Does Phil Steele Over-Emphasize Strength of Schedule?
by Bud Elliott on Jun 16, 2009 11:30 AM EDT
in FSU Football
71 comments
If you've been visiting for more than a few weeks, you will remember our article on scheduling and projections. Take a look at that if you haven't seen it.
Today, I want to look at Phil Steele, the premier college football expert. Phil's magazine is a must for every serious college fan, and he has been by far the most accurate prognosticator over the past ten years. Simply put, the guy works harder than anyone else, covers the game year round, and is smarter than any of the other pre-season magazines. I always buy two Phil Steele magazines because I know that I will tear one up by mid-season.
Phil seriously accounts for scheduling when he makes his predictions, as do I.
Why does this concern Florida State? Steele believes that the 'Noles are the 24th best team nationally, but projects them to finish 34th, mainly due to playing the projected 2nd toughest schedule in the nation (11 of FSU's 2009 opponents made Bowl Games last year).
In the tables below, I have compiled the data from 2008, 2007, and 2005. My 2006 magazine is missing.
Key:
- Power Poll: Phil Steele's preseason power ranking. This is how good he thinks a team is, and does not include schedule.
- Schedule Difficulty: this is how tough Phil Steele believes a team's schedule will be.
- Projected Finish: where Phil projects a team to finish. This obviously accounts for scheduling.
- Difference: The difference in the projected finish and the power poll ranking.
- Finish: where a team finished in the Pre-Bowl ESPN/ USA Today Top 25 (obviously you can't predict who a team will play in a bowl game)
For this analysis, I did not include teams who did not make the power poll top 25 or the projected finish top 25. To qualify, teams must have appeared in one or both lists.
2005
| Power Poll | Schedule Difficulty | Projected Finish | Difference | Finish | |
| UCLA | 25 | 5 | 35 | -10 | 17 |
| Tennessee | 9 | 31 | 15 | -6 | NR |
| Ohio St. | 4 | 17 | 9 | -5 | 4 |
| Miami | 2 | 23 | 6 | -4 | 9 |
| Oklahoma | 13 | 18 | 8 | 5 | 26 |
| Purdue | 12 | 40 | 3 | 9 | NR |
| Fresno State | 33 | 96 | 23 | 10 | 29 |
| Louisville | 16 | 79 | 4 | 12 | 15 |
| Miami, Oh | 54 | 107 | 23 | 31 | NR |
Steele nailed Tennessee, as the pre-season top Ten Vols finished the season unranked. He also pinged Miami for a drop, and the pre-season top 10 Hurricanes similarly finished much worse than the public expected.
He whiffed on UCLA and Ohio State, however, and I note that the UCLA and Ohio State projected subpar seasons seem more schedule based (projected SOS of 5, and 17) than the projected declined of Tennessee and Miami (projected SOS of 31 and 23, respectively). While top 30 schedules obviously played some role in this projection, it seems the teams Steele pegged to decline also had other factors working against them.
As for projected "final ranking will be better than power poll", this was quite the poor year for Steele, as his 5 greatest disparities all finished significantly lower than he projected.
2007
| Power Poll | Schedule Difficulty | Projected Finish | Difference | Finish | |
| Texas A&M | 12 | 10 | 20 | -8 | NR |
| California | 22 | 8 | 28 | -6 | NR |
| Nebraska | 17 | 17 | 22 | -5 | NR |
| Florida | 10 | 21 | 14 | -4 | 9 |
| Virginia Tech | 13 | 58 | 9 | 4 | 5 |
| Penn State | 14 | 68 | 10 | 4 | 34 |
| USF | 30 | 70 | 24 | 6 | 23 |
| Hawaii | 23 | 116 | 12 | 11 | 10 |
Teams to finish worse than their power poll ranking: Steele had a tremendous year here, as the teams he felt would finish lower than the public expected did just that. Each team suffered through rather precipitous drops. Unlike 2005, where the successful predictions seemed less related to schedule and more so to other factors, these predictions seem very schedule based and the constant attrition of a difficult schedule pushed these teams way down in the rankings.
