What if this Kansas State game took place six weeks ago, and Oklahoma had been on a USC-like run (against much better opposition) since then?

I think in this case the BCS is fulfilling a reasonable role, by not being overly affected by how the polls overvalue whatever happened in the most recent game.

Posted by: Cryptic Ned at December 7, 2003 02:56 PM | PERMALINK

USC beats Cal and they're in. They can't complain and they know it.

USC-Michigan in the Rose Bowl with national title (at least AP) implications. That's they way it's supposed to be. Screw the BCS.

I expect it to be a great matchup. But if USC pulls ahead, look for them to run up the score as much as possible. Kind of like Oregon did to Colorado a few years ago.

Posted by: G Spot1 at December 7, 2003 03:05 PM | PERMALINK

Or the BCS is remarkably resulting in what will work out to be TWO "national championship" bowl games, 1v2 and 3v4. Without that result, the Rose Bowl just wouldn't be that fun.

Posted by: emptywheel at December 7, 2003 03:05 PM | PERMALINK

I liked the old system. Lots of bickering, many what ifs, and, if two schools get to claim a championship? Good for both of them! Oh yeah, if you lose a game? You got no complaint. You put your fate in someone else's hands.

Posted by: spc67 at December 7, 2003 03:07 PM | PERMALINK

'I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords'
-Kent Brockman

Posted by: bj at December 7, 2003 03:09 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, for once in my life I actually find myself feeling bad for the University of Spoiled Children. Pete Carroll did a brilliant job on the ABC selection show, and it is good that we're back in the good old days of the Rose Bowl being a matchup between the Pac-10 winner and the Big-10 winner and with title implications.

The BCS as we know it is now finished, because we're pretty much where we were in the mid-1990s. Combine the USC thing with the non-BCS schools' legitimate complaints and you've got a major overhaul coming.

There's another aspect to this that I hope West Coast sportswriters will pick up on tomorrow - that this is a slap in the face to the Pac-10. Clearly the computers did not think our conference was all that tough. And Cal is a good team, better than their record - and USC lost to them in 3 overtimes. It's not like they got their ass kicked by the conference champion. Perhaps I'm just a biased Golden Bear alum, but I think the Pac-10 doesn't get the love it deserves. USC's schedule was stronger than it is being given credit for, and I suspect that the Okies played a lot of overrated teams before being exposed as frauds last night in Kansas City.

Posted by: eugene at December 7, 2003 03:10 PM | PERMALINK

Will this finally convince the old guard that what college football needs is a playoff system?

Posted by: brayden at December 7, 2003 03:11 PM | PERMALINK

Why call it the national championship game? Call it the BCS Title game, whatever that is. And Michigan will expose USC for the overrated all offense, no defense Pac 10 pansies that they are.

Posted by: GaryL at December 7, 2003 03:11 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but in the absence of a genuine playoff system, it just seems wrong to me that a school that did not win its conference championship could be crowned national champion. I thought it was wrong a couple of years ago when Nebraska went to the BCS title game after finishing third in the Big 12, and I think it's wrong this year with Oklahoma losing the Big 12 championship game. (I also think that the Big 12 is overrated generally, but that's another matter).

Posted by: Jeff Cooper at December 7, 2003 03:12 PM | PERMALINK

The Pac-10 should withdraw from the BCS and take the Rose Bowl with them.

This is the second time in three years they have been overtly screwed. Big time.

My father, proud USC alum he was, is turning over in his grave.

Posted by: nova silverpill at December 7, 2003 03:12 PM | PERMALINK

Nah. I think the BCS folks have a sponsorship tie-in with a ringworm or ricketts medication and wanted to get a game that would draw the target demographic.

Posted by: jlw at December 7, 2003 03:12 PM | PERMALINK

And everyone says "LSU beat top 5 Georgia - Twice!"

So what? The SEC is overrated - they only play each other, and that's supposed to mean sooo much.

and Oklahoma got spanked royally by a team with 3 losses and who lost to...Marshall?

