pointless to include those kind of teams.

When you actually look at who beat who and who won what conference and what divisions (or didn't) I think, to me, it states a case.

Certainly others can have opinions.

What they did from the early 1900s until 1997 was one way of doing things - awarding or rewarding and giving the championship.

By letting the two "best" teams from 1998-2013 they took the two best teams and played them as determined by the BCS rankings that was an improvement.

Now incorporating four "best" teams this again is an improvement as we have seen teams many have called "deserving" being left out. When you get beyond 4, sometimes 5, rarely if ever 6 I don't think you have improvement in the process. You just add more games for more money, but it doesn't do a better job of determining who the best teams are. The best teams are going to be ranked 1-4, 5, or on a blue moon 6th. The best teams will never be ranked 7-16.

I'm happy with a 4 team system as they have it now. I would be supremely happy with a 4 team system using conference champions only -but this committee might give conference champions preferential treatment anyway. I will take an occasional imperfection if every few years a 5th or every 10 years a 6th team gets left out. The risk of ruining a good system to include them is too great in my eyes. There will always be weaknesses and flaws for those 5th and 6th teams much greater than any weaknesses found in the top 4.

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
Interesting, I read it as though Baylor might be worthy but TCU definitely is. As a human, I firmly believe TCU is and I'm still not sure Baylor is.

It says that "the current system (which was the old system), has not expressed their values, particularly where teams have won head to head competitions and champions are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams who have lost in head to head competition."

How does that say TCU is definitely worthy, but Baylor may be? Doesn't it say they are trying to correct the wrongs of the past where teams who lost head to head are ranked ahead of teams who won that game?

KJ · Dec 2, 2014

Who is the non-champion that it would be referring to?

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
who is the non-champion in that scenario if it is referring to Baylor?

It says head to head winner OR champion vs non champion or head to head loser.

But...the Big 12 rules state that Baylor would be declared champion (they've elected not to choose a champ yet), based on the head to head result....so it could fit in the champion/non-champion as well.

gps_3 · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
Who is the non-champion that it would be referring to?

TCU. Big 12 bylaws say 1st tie-break is head to head result. They just changed it this year out of fear of not getting a team in. That's why computers are a necessary component. They can't change their criteria week to week to fit what they want to happen

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
Who is the non-champion that it would be referring to?

Again, it doesn't matter because it already fits one of the two scenarios they gave (it doesn't have to fit BOTH of them).

If and when the Big 12 declares their champion based on their tie breaker rules, the non-champion would be TCU.

Carolina Guy · Dec 2, 2014

twinkie13 said:
do you watch regular season basketball?

I don't really....what is the point? EVERYONE gets in....what is the point of BIG MONDAY?

dont mess up CFB

you our ever see the movie, Revolver, Twink? Guy Ritchie Film.

KJ · Dec 2, 2014

I can't buy that computers would have Baylor above TCU, no fucking way I buy that, 3 point win at home head to head wouldn't trump a 14 point loss to WVU. TCU with the better schedule, better loss, computer would probably smash any Baylor over TCU bias just because of head to head.

It's really stupid to argue over this by the way, I'm missing CBB right about now.

gps_3 · Dec 2, 2014

Lareux said:
Again, it doesn't matter because it already fits one of the two scenarios they gave (it doesn't have to fit BOTH of them).

If and when the Big 12 declares their champion based on their tie breaker rules, the non-champion would be TCU.

I took the committee's media guide excerpt to be a justification to use humans not computers, because computers use stats and metrics that can lead to h2h losers and non-champions to be ranked ahead of the h2h winners and conf champions. These two situations are two separate examples, but they could apply to the same teams, as it would this season

s--k · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
Who is the non-champion that it would be referring to?

The BCS granted Nebraska in 2001, Oklahoma in 2003 and Alabama in 2011 as non-champions.

I think what all this old system doesn't respect talk is that the BCS computers didn't always value head-to-head and conference champsionship the way this committee is imply they will. Nebraska in 01 did not win their division, should in no way shape or form being allowed to play in the BCS Title game. They got steam rolled by Miami. Oklahoma in 2003 lost to Kansas St in the Big XII Title game but still got the nod to play LSU for the BCS Title. They should not have, and they lost to LSU. In 2011 we know Alabama didn't win their division and beat LSU. Alabama was one hell of a team and I respect them as national champions. However, I didn't think they should have been there. And if I am reading between the lines on this committee I think they believe too that those 3 teams should not have been in the BCS Title game and they may be out to make sure it doesn't happen again depending what the circumstances are this time around.