Teams Steele projected to do better than his Power Poll (aka their true talent/ ability): Mixed bag here. Steele absolutely nailed Hawaii, calling for a BCS game back in June, and they went to the Sugar Bowl, where UGA ultimately exposed them as a fraud. Virginia Tech did finish higher than most expected. Penn State and particularly USF enjoyed moments of success (USF was #2 in the country at one point) before their true ability levels brought them back down to earth.
2008
| Power Poll | Schedule Difficulty | Projected Finish | Difference | Finish? | |
| Kansas | 22 | 25 | 30 | -8 | NR |
| Tennessee | 16 | 16 | 23 | -7 | NR |
| Texas | 10 | 23 | 15 | -5 | 3 |
| Oregon | 17 | 33 | 22 | -5 | 15 |
| Georgia | 5 | 3 | 9 | -4 | 16 |
| Auburn | 8 | 32 | 12 | -4 | NR |
| LSU | 9 | 19 | 13 | -4 | NR |
| South Florida | 13 | 60 | 8 | 5 | NR |
| Notre Dame | 24 | 67 | 19 | 5 | NR |
| West Virginia | 12 | 35 | 6 | 6 | 30 |
| California | 27 | 38 | 20 | 7 | 25 |
| Utah | 23 | 99 | 14 | 9 | 7 |
Teams projected to finish worse than their power poll ranking: Steele really killed it again; nailing Kansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, and LSU. He missed on Texas.
Teams Steele projected to do better than his Power Poll (aka their true talent/ ability): If there is a clear conclusion to be drawn here, it is that major conference teams with supposedly easy schedules are not good bets to have tremendous seasons, but if Steele says that a mid-major is going places, bet the house on those guys. He whiffed badly on South Florida, Notre Dame, and West Virginia, but was dead on with Utah. In fairness, West Virginia and Cal do not appear to be schedule picks, but USF, Notre Dame, and Utah definitely were.
I don't know if this is a sufficient sample set, but Steele has been right in calling for disappointing years (relative to the preseason expectations of the general public) 10 of 15 times in the three years I looked at, and his prognosticating skills have improved in this area each year. Of course, there are multiple factors teams could finish worse than their power rating, scheduling being only one factor.
There seems to be very little trend when Steele predicts a team to do better than their ability level because of a soft schedule when that team is in a major conference. He has been quite good at picking the mid-major go to a BCS game.
Looking ahead to 2009
| Power Poll | Schedule Difficulty | Projected Finish | Difference | Finish?? | |
| Florida St | 24 | 2 | 34 | -10 | |
| LSU | 8 | 21 | 17 | -9 | |
| Arkansas | 25 | 6 | 33 | -8 | |
| Pittsburgh | 29 | 54 | 23 | 6 | |
| BYU | 22 | 71 | 15 | 7 | |
| Boise St | 20 | 117 | 12 | 8 | |
| Rutgers | 37 | 106 | 16 | 21 |
FSU and Arkansas are definitely schedule picks as Steele believes both are top 25 caliber teams but projects them to finish the regular season unranked, and schedule likely plays a major part in Steele's call for LSU to finish outside the top 15.
If there is a saving grace for Seminoles fans, it could be that Steele's projected schedule difficulty was calculated before BYU, Boston College, and USF suffered major personnel losses. Additionally, while UF is likely to be the most dominant college football team ever, they can only account for one Seminole loss.
Still, past precedent does not bode well for FSU. When Steele projects a fall due to a murderer's row schedule, the team usually suffers.
It seems likely that Pitt or Rutgers will win the Big East due to scheduling, and Boise is the only Mid-Major likely to crash the BCS party (unless you count Notre Dame)
What trends do you notice here? Let us know.
GO NOLES!!
Become a fan of us on facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/TomahawkNationcom/63264950770
Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/TomahawkNation
0 recs |
71 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
He doesn't sleep.
I see just as much activity from FSUn while I’m over here in Germany as I do when I’m in the states.
I don’t wanna say “undead” just yet….too early to tell.
haha I just have these written out in my head mostly.
by Bud Elliott on Jun 16, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn't know it was possible to write in your head...
boy am I behind the power curve! :)
Why did UCLA and others beat the Steele prediction?
It would be interesting to go back and look at the schedule and results of those teams who beat the predicted drop. Did they do better than Steele predicted because their schedule turned out easier? I.e., at the end of the season, did only a few of their opponents go to bowls? Does anyone publish SOS rankings at the end of the season? I would be interested in the difference between pre- and post-seasion SOS for these successful teams.