At least USC lost in 3 overtimes on the road.

Posted by: nova silverpill at December 7, 2003 03:14 PM | PERMALINK

I love it, just another black eye for what is probably the most corrupt and morally vacuous national institution.

Ivan

Posted by: Ivan at December 7, 2003 03:15 PM | PERMALINK

First Schwarzenegger and now this? Is California still attached to the rest of the continent, or has rage overtaken it?

Posted by: Linkmeister at December 7, 2003 03:17 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting points, but Michigan's crushing defeat of USC will make these questions moot.

Posted by: alkali at December 7, 2003 03:18 PM | PERMALINK

It's not just the BSC bowls that are screwed up. Tennessee finishes the season ranked #6 in the nation . . . and gets sent to the SEC's #5 bowl (Peach).

Go figure.

Posted by: Brian A. at December 7, 2003 03:20 PM | PERMALINK

OU lost a game they knew they didn't need to win. They have the best wins of the three contenders, and the least embarassing loss. I would vote them #1, and I don't even like OU.

Posted by: chris at December 7, 2003 03:20 PM | PERMALINK

BCS is dead. Who cares any more after third year in four that a top 2 team is not in the title game.

Rose Bowl is now the real national title game. Thanks great.

Posted by: DMBeaster at December 7, 2003 03:20 PM | PERMALINK

So we have an overrated Big-12 and an overrated SEC, with an underrated Pac-10. Does this mean the Big Ten is the only evenlyrated conference? USC-Michigan will be a fantastic game, and will draw higher ratings than the Okies and the Cajuns.

Posted by: eugene at December 7, 2003 03:23 PM | PERMALINK

There are a couple of interesting philosophical questions here:

1. What team do the humans really think is #1? Do they really believe USC is #1, or did they just vote that way out of the usual tradition that a winning team never falls in the rankings and a losing team always does?

2. Should a late loss count more than an early loss? Although I agree that humans generally overrate late losses, I think the computers underrate it. One of the key parts of being a champion is winning the games that matter, and with no playoff system that means winning against good teams and winning late in the season. For what it's worth, Oklahoma failed to do that when it mattered and they know it. I think their loss to KSU means more than either LSU's or USC's mid-season loss.

Posted by: Kevin Drum at December 7, 2003 03:28 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with you on the latter point especially, Kevin. The Okies are going to be rewarded for a monumental choke job, which really ought not happen. It's one thing to lose a hard-fought close game (Cal) than to get thoroughly dominated in your conference championship.

I'm not really a moralizer, few of us Golden Bears are. But if cleaning up college football is something that we see as desireable, and I think we should, you should not go around rewarding such colossal failure. LSU deserves its chance to go. Oklahoma does not.

Posted by: eugene at December 7, 2003 03:38 PM | PERMALINK

It's not that bad for USC. If they beat Michigan, be ranked number one in the polls and have a share of the title. Had they played Oklahoma and lost, they wouldn't have anything. And LSU doesn't have a chance in hell of beating Oklahoma.

Posted by: Paleo at December 7, 2003 03:51 PM | PERMALINK

The BCS system sucks. Not only did USC get robbed, but my alma mater , the UT longhorns, after ending up #5 in both national polls get to play #15 Washington State in the freaking holiday bowl. There's absolutely no common sense in the system and it should be scrapped.

Posted by: Lizette at December 7, 2003 03:59 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

#1: The polls generally work with the "bubble system." USC is #1 due to the OU defeat. You seem to emphasize the human polls, but not acknowledge their flaws.

#2: "Should a late loss count more than an early loss?" No. The entire season needs to matter. It's why CF is so unique and popular. Games are played throughout the entire schedule that matters. Last night, the #1 team in CB lost and nobody cares. When the #1 is losing in CF there’s a buzz.