They have never said that one criteria is more important than any other. Which is the right thing to do really. Weigh all the evidence and see where it leads you. Hopefully that is what they will do unless somebody talks in their ear and gets them to select the 4 teams that some powers that be wants them to.

KJ · Dec 2, 2014

Lareux said:
Again, it doesn't matter because it already fits one of the two scenarios they gave (it doesn't have to fit BOTH of them).

If and when the Big 12 declares their champion based on their tie breaker rules, the non-champion would be TCU.

Back to BCS, get rid of em both. That said, it doesn't say OR, it says AND, which isn't two scenarios, it's one. That's how I read it, will read it, and quite frankly it doesn't matter how any of us read it.

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
I can't buy that computers would have Baylor above TCU, no fucking way I buy that, 3 point win at home head to head wouldn't trump a 14 point loss to WVU. TCU with the better schedule, better loss, computer would probably smash any Baylor over TCU bias just because of head to head.

It's really stupid to argue over this by the way, I'm missing CBB right about now.

I don't necessarily disagree with that....I was just pointing out what that statement from the CFP media guide said...and it said that head to head should matter, and that it's been flawed in the past because teams that lost a head to head competition were ranked ahead of the winner of that game.

:shake:

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
Back to BCS, get rid of em both. That said, it doesn't say OR, it says AND, which isn't two scenarios, it's one. That's how I read it, will read it, and quite frankly it doesn't matter how any of us read it.

Well you read it wrong, sorry.

Either way it doesn't matter anyway, because Baylor fits both of those criteria (won head to head and championship). It's just going to be interesting to see what they do since they've already given their stance on this scenario.

KJ · Dec 2, 2014

Lareux said:
Well you read it wrong, sorry.

Pretty sure I read your quote, so you must have quoted it wrong. Jesus Christ you're something else. I'm done. Enjoy toasting yourself again. :cheers3:

s--k · Dec 2, 2014

I can't buy that computers would have Baylor above TCU, no fucking way I buy that, 3 point win at home head to head wouldn't trump a 14 point loss to WVU. TCU with the better schedule, better loss, computer would probably smash any Baylor over TCU bias just because of head to head.

It's really stupid to argue over this by the way, I'm missing CBB right about now.

Lareux said:
I don't necessarily disagree with that....I was just pointing out what that statement from the CFP media guide said...and it said that head to head should matter, and that it's been flawed in the past because teams that lost a head to head competition were ranked ahead of the winner of that game.

:shake:

I just looked at all 6 of the computer rankings the BCS used and correct, none of them have Baylor ahead of TCU. Some do have Ohio St ahead of TCU though. And Baylor has not played Kansas State yet, so if they are close to TCU that might even out some next week.

TCU only beat WVU by 1, and might have been considered lucky to win. Boykin played horrible. So a 1 pt win is better than a 14 pt loss, but remember the old computers were not allowed to factor margin of victory so the old rankings might have not viewed a 14 pt loss to an 8 win WVU team all that horribly.

I will post the computer rankings. I always found reviewing them to be the most enjoyable part of the BCS releases.

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

kjohnson109 said:
Pretty sure I read your quote, so you must have quoted it wrong. Jesus Christ you're something else. I'm done. Enjoy toasting yourself again. :cheers3:

Oh ffs. Even if I quoted it wrong (which I didn't), and even if you're reading it right, and I'm wrong....how does that possibly say TCU is definitely deserving? That was YOUR take from it....that take is wrong, whether we got the semantics of the wording wrong or not.

The champion and winner of head to head is Baylor. TCU is the non champion and loser of head to head. How do you get that TCU is definitely deserving out of that statement from them?

Lareux · Dec 2, 2014

s--k said:
I just looked at all 6 of the computer rankings the BCS used and correct, none of them have Baylor ahead of TCU. Some do have Ohio St ahead of TCU though. And Baylor has not played Kansas State yet, so if they are close to TCU that might even out some next week.