I want to look into that, but haven't had the time.
It’s a very valid question.
by Bud Elliott on Jun 16, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
UCLA 2005.
Won 4 games by a TD or less, and another 2 by 10 points. Their 2 losses were blowouts. As we know, teams generally win and lose an equal proportion of games by that margin, so it is safe to say that UCLA got very lucky.
We will also have to win a bunch of close games, so it can be done. It just shouldn’t be expected.
That UCLA team caught Oklahoma when OU had a NEW qb, and eeked out wins over Washington, Cal, Washington State, and Stanford. Arizona and USC beat them by a combined 83 points.
If we can win Jax State and Maryland, lose @ UF, and go 6-3 in our remaining games (likely to be close), I’ll take an 8-4 and go home happy.
by Bud Elliott on Jun 16, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I was in LA that Year
UCLA got very lucky that year. Maurice Jones-Drew was huge in special teams as a kick and punt returner, either scoring or putting ucla in positions for easy scores. He also provided sporadic big plays as a rb, basically allowing UCLA to win games they shouldn’t have.
For example, against, Cal he ripped off two long punt returns (1 for a td, 1 setting up 1st and goal from the 2), also in the 4th Cal decided to defend a punt with 10 players, which ucla then audibled off of easily converting a 4th and 2, leading to a touchdown.
I can tie my shoes!
So...
A previously unbeknownst playmaker that arrives on the scene can make the difference in close ball games and win you 2-3 games a year. Not to be an @$$, but this theory sounds very familiar.
no offense taken, but yea, just wanted to give you a confirmation that ucla did indeed overachieve that year.
I can tie my shoes!
Thanks Chowder.
My comment wasn’t really directed at you anyway, so I’m glad you weren’t offended. :)
I agree with your logic
But I can’t picture myself being “happy” for an 8-4 season.
I’d be ok with it, and it’s better than 6-6 obviously, but I try my best to keep high expectations for FSU.
Really, it all depends on our health. If we get banged up in the secondary or in the trenches, it could be a tough year. If we get lucky in the injury department, my hope is an ACC Championship.
You've admitted lucky = ACC championship.
That’s just reality right now. There’s nothing wrong with keeping expectations realistic. With TK retiring, we may finally be able to say that FSU will be committed to winning again soon. Would you be ecstatic with 9-3? With two close losses and the guys “showing up” for the Florida game? Because to me, that’s a dream season for this team, and so 8-4 has to be the next closest thing.
It is STUPID to schedule strong in College Football
Why folks don’t get that is beyond me.
“before BYU, Boston College, and USF suffered major personnel losses”
What losses did these teams suffer?
BYU I believe had a couple players go on their mormon mission and their #1 WR left early. BC lost..well…everything. With USF, Leavitt just lost his mind.
Do I look like a cat to you, boy? Am I jumpin' around all nimbly-bimbly from tree to tree? Am I drinking milk from a saucer? DO YOU SEE ME EATING MICE? You stop laughing right meow!
BYU lost their starting nose guard
and he was a huge piece of their defense.
Boston College lost the best linebacker in America in Mark Herzlich, who turned down top 15 draft pick money to return. He has cancer.
USF’s loss was Daron Rose not qualifying to play offensive tackle. They also lost a nickel corner and a big DT recruit.
by Bud Elliott on Jun 16, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
right, but he accounted for that when making his strength of schedule list.
I only want to mention guys they lost after he did his calculations.
Is losing a OT recruit, a backup CB, and a DT recruit...
that big a deal for USF? Honestly FSU has lost more than that in the offseason. I definitely can see BC losses as game changers……maybe even BYU’s loss of 1 starting DT. But USFs seem like a stretch.
Yes, because
He listed him as USF’s best Olineman, so it obviously factored in. Remember that USF lost 4 of 5 offensive linemen from last year.
BYU has no other nose tackles on their roster with any experience and they were unable to recruit any.
Didn’t USF get a new OC or DC or both?
Also on the topic of new coordinators. Why I haven’t I seen any discussion about UFs OC? Obviously they still have players, but no one is expecting any drop off?
Yes, both, and they had to struggle to find them.