#3: The importance of the timing of loses? The computer polls vary in their emphasis on the timing of the loss, as (probably) the human polls do, too. There is no consensus.

Posted by: john at December 7, 2003 04:04 PM | PERMALINK

Random thoughts...

The biggest problem this year was that all 3 teams, with the exception of one game, dominated their opponents. The games were rarely close. So it's hard to split hairs and argue Florida is better than K State is better than Cal... but 3 overtimes is better than... late season loss... whatever.

Can't claim West Coast bias this year b/c USC is #1 in AP and coaches. Pac-10 was soft this year.

Maybe USC shouldn't have rolled Auburn so badly and ruined their whole season.

Hard to believe that a meaningless Notre Dame-Syracuse game could influence who goes to the Sugar Bowl.

And I can't believe Washington cost the Pac-10 millions of dollars and USC a shot at the BCS title by beating its rival.

Posted by: G Spot1 at December 7, 2003 04:07 PM | PERMALINK

Paleo: "And LSU doesn't have a chance in hell of beating Oklahoma."
Alabama coach Mike Shula, whose team lost 20-13 to Oklahoma and 27-3 to LSU, and his players think diffferently. They're unanimous in their agreement that LSU is faster, stronger, more athletic and more physically gifted than Oklahoma. And they think LSU will win rather easily.

Posted by: Baker at December 7, 2003 04:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, your point about late loses being underrated by the computers is interesting and perhaps worth some consideration. But looking at the three teams' schedules AS A WHOLE, U of O has the toughest schedule, and by a fair margin. Whatever extra meaning late loses should perhaps have, it seems insane to suggest they should overcome the schedule difference here. (schedule toughness rank: 11 UO, 29 LSU, 37 USC). USC and LSU are close enough that it's really debatable, and I suspect USC is probably better, but I simply don't see how you can get past the schedule USC played. There are a lot of strange problems with the BCS system, but it's clearly correct about UO being #1. While there is a lot to be debated about the importance placed on schedule strength, I have not heard much by way of criticism of the way the BCS calculates schedule strength. To convince me the BCS is wrong, you'd have to show me what's wrong with the calculations here.

FWIW, based on my subjective observations, I suspect USC is the top team in the country. But I strongly feel the rankings ought to be empirical, given the utter fallibility of subjective rankings, especially amongst groupthink inclined folks like sportswriters.

Posted by: DJW at December 7, 2003 04:25 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

The philosophical questions posed by a late season loss could amount to a dissertation but, what the hell, what's wrong with deciding in a playoff on the field.

Each BCS Conference has 1 automatic bid, to be determined as they desire. PAC-10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC. That's 5. 3 at large, determined by BCS formula.

7 Bowls, rotating games, favor tradition when possible.

Just like now right, except decided on the field.

This is too obvious. What stops it? That is the mystery of the Decade for me because the MONEY, which is all they care about, would be huge.

Before you start telling me how it will kill the Bowl system, explain to me how the lesser bowls survive now? They have no impact on the national championship? They already stand on their own merits?

Posted by: Armando at December 7, 2003 04:29 PM | PERMALINK

As a Michigan alum, I thank the BCS for creating this best of all possible worlds. Now the Rose Bowl means something.

Posted by: Ted H. at December 7, 2003 04:30 PM | PERMALINK

"But if cleaning up college football is something that we see as desireable, and I think we should, you should not go around rewarding such colossal failure. LSU deserves its chance to go. Oklahoma does not."

If cleaning up college football is something that we should see as desireable, and I think we should, debates about how to decide the national championship rank *way* down the priority list.

That said, the world is as it should be: the Big 10 and Pac 10 champions are meeting in Pasadena. Having anything else happen *would* be evidence that something is wrong.

Posted by: J. Michael Neal at December 7, 2003 04:31 PM | PERMALINK

"As a Michigan alum, I thank the BCS for creating this best of all possible worlds. Now the Rose Bowl means something."