TCU only beat WVU by 1, and might have been considered lucky to win. Boykin played horrible. So a 1 pt win is better than a 14 pt loss, but remember the old computers were not allowed to factor margin of victory so the old rankings might have not viewed a 14 pt loss to an 8 win WVU team all that horribly.

I will post the computer rankings. I always found reviewing them to be the most enjoyable part of the BCS releases.

Thanks.

And, like I said, I don't disagree with the point about the computers. I just read what the committee said, and it was clear they are in favor of a head to head winner (and a champion) over the team that lost head to head and didn't win the championship. It makes sense that the computers have it that way, since they talked about what they felt they needed to fix.

twinkie13 · Dec 2, 2014

gps_3 said:
There is no doubt that University of Alabama BOT politics played a role, but the idea that they have had a vendetta against UAB football is laughable. Yes, Gene Bartow angered many in Tuscaloosa when he turned in the Alabama basketball program for violations, and stated in his complaint that they likely learned cheating from Coach Bryant. That was the start of a very contentious relationship between UAB and UA. UAB on more than one occasion went against the BOT suggestions, and always expected/demanded that UA finance it. Most notably, the supposed blocking of UAB hiring Jimbo Fisher. Before UAB fired Watson Brown, they met with the BOT and were given a budget to hire a new coach. UAB offered Jimbo an amount significantly outside that budget. UAB was told that if they wanted to pay him that, they would have to raise the money themselves. They were unable to do so, and ended up with Neil Calloway.

The decision to close the football program was likely made before this season. Bill Clark was only given a 3 year contract, and no OOC games were scheduled past next year. At the heart of the matter that noone wants to talk about is that UAB has lost some of its prestige in the academic world as far as attracting top faculty and research grants, which basically built the school. The entire school is undergoing a review, and at the heart of the matter is that athletics, football in particular, are not deemed as necessary to campus life by the people who make the decisions, of which the UA BOT is a major part. People are pointing to attendance numbers, but the truth is that thousands of tickets are given away each week to get people to the game. For the Marshall games, several schools were given tickets that were sent home with the students. So while there may be 20K people there, ticket revenue is actually reflective of a much smaller number. Legion Field is a dump, and it is in a pretty shady neighborhood. UAB has been wanting to build an on campus stadium, which would be great IMO, but there's nobody to finance it. UA doesn't want to pay for it, they have most likely already earmarked all the money their football program brings in, UAB has no huge booster that I am aware of, and the corrupt Birmingham government won't have the city finance part of it unless they can somehow get a huge share of it.

I am sad that UAB had to take this measure. I have a degree from there and I want the school to succeedin all things, but the football program was destined for failure since it's beginning. Like I said, the relationship between UAB and UA has always been contentious, but this is not a case of Alabama dooming a program because it was seen as some kind of threat. UAB did itself no favors by constantly biting the hand that fed it, and not surprisingly, UA was reluctant or flat out refused to rescue it.

I think UAB beat LSU in BR while I was there

Sad day, then and now

s--k · Dec 2, 2014

Billingsley
[TABLE="class: bill_report"]
<tbody>[TR="class: heading"]
[TH]Year[/TH]
[TH]WK[/TH]
[TH]RK[/TH]
[TH]Team[/TH]
[TH]W[/TH]
[TH]L[/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[TH]Result[/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[TH]Opponent[/TH]
[TH]PF[/TH]
[TH]PA[/TH]
[TH]Rating[/TH]
[TH]SCH[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Florida State[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[TD]Florida[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]349.712[/TD]
[TD]42[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Alabama[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]Auburn[/TD]
[TD]55[/TD]
[TD]44[/TD]
[TD]324.939[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Oregon[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]67[/TD]
[TD]Oregon State[/TD]
[TD]47[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]314.457[/TD]
[TD]38[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Ohio State[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]51[/TD]
[TD]Michigan[/TD]
[TD]42[/TD]
[TD]28[/TD]
[TD]307.294[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]TCU[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]37[/TD]
[TD]Texas[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]306.220[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Mississippi State[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Lost To[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]Mississippi[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]31[/TD]
[TD]300.434[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]Baylor[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]81[/TD]
[TD]Texas Tech[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[TD]46[/TD]
[TD]293.251[/TD]
[TD]76[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Michigan State[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]76[/TD]
[TD]Penn State[/TD]
[TD]34[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]290.403[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]Missouri[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]43[/TD]
[TD]Arkansas[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]285.918[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]Wisconsin[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]26[/TD]
[TD]Minnesota[/TD]
[TD]34[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]285.350[/TD]
[TD]51[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]Arizona[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]Arizona State[/TD]
[TD]42[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]285.232[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Kansas State[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]97[/TD]
[TD]Kansas[/TD]
[TD]51[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]284.045[/TD]
[TD]57[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]Georgia Tech[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]Georgia[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]282.767[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]Mississippi[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]Beat[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Mississippi State[/TD]
[TD]31[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]280.419[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]Georgia[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]Lost To[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]Georgia Tech[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]277.280[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]Arizona State[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]Lost To[/TD]
[TD]Then #[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]Arizona[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]42[/TD]
[TD]276.793[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Jeff Sagarin has Florida State 17th!