I expect UF’s coordinators to be excellent. They reached out to the NFL and got a very well respected QB coach, and their new OC was a line coach, which I prefer over a RB or WR coach (b/c he understands protections).
Daron Rose playing for USF
Would have helped us out bigtime!
'Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football.' John Heisman
"It is STUPID to schedule strong in College Football.... Why folks don’t get that is beyond me."
I don’t know a single college football fan who doesn’t “get that.” Some fanbases, like Florida’s, will tolerate weak schedules. Our fanbase, as has been recently discussed at TN, was raised on tough schedules and won’t tolerate scheduling weak. Get used to it. It has nothing to do with anyone being stupid, except maybe when I see people who still think serious college football fans have a hard time equating scheduling cupcakes with an easier time finding success in college football. That’s stupid.
Schedule difficulty
I’m assuming the schedule rank used here was based off the projected difficulty. As we all know, things aren’t always what they seem. So, I wonder what the difficulty actually ended up being. For example, I don’t remember what kind of schedule UCLA ended up having when Steele wiffed it. Did it turn out to be easier than he originally thought? That might be why.
Do I look like a cat to you, boy? Am I jumpin' around all nimbly-bimbly from tree to tree? Am I drinking milk from a saucer? DO YOU SEE ME EATING MICE? You stop laughing right meow!
UCLA 2005
Won 4 games by a TD or less, and another 2 by 10 points. Their 2 losses were blowouts. As we know, teams generally win and lose an equal proportion of games by that margin, so it is safe to say that UCLA got very lucky.
We will also have to win a bunch of close games, so it can be done. It just shouldn’t be expected.
That UCLA team caught Oklahoma when OU had a NEW qb, and eeked out wins over Washington, Cal, Washington State, and Stanford. Arizona and USC beat them by a combined 83 points.
If we can win Jax State and Maryland, lose @ UF, and go 6-3 in our remaining games (likely to be close), I’ll take an 8-4 and go home happy.
Looks like those fumble drills do pay off huh?
Do I look like a cat to you, boy? Am I jumpin' around all nimbly-bimbly from tree to tree? Am I drinking milk from a saucer? DO YOU SEE ME EATING MICE? You stop laughing right meow!
Personally
I think that our projected schedule is too difficult and he has us ranked too low early.
Say that I think we are the 19th best team in the country and our schedule (due to stated personnel difficulties) is no longer in the top 15, I wonder where that would have us slated.
We win Jax State, Maryland, and BC and NC State at home. Lose to UF. Go 5-2 in the remainder (all which should be relatively close.) 9-3.
That has been my prediction for a while, and I don’t see why it isn’t plausible.
Oh it's totally plausible
but it’s tough to go essentially 6-2 in coin flip games (counting NCST and everyone else within a TD spread either way).
That's true
I don’t think NCST will be a coin flip.
And you have to think -3-5 is not a coin flip. It is something like 59-67% (I can’t remember them off the top of my head) and I think there is a good chance we are on the good side of those.
So 5-2 in games that are like to be something like 62% in our favor is less ridiculous, but still difficult.
I'm just saying
You have to look at the odds. -3 favorites win this percentage of the time, -5 favorites, -7 seven favorites, etc. Phil Steele is very good at his job, so who I am to really question. But I think if there is a team that can out perform it is one
1. That gets underrated initially (because of all our off the field news)
2. Has a schedule that is not actually as difficult as predicted (due to teams losing personnel)
3. Will be a line favorite of 3-7 in most of their “coin flip” games.
Oh I am all about the % of time they win
I think it was in the article I linked at the top.
You lay out some excellent factors there.
I will add a 4th: injuries. In 2006 and 2007, FSU was one of the most injured teams in CFB. In 2008, they had few injuries. We need a healthy year.