Yeah, well, as a Michigan fan, you should still be thinking Asad Abdul-Khaliq for one horrible pass that made it possible.

Posted by: J. Michael Neal at December 7, 2003 04:34 PM | PERMALINK

That should be "thanking" not "thinking".

Posted by: J. Michael Neal at December 7, 2003 04:35 PM | PERMALINK

GaryL-
"Michigan will expose USC for the overrated all offense, no defense Pac 10 pansies that they are."
9/2/03 Oregon 31 Michigan 27

And by the way, its the PAC 9, no dogs allowed.

Posted by: BOHICA at December 7, 2003 04:45 PM | PERMALINK

I'll make this quick, USC DOES NOT deserve to play in the national championship game. By far they suffered the worst loss to a that at the time of the loss was 2-3. LSU on the other hand lost to a very good Florida team and the Sooners lost to a dangerous K-State team. To me, late losses dont matter, bad losses do.

Posted by: Eric at December 7, 2003 04:48 PM | PERMALINK

Did Diebold write the software?
AB

Posted by: Angry Bear at December 7, 2003 04:57 PM | PERMALINK

Someone was gonna get screwed, period.

Posted by: PSoTD at December 7, 2003 04:59 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think you can say any team is any better based on who they lost to. I think you have to look at domination, and USC and OK have been more dominant during most of the season than LSU. I think even accounting for strength of schedule, you have to say USC has been more dominant than LSU.

Posted by: Reg at December 7, 2003 05:00 PM | PERMALINK

J. Michael Neal, shouldn't you be thanking the 11 unranked teams on your schedule for sucking balls. It's one thing that you lost to a crappy California team. It's another thing to realize that California was the 2nd best team you played all year.

BOHICA, Oregon was 5-1 at Autzen, famous for its intimidating crowd (and Iowa was 6-0 at home as well). What was California's home record? (I think it was 3-3, but I could be wrong).

The fact is, we can show that Iowa and Oregon were aberrations because we can point to Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan State, and Purdue. Quality victories in a competitive schedule.

USC? Well maybe they just really blew it in Berekley and are otherwise the best team in the country. Or maybe they would have gone 8-4 with Michigan's clearly more difficult schedule. We can't possibly know the answer, but pointing to Oregon is just silly.

Kevin, you're a student of history. When was the last time USC "kicked ass" against Michigan in the Rose Bowl. There's only been one blowout in our 7 game history, and Michigan won that game. The other 6 were decided by less than 10 points, 2 of them were decided by contraversial calls made by PAC-10 refs that football historians almost unanimously agree were the wrong call (the 2nd of which led to the use of neutral officials by the Rose Bowl from then on). A third game, decided by a Touchdown, was on the heels of our coach having a heart attack. The one thing history tells us, is this game is going to be close.

Posted by: Justin at December 7, 2003 05:02 PM | PERMALINK

BOHICA, and apparently, with 2 teams in the top 25, and only a third receiving votes, it's the PAC 3, at best. Too bad you guys didn't play Oregon.

Posted by: Justin at December 7, 2003 05:04 PM | PERMALINK

Justin, in any of those Rose Bowls did USC play for a national title? And with a chip on their shoulder?

The whole "the team my team lost to is better than the team your team lost to" game is ridiculous. Bottom line is USC dominated in every one of its victories. So did OU. I didn't follow LSU, so I know about them. But Justin, you are seriously hair splitting.

Auburn was supposed to be good. Same for ND. Wazzu was ranked 5th (or 6th) when USC embarassed them. USC embarassed their opponents in all their wins. They tried to put together a good schedule, but it didn't pan out. The days of Nebraska beating up on the likes of Univ. of Pacific are gone.

Bottom line is you have to just sit back and admit USC got screwed. It would've been the same thing if it happend to OU or LSU.

Posted by: G Spot1 at December 7, 2003 05:20 PM | PERMALINK

This is going to be the best Rose Bowl since the last time Wisconsin was there kicking ass.