College Football 2014 through games of November 29 Saturday
RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | GOLDEN_MEAN | PREDICTOR | ELO_SCORE
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.44] [ 2.51] [ 2.33] [ 2.47]
1 Alabama A = 99.04 11 1 81.68( 4) 2 1 | 8 1 | 98.73 2 | 98.30 1 | 100.01 1
2 Mississippi A = 96.00 9 3 80.57( 6) 2 1 | 4 3 | 99.52 1 | 95.65 3 | 93.26 6
3 TCU A = 95.65 10 1 73.63( 31) 1 1 | 3 1 | 94.34 5 | 95.83 2 | 96.72 2
4 Mississippi State A = 94.82 10 2 75.86( 22) 1 2 | 4 2 | 95.98 3 | 93.27 5 | 95.15 4
5 Oregon A = 93.88 11 1 73.10( 34) 1 0 | 3 1 | 93.65 6 | 92.16 7 | 96.01 3
6 Georgia A = 93.37 9 3 77.56( 11) 1 0 | 5 2 | 95.04 4 | 95.05 4 | 90.20 10
7 Auburn A = 92.68 8 4 84.72( 1) 1 3 | 4 4 | 93.01 8 | 92.90 6 | 91.84 8
8 Baylor A = 92.23 10 1 67.91( 66) 2 0 | 2 1 | 90.26 11 | 92.06 8 | 94.59 5
9 Oklahoma A = 90.77 8 3 76.10( 20) 0 2 | 2 3 | 93.20 7 | 91.34 9 | 87.86 16
10 Michigan State A = 90.66 10 2 69.88( 58) 0 1 | 1 2 | 92.07 10 | 91.19 10 | 88.56 14
College Football 2014 through games of November 29 Saturday
RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | GOLDEN_MEAN | PREDICTOR | ELO_SCORE
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.44] [ 2.51] [ 2.33] [ 2.47]
11 LSU A = 90.52 8 4 82.86( 3) 1 3 | 4 4 | 92.47 9 | 90.35 12 | 88.62 13
12 Kansas State A = 89.82 9 2 72.57( 40) 1 2 | 2 2 | 89.67 12 | 89.38 13 | 90.13 11
13 Ohio State A = 89.35 11 1 69.67( 60) 1 0 | 1 0 | 88.65 13 | 88.33 15 | 91.02 9
14 Arkansas A = 88.44 6 6 83.80( 2) 1 4 | 2 6 | 88.53 14 | 90.58 11 | 86.12 19
15 Wisconsin A = 88.00 10 2 69.29( 61) 0 0 | 1 1 | 88.34 15 | 89.37 14 | 86.06 20
16 Missouri A = 86.69 10 2 75.50( 23) 0 1 | 4 1 | 87.05 16 | 84.19 18 | 89.07 12
17 Florida State A = 86.04 12 0 71.60( 49) 0 0 | 3 0 | 83.12 21 | 84.12 20 | 92.65 7