Point Spread Money Line
-2 -120/120
-2.5 -130/130
-3 -145/145
-3.5 -175/175
-4 -185/185
-4.5 -200/200
-5/-5.5 -215/215
-6 -240/240
-6.5 -260/260
-7 -290/290
-7.5/-8/-8.5 -330/330
-9/-9.5 -350/350
-10 -385/385
-10.5 -415/415
-11 -445/445
-11.5 -475/475
-12/ -12.5
-500/500
-13 -525/525
-13.5 -550/550
-14 -580/580
-14.5 -610/610
-15/ 15.5 -640/640
-16/16.5 -665/665
-17 -690/690
-17.5
-715/715
-18/ -18.5/ -19/ -19.5 -740/740
-20 -770/770
-20.5 -800/800
-21 -815/815
-21.5 -830/830
-23 -845/845
-24 -875/875
-28
-920/+920
You might be a bit lost right now, but that’s okay. Here’s the idea. A 3 point underdog, has a moneyline value of “+145”. In numerical terms, that comes out to 245, because you add 100. Still with me? If not, it’s okay. Keep following. To determine a team’s projected winning percentage, based on the vegas line, simply take the moneyline value in numerical terms, and divide it into one.
Team A is favored over Team B by 3 points.
Thus, Team B is an underdog of 3 points.
Team B can be referred to as 3
Using the chart above, we can see that an underdog of +3 is "145" moneyline value.
Remember to add 100 to the “145”, to get “245”.
Then, divide 100 (always 100 here) by 245.
100/245= 0.408, which we will round to 0.41
0.41 is the same thing as 41%.
So, Team B (the 3 point underdog) has a 41% chance of winning this game.
If Team B has a 41% chance of winning, then Team A must have a 59% chance of winning (because these numbers must add up to 100%)
Yeah I've seen it before
I just didn’t feel like doing any math/looking it up. Thats why I put 59-, because I was fairly certain on 59%. Thanks for the refresher.
These strength of schedule ratings
along with pre-season rankings go out the door as soon as the season starts. It’s always interesting to look back and see who really had the toughest schedule, or how you fared based on results. We may have 2nd touchest schedule, but what if teams like BYU or Clemson end up being horrible? Its too dynamic to set a fixed number on prior to the season in my opinion.
I think Clemson is a better team than us.
And it is obviously dynamic, but some number is better than no number. Steele has done pretty well with it, obviously.
I was just
throwing out two teams we happen to play. Not inferring that either will be bad, just saying SOS looks at 2008 and tries to predict 2009 when we dont really know what will happen, or how teams will fare.
Clemson
I don’t think they will be horrible but I am not sold on them being better than us. I think we are better on the O-line, at QB, around even at WR, and deeper at RB even though their #1 is better than or #1. On defense I would expect their Secondary and D-line to be better than ours, but not by that much.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the game is lost by the coaching staff actually. Either our staff does something silly that nobody can remember who to blame like last year, or Dabo makes a rookie mistake as he looks for his first “big” win and it bites him in the backside.
Clemson is a huge mystery to me as a team.
If their defense plays to the level of the talent they have on it, watch out. Clemson will try to shut down our running game and Steele knows Amato’s tendencies and therefore his weaknesses. Clemson has enough offense to score with us as it is right now. They remove our running game and make us beat them with the pass…..just chalk that loss up right now.
And for everyone who thinks NCST is a gimme, come on. That team dominated us last year and just by having the ball more and a few costly turnovers we beat them. In fact, I believe they were decimated by injuries on defense last year too. NCST could turn into a fiasco for us.
Not trying to be chicken little but I am just unsure where all of this optimism comes from. Because I need the prescription, bottle of or other that induces that frame of mind. I am afraid that we are staring down a 8, more likely 7, win season.
NCST-FSU
1. There were no turnovers in that game, not sure where that came from
2. We had twice as many first downs 28-24
3. We outgained them by 60 yards
4. We had the ball for 17 minutes longer than them.
I am sorry but your comment lacks any bearing at all. Add to this the fact that it was in Raleigh at night and the words dominated, and fiasco make even less sense.
Clemson is a mystery to me too honestly. However chalking up a loss is ridiculous too. We have the talent to win, and so do they. They were one of the coinflip games we discussed earlier, chicken little.
Wasn’t that mostly in the first half though? I don’t have numbers in front of me right now but as I recall if NCST didn’t have long touchdown pass in the 4th quarter we would have outscored them 20-0 in the second half. I recall them working our defense pretty bad in the first quarter but then mostly only punting or turning the ball over for most of the remainder of the game. Am I recalling this game correctly?
"No, like I said, Woo peed on my rug" - The Dude
Well our offense held the ball forever, and eveltually grabbed the lead, and NCST had to begin hurrying.