Posted by: 16 at December 7, 2003 05:29 PM | PERMALINK

Go Blue!

That said, it's kinda' hard to understand the fuss about a bunch of 18, 19 & 20 year olds playing ball for free on Saturday afternoons.

(And yes, the BCS sucks rocks.)

Posted by: def rimjob at December 7, 2003 05:33 PM | PERMALINK

Who Knew? - that elections could be rigged.

Posted by: Bartolo at December 7, 2003 05:33 PM | PERMALINK

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

GSpot.... nobody here argued that USC intentionally had a weak ass schedule, but it was still a weak ass schedule. Auburn was supposed to be good??? How on earth is the fact that they turned out to suck make your victory impressive? You rolled over California? Really? You rolled over Oregon State, but you gave up over 500 yards of offense and Oregon State absolutely sucks.

It's unfortunate that USC's schedule turned out to be a cakeewalk, but punishing Oklahoma or LSU for actually playing quality teams isn't the answer. You're schedule was a cakewalk, and yet you lost to the second toughest team you played, and the fourth toughest team you played didn't even crack the top 40 in most computer polls. Going 3-1 against teams ranked #21, #31, and #34 and #38 (using Sagarin) should hardly by the ticket that punches you off to the Sugar Bowl. (Sidenote: Michigan played #6, #12, #15, #26, #27, #32, and went 4-2).

And both teams played Notre Dame, and we both killed Notre Dame. The only difference is, that was our 8th toughest opponent, and your 5th.

Posted by: Justin at December 7, 2003 05:41 PM | PERMALINK

Like art, sport mimics life. And so it should be uncertain, ambiguous, violent, disappointing to most and perhaps in the end, meaningless. But above all it should always resist our attempts to make it orderly and predictable. And so I just love college football, just like it is. May it never change. Oops, of course it will, always. Well, maybe not always, but for a long time, I hope.

Go Gators!

Posted by: chad at December 7, 2003 05:42 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. The first set of stats were off a post by the Andersen&Hester computer polls. The second set with the #s included are from Sagarin.

Posted by: Justin at December 7, 2003 05:42 PM | PERMALINK

Here's my issue - if you can't win your conference, you SHOULDN'T BE PLAYING FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. If you aren't the best team in your conference, how can you be the best team in the nation?

All other considerations aside, this is like putting the loser in the NFC Championship up against the winner from the AFC.

Posted by: jesse at December 7, 2003 05:47 PM | PERMALINK

Justin, in any of those Rose Bowls did USC play for a national title?

1/1/79. USC 17, Michigan 10. The margin of victory was a touchdown that the officials gave even though Charles White fumbled before he crossed the goal line.

Penn State was #1 going into the bowls, but lost to Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. SC and Bama split the title.

Posted by: Thlayli at December 7, 2003 05:47 PM | PERMALINK

The system is set up to prevent an error from the past.

BYU was the only unbeaten team, and ranked #1. They were CLEARLY not the best team in the country, but won the championship anyway.

Perhaps not a perfect parallel, but being #1 at season's end isn't everything.

Posted by: Mark-NC at December 7, 2003 05:48 PM | PERMALINK

I am realy excited about the return to tradition that the 2004 Rose Bowl will be.

If USC wins, the will get a national title trophy for the case. If they lose (GO BLUE!!), all the agrument is mute. Coach Carroll said it best, USC will be playing a great Michigan team for the national championship. Remember those "mythical" ones!! They're back!

Michigan special teams had 2 implosions in the Oregon (4 points) and Iowa (3 points) road losses.
I still have nightmares knowing that an undefeated regular season was right there without those disaters.

Let the hype begin and may Jim Hermann (UM Def Coordinator) figure out a way to slow down USC's high octain offense.

Posted by: MaiznBlue at December 7, 2003 05:51 PM | PERMALINK

No Jesse, it more like a Wild Card winning the World Series. Something that hasn't happened for almost three months!