Wolf

Rank Team Div W L PF PA Rating Chg
========================================================================
1 Florida St FBS 12 0 415 264 9.352 0
2 Alabama FBS 11 1 440 203 8.983 0
3 Oregon FBS 11 1 551 279 8.682 1
4 TCU FBS 10 1 507 241 8.586 1
5 Ohio State FBS 11 1 529 275 8.294 2
6 Mississippi St FBS 10 2 446 233 8.266 -3
7 Arizona FBS 10 2 440 306 8.166 2
8 Baylor FBS 10 1 548 263 8.054 0
9 Mississippi FBS 9 3 365 166 8.004 5
10 Kansas St FBS 9 2 403 223 7.880 2
11 UCLA FBS 9 3 395 330 7.878 -5
12 Michigan St FBS 10 2 517 239 7.867 3
13 Auburn FBS 8 4 430 313 7.796 -3
14 Georgia Tech FBS 10 2 446 289 7.724 11
15 Missouri FBS 10 2 343 236 7.715 1
========================================================================
Rank Team Div W L PF PA Rating Chg
========================================================================
16 Boise St FBS 10 2 490 331 7.617 5

Anderson[TABLE="class: midrank"]
<tbody>[TR="bgcolor: #CCCCCC"]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #CCCCCC"]
[TD="bgcolor: #9B1B1E"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #9B1B1E"]

Rating

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #9B1B1E"]

W

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #9B1B1E"]

L

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #9B1B1E"]

Sched.
Strength

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #9B1B1E"]

Sched.
Rank

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #9B1B1E"]

vs. Current
Top-10

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #9B1B1E"]

vs. Current
#11-25

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #9B1B1E"]

Other
Losses

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

1.

[/TD]
[TD="width: 128"]Florida State[/TD]
[TD="width: 48"]

.817

[/TD]
[TD="width: 23"]

12

[/TD]
[TD="width: 23"]

0

[/TD]
[TD="width: 68"]

.527

[/TD]
[TD="width: 51"]

60

[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]

0-0

[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]

2-0

[/TD]
[TD="width: 80"]

0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD]

2.

[/TD]
[TD]Oregon[/TD]
[TD]

.801

[/TD]
[TD]

11

[/TD]
[TD]

1

[/TD]
[TD]

.573

[/TD]
[TD]

25

[/TD]
[TD]

1-1

[/TD]
[TD]

2-0

[/TD]
[TD]

0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

3.

[/TD]
[TD]Alabama[/TD]
[TD]

.798

[/TD]
[TD]

11

[/TD]
[TD]

1

[/TD]
[TD]

.569

[/TD]
[TD]

30

[/TD]
[TD]

1-0

[/TD]
[TD]

1-1

[/TD]
[TD]

0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD]

4.

[/TD]
[TD]Ohio State[/TD]
[TD]

.780

[/TD]
[TD]

11

[/TD]
[TD]

1

[/TD]
[TD]

.542

[/TD]
[TD]

50

[/TD]
[TD]

0-0

[/TD]
[TD]

2-0

[/TD]
[TD]

1

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

5.

[/TD]
[TD]TCU[/TD]
[TD]

.778

[/TD]
[TD]

10

[/TD]
[TD]

1

[/TD]
[TD]

.545

[/TD]
[TD]

49

[/TD]
[TD]

1-1

[/TD]
[TD]

1-0

[/TD]
[TD]

0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD]

6.

[/TD]
[TD]Arizona[/TD]
[TD]

.773

[/TD]
[TD]

10

[/TD]
[TD]

2

[/TD]
[TD]

.593

[/TD]
[TD]

13

[/TD]
[TD]

1-1

[/TD]
[TD]

2-1

[/TD]
[TD]

0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

7.

[/TD]
[TD]UCLA[/TD]
[TD]

.756

[/TD]
[TD]

9

[/TD]
[TD]

3

[/TD]
[TD]

.625

[/TD]
[TD]

4

[/TD]
[TD]

1-1

[/TD]
[TD]

2-1

[/TD]
[TD]

1

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD]

8.

[/TD]
[TD]Mississippi St.[/TD]
[TD]

.751

[/TD]
[TD]

10

[/TD]
[TD]

2

[/TD]
[TD]

.564

[/TD]
[TD]

35

[/TD]
[TD]

0-1

[/TD]
[TD]

1-1

[/TD]
[TD]

0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

9.

[/TD]
[TD]Baylor[/TD]
[TD]

.750

[/TD]
[TD]

10

[/TD]
[TD]

1

[/TD]
[TD]

.507

[/TD]
[TD]

65

[/TD]
[TD]

1-0

[/TD]
[TD]

1-0

[/TD]
[TD]

1

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD]

10.