In total, they still went for 7.2 per play (I think), which is pace for 440ish in a normal game (61 plays)
True
But probably half of their passing yards came on one play in the 3rd or 4th quarter (who got burned there?)
"No, like I said, Woo peed on my rug" - The Dude
Regardless
We won the game, we outgained them, we held the ball for 17 minutes longer, we did not have to rely on fluky plays. We were not dominated. The game will be in Tallahassee, and I think there is a good chance we are as good, if not a better team this year. We should be at least a 7 point favorite.
Well let's not forget Bobby's fiery comments to the officials going in at halftime (about the holding penalties)
That’s what really fired up the team….but seriously, at least that game showed some life from him on the sideline.
My bad, just recalling from memory...did not look up stats.
I could have sworn they had a turnover or two that shortened the field for us but I trust your fact check on this. The first downs really don’t mean a lot to me, seen way to many games where that stat was just the opposite of the outcome in score. To have the ball that long and only have 60 yards more in total offense is a eye opener. Essentially, we had the ball for one quarter, and only gained 60 yards…anemic to say the least.
Let’s just say I choose my words badly, however, the point to me is still valid. I believe their defense will not allow that type of disparity in clock time again this year. Take that and add it to the team running an offense that we get gashed by every time we run up against it and its a recipe for disaster. Take into consideration this:
N.C. State entered with an ACC-worst 80 yards rushing per game and faced the league’s top run defense (64 yards per game), but rolled to a season-best 157 yards on 22 carries. Jamelle Eugene led the team with 74 yards on six carries, while Andre Brown added 50 yards. (from Seminoles.com)
So to clear up…..dominated should have been….dominated us with their offense especially their ground game.
As for fiasco, we will have to wait and see, NCST strikes me as eerily similar to a game like BC last year. One in which we should have won but just kept finding a way to lose.
But hey, we’re all Noles so I gotta assume sarcasm was meant in your post…..
He made up for it with TD on the Bubble...I think that's the play that stands
out to me the most from Reed last year.
Their rushing game...
Absolutely performed great against us.
If that is true, the corrolary is true as well, our passing game dominated them. I think we will hold the ball even longer against teams this year (although probably not to this disparity) because of our offensive line and dynamic RBs. You can choose to look at all the negatives if you like, but we won by two scores, at night, in NC, without any fluke turnovers. After halftime we dominated them, they had ONE PLAY that changed perception of that.
Yes there was sarcasm
If I remember correctly, wasn't that Ponder's first "balanced" game?
Up until that point, it was all ground game against D1A opponents.
Honestly Tarpons
I am just so sick of getting my hopes up for an upcoming season only to see the same things play out again and again.
Come the beginning of the season my optimism will undoubtedly be off the charts again like every year but its usually the off season that I find myself able to look more realistically at the team.
And on the OL and RBs, I am with you, I think they should be fantastic this year, got my fingers crossed.
I think what I get lost in so many times is our coaching has just not got it done when they should have too many times.
So here is to wishing you to be right, me wrong and being satisfied with what hopefully will be the best Nole team we have fielded since 2000
by diablonole on Jun 16, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I get you, honestly
I just try to think in realistic probability. If there is some snags, that is okay. I guess realism is what I try to achieve.
Is there a way we can find out what conf has the hardest SOS
From what it seems the ACC would be because more ACC teams. Only because from top to bottom the ACC is closer. where as the other conf there are 1-3 big schools 2 on the bubble and the rest just suck. So what does that say about the ACC as a whole.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
here are the bowl records from last year... I did not fact check this, but a really argumentative, hateful person did
Conference…………Bowl Record
ACC……………………4-6
BigEast…………………4-2
Big-10……………1-6
Big-12……………4-3
Pac-10……………….5-0
SEC…………………..6-2
MWC…………….3-2
WAC……………..1-3
MAC…………….0-5
C-USA………….4-2
Sun Belt………..2-1
by NorthernHaze on Jun 16, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I meant to include the ratio of favorites/dogs
but the lines fluctuated and I’m about to go out, so maybe later
by NorthernHaze on Jun 16, 2009 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
thanks
I love how conf like the big-10 get so much preseason love. the Pac-10 suprised me but I still think they suck. Same for the big East. I dont see the big east lasting that long unless ND goings them but that wont happen I dont think.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