[/TD]
[TD]Kansas State[/TD]
[TD]

.736

[/TD]
[TD]

9

[/TD]
[TD]

2

[/TD]
[TD]

.555

[/TD]
[TD]

40

[/TD]
[TD]

0-1

[/TD]
[TD]

1-1

[/TD]
[TD]

0

[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: midrank"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]11.[/TD]
[TD="width: 128"]Mississippi[/TD]
[TD="width: 48"]

.735

[/TD]
[TD="width: 23"]

9

[/TD]
[TD="width: 23"]

3

[/TD]
[TD="width: 68"]

.599

[/TD]
[TD="width: 51"]

10

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="width: 128"]Southeastern[/TD]
[TD="width: 48"]

.646

[/TD]
[TD]

48

[/TD]
[TD]

7

[/TD]
[TD="width: 68"]

.411

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]12.[/TD]
[TD]Georgia Tech[/TD]
[TD]

.734

[/TD]
[TD]

10

[/TD]
[TD]

2

[/TD]
[TD]

.542

[/TD]
[TD]

51

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"][/TD]
[TD]Pac-12[/TD]
[TD]

.637

[/TD]
[TD]

31

[/TD]
[TD]

6

[/TD]
[TD]

.426

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]13.[/TD]
[TD]Missouri[/TD]
[TD]

.733

[/TD]
[TD]

10

[/TD]
[TD]

2

[/TD]
[TD]

.541

[/TD]
[TD]

54

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Big 12[/TD]
[TD]

.583

[/TD]
[TD]

22

[/TD]
[TD]

8

[/TD]
[TD]

.440

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]14.[/TD]
[TD]Arizona State[/TD]
[TD]

.725

[/TD]
[TD]

9

[/TD]
[TD]

3

[/TD]
[TD]

.587

[/TD]
[TD]

16

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"][/TD]
[TD]Atlantic Coast[/TD]
[TD]

.582

[/TD]
[TD]

42

[/TD]
[TD]

14

[/TD]
[TD]

.429

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]15.[/TD]
[TD]Wisconsin[/TD]
[TD]

.724

[/TD]
[TD]

10

[/TD]
[TD]

2

[/TD]
[TD]

.529

[/TD]
[TD]

59

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Big Ten[/TD]
[TD]

.580

[/TD]
[TD]

42

[/TD]
[TD]

14

[/TD]
[TD]

.426

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]16.[/TD]
[TD]Michigan State[/TD]
[TD]

.722

[/TD]
[TD]

10

[/TD]
[TD]

2

[/TD]
[TD]

.527

[/TD]
[TD]

61

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"][/TD]
[TD]Mountain West[/TD]
[TD]

.481

[/TD]
[TD]

27

[/TD]
[TD]

24

[/TD]
[TD]

.464

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]17.[/TD]
[TD]USC[/TD]
[TD]

.713

[/TD]
[TD]

8

[/TD]
[TD]

4

[/TD]
[TD]

.624

[/TD]
[TD]

5

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Conference USA[/TD]
[TD]

.432

[/TD]
[TD]

24

[/TD]
[TD]

28

[/TD]
[TD]

.455

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]18.[/TD]
[TD]Georgia[/TD]
[TD]

.712

[/TD]
[TD]

9

[/TD]
[TD]

3

[/TD]
[TD]

.571

[/TD]
[TD]

28

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"][/TD]
[TD]American Athletic[/TD]
[TD]

.418

[/TD]
[TD]

16

[/TD]
[TD]

28

[/TD]
[TD]

.499

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19.[/TD]
[TD]Auburn[/TD]
[TD]

.710

[/TD]
[TD]

8

[/TD]
[TD]

4

[/TD]
[TD]

.620

[/TD]
[TD]

6

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Mid-American[/TD]
[TD]

.354

[/TD]
[TD]

19

[/TD]
[TD]

33

[/TD]
[TD]

.432

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"]20.[/TD]
[TD]Boise State[/TD]
[TD]

.705

[/TD]
[TD]

10

[/TD]
[TD]

2

[/TD]
[TD]

.506

[/TD]
[TD]

66

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #eeeeee"][/TD]
[TD]Sun Belt[/TD]
[TD]

.334

[/TD]
[TD]

11

[/TD]
[TD]

32

[/TD]
[TD]

.479

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]21.[/TD]
[TD]Oklahoma[/TD]
[TD]

.698

[/TD]
[TD]

8

[/TD]
[TD]

3

[/TD]
[TD]

.569

[/TD]
[TD]

29

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, colspan: 5"]*non-conference play[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

gps_3 · Dec 2, 2014

twinkie13 said:
I think UAB beat LSU in BR while I was there

Sad day, then and now

They did in 2001 or 2002 I'm pretty sure. This situation has been unfolding for a decade, but people have only cared about it for the last 2 days. Nobody will give it a second thought in a month or two. Hopefully all the players and coaches have their scholarship/contracts honored

s--k · Dec 2, 2014

Colley

 team rating record SOS: rank top 25
wins top 50
wins best game
1. Florida St 0.966377 12-0 0.544106: 55 2 6 W: #20 Clemson
2. Alabama 0.943157 11-1 0.600350: 14 3 8 W: #8 Mississippi St
3. Ohio St 0.901670 11-1 0.551948: 50 1 5 W: #14 Michigan St
4. Oregon 0.898466 11-1 0.548210: 52 2 5 W: #9 UCLA
5. TCU 0.878719 10-1 0.538486: 62 2 4 W: #16 Kansas St
6. Arizona 0.848246 10-2 0.572954: 30 2 4 W: #4 Oregon
7. Mississippi 0.844187 9-3 0.651551: 3 3 6 W: #2 Alabama
8. Mississippi St 0.844011 10-2 0.568013: 33 2 4 W: #17 Auburn
9. UCLA 0.842804 9-3 0.649938: 4 2 5 W: #6 Arizona
10. Georgia Tech 0.831900 10-2 0.553884: 48 2 3 W: #18 Georgia
11. Boise St 0.823444 10-2 0.544018: 56 0 3 W: #26 Colorado St
12. Missouri 0.819298 10-2 0.539181: 61 0 5 W: #30 Texas A&M
13. Baylor 0.809397 10-1 0.456561: 92 2 2 W: #5 TCU
14. Michigan St 0.805735 10-2 0.523358: 69 1 3 W: #22 Nebraska
15. Wisconsin 0.805409 10-2 0.522977: 70 1 4 W: #22 Nebraska
16. Kansas St 0.804029 9-2 0.541126: 60 1 2 W: #21 Oklahoma
http://www.colleyrankings.com/foot2014/rankings/rank14_main.html

Massey
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->
1. Alabama
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Ohio State
5. Florida State
6. Mississippi
7. Mississippi St
8. Baylor
9. Michigan St
10. Georgia
11. Kansas St
12. Wisconsin
13. Georgia Tech
14. Arizona
15. Auburn
16. Missouri
http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Observations on Final Four Eligible Teams

tipyerbartender1

Guest

Goodbye to Romance College Football

Assistant __ ___ Regional Mod

In transit, arriving late.

Head of Alabama Department of Decision-Making

In transit, arriving late.

Lareux

Guest

Lareux

Guest

Lareux

Guest

In transit, arriving late.

In transit, arriving late.

Head of Alabama Department of Decision-Making

Lareux

Guest

Lareux

Guest

In transit, arriving late.

In transit, arriving late.

Lareux

Guest

tipyerbartender1

Guest

In transit, arriving late.

In transit, arriving late.

Lareux

Guest

Bump. Set. Shuma!

Lareux

Guest

Bump. Set. Shuma!

dilaudid8

Guest

tipyerbartender1

Guest

Bump. Set. Shuma!

Head of Alabama Department of Decision-Making

Bump. Set. Shuma!

Goodbye to Romance College Football

Lareux

Guest

Bump. Set. Shuma!

Lareux

Guest

Head of Alabama Department of Decision-Making

Lareux

Guest

Pretty much a regular

Bump. Set. Shuma!

Head of Alabama Department of Decision-Making

Goodbye to Romance College Football

Bump. Set. Shuma!

Lareux

Guest

Lareux

Guest

Bump. Set. Shuma!

Goodbye to Romance College Football

Lareux

Guest

Lareux

Guest

In transit, arriving late.

Goodbye to Romance College Football

Head of Alabama Department of Decision-Making

Goodbye to Romance College Football

Similar threads

Assistant _ Regional Mod