Posted by: Rob at December 7, 2003 05:54 PM | PERMALINK

OT -- WTF has become of Billmon's site (www.billmon.org)?

Posted by: Frederick at December 7, 2003 05:56 PM | PERMALINK

i understand why people enjoy college football, but i'll take the nfl any day. the thing that makes sports interesting is that you don't just guess and theorize about who is better than who. you have them compete against each other and see who wins. i can guess and theorize that the ravens are the best team in the nfl all i want, but at some point my hypothesis will be tested (and confirmed, obviously).

ps: rush would have been fine doing college football, since it's all just guesswork and half-baked opinion.

Posted by: Olaf, glad and big at December 7, 2003 05:57 PM | PERMALINK

Some people see things as they are, and ask, "Why"? Others see things as they might be, and ask, "Why the f**k not"?

Playoff System: 8 Teams; 3 Games; 3 Weekends; Championship Game Scheduled To Fall On The Saturday Before The Superbowl.

Posted by: Sovereign Eye at December 7, 2003 06:06 PM | PERMALINK

The BCS system is abominable. The number of teams who can play into the national title needs to be increased or the whole system needs to be scrapped.

The computer ratings system also needs to be overhauled or scrapped. The computer ratings have a veneer of objectivity, but they may actually be more subjective than the polls. The pre-season power ratings, which are totally subjective, seem to have a great deal of influence on the computers. The Big 12 was expected to be good, so they received high power ratings. In reality the conference was 5-8 against major conference opponents and they only had 2 wins against non-conference bowl teams (Mississippi and UCLA.) The MAC's top 6 teams was 7-5 against major conference opponents and beat 6 bowl teams. So who is really better, Oklahoma or Miami of Ohio?

Posted by: KeithH at December 7, 2003 06:52 PM | PERMALINK

As I point out here, the BCS's reliance on computer models that override human judges is like computer dating without pictures.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at December 7, 2003 06:56 PM | PERMALINK

Games played late in the season matter more because more is at stake. Think about it. If a BigSpenderU is 9-0 late in the season its next game simply matters more to both BigSpenderU and its opponent than if BigSpenderU is 5-4. More people show up, ratings are higher and the alumni go crazy.

And upsets are very satisfying, which is on everyone's mind. When any team is preparing for a highly rated team they work harder because to beat such a team takes a lot of sting out of earlier losses. Kansas State will get over their early loss to Marshall. Why? Because they beat the crap out of the #1 team in the country in a must-win (should-have-won?) game.

And avoiding an upset is important as well. LSU will find its victory over Georgia satisfying because it had the immediate benefit of sending them to the national title game.

For highly rated teams, late games matter more and they matter more to everyone involved. So the coaches, media and fans are correct in placing a higher value on these games. The question is how to quantify it.

--Dan

Posted by: uscpundit at December 7, 2003 07:03 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Blue fans. SC is going to wallop Michigan. And I'm from UCLA. I thought SC last year would have beaten either OSU or Miami, particularly since they matured late in season and were deadly by December.

Once you get used to idea that BCS is bogus, then its cool that USC and Michigan are playing in Rose Bowl. Who cares about LSU v. Oklahoma.

Time to dump the mercenary BCS system (which is simply a device for big bowls to divide spoils and kill competition with one another) and institute a limited playoff -- three rounds and 8 teams sounds ideal. Heck. 4 teams and two rounds is also great -- you can divide that amongst three bowls (one gets a bye game every fourth year) and still keep original purpose of BCS, which was to give exclusive territories like an illegal monopoly and divide bowl spoils.

Posted by: DMBeaster at December 7, 2003 07:04 PM | PERMALINK

I've been under the impression for some time that Mel Kiper, Jr. was some sort of cyborg, so it comes as no surprise that computers now rule college football.

Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at December 7, 2003 07:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hail to the victors valiant
Hail to the conquering heroes
Hail, hail, to Michigan
The champions of the WEST

Posted by: Steve Cohen at December 7, 2003 07:20 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.mgoblue.com/sounds/victors.wav

Posted by: def rimjob at December 7, 2003 07:47 PM | PERMALINK

No Jesse, it more like a Wild Card winning the World Series. Something that hasn't happened for almost three months!

No, it's not. You already lost your playoff "series". It would be like putting the Cubs in the Series in October...because.

Posted by: jesse at December 7, 2003 07:54 PM | PERMALINK

USC was the best team last year. Anybody recall the demolition job on Iowa? It's the best team this year. They lost to a conference opponent?that hates them big time?in three overtimes. Conference games are different. How in the world can a team that lost its conference championship game by 35-7 be considered a championship contender? K-State should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma. They're better.

The BCS is bogus and the Pac 10 should leave it. USC and Michigan in the Rose Bowl? Doesn't get any better than that. There's your national championship game.

Love the controversy. BSC is now totally discredited.

Posted by: caldude at December 7, 2003 07:56 PM | PERMALINK

caldude (& someone else, I'm too lazy to check), I agree that the Trojans would have beaten anyone at the end of last season. I'm not so sure this time, but they'll have to beat a very good team to stake their claim. And anyone who thinks they can "blow out" Michigan is trash-talking or just plain nuts. The game should be close, and none of us actually know who's going to win. If someone can prove to me that they called a KSU blowout of OU last night, I'll start listening--but I'll still think you got lucky.

Posted by: robert young at December 7, 2003 08:11 PM | PERMALINK

You've got a #1 vs #4 matchup, and a #2 vs #3 matchup. To me, that looks like the semi-finals of a playoff series.

So, if someone were quickly to arrange a Rose Bowl winner vs. Sugar Bowl winner game to be played in the gap week before the Superbowl, then I suspect he or she would have two teams prepared to play, and tens of thousands of fans prepared to buy tickets. Not to mention a few TV networks competing to show it.

So, who is that someone?

Posted by: ahem at December 7, 2003 08:15 PM | PERMALINK

Toughness of schedule is far more important than timing of loss.

Wherever the competing teams have comparable schedules, almost everybody prefers to just go by record & pay no attention to timing. Major league baseball, for instance, could introduce a formula by which games later in the season were more heavily weighted than earlier games -- so that a 99-63 team that's been hot in the second half would beat out a 100-62 team that was hot in May. But nobody wants to get into any of that: Just let the team with the better record get in. Timing just isn't that important.

The reason (or at least the main reason) we don't just go for the best records in NCAA sports is *not* worries about timing ("Wait! If we just go with the best record, we won't be weighing later games more heavily than earlier games! The horror!") Rather, it's silly to just go by best record because the various teams don't play comparable schedules, making the the procedure unfair to the teams that play tougher schedules.

All of which supports the hopefully by now evident truth that: Toughness of schedule is far more important than timing of loss.

Posted by: Keith at December 7, 2003 08:59 PM | PERMALINK

Jesse, that analogy fails. It's more like you instituting a new rule that the regular season champion of the West division gets a bye from the first round of the playoffs but the regular season champion of the South has to play a wild card game no matter what.

You can't punish the Big 12 and the SEC for having a championship game if the other 4 (3) BCS conferences don't have them. After all, nobody here is arguing that K State, with 2 or 3 conference losses, should be thrown into the Sugar Bowl or anything.

Caldude, one could ask how USC could lose to Cal. You're putting way too much emphasis in this week and not looking it over the whole season (this and the failure of humans to understand strength of schedule is why the computer polls are at least somewhat useful).

Dan, that's an unfair advantage for teams like USC who played virtually nobody late. It's PARTICULARLY not fair to the Big 12 and the SEC, again. If you want to quantify late games being important....HAVE A PLAYOFF.

Steve, def...hell yea :)

Posted by: Justin at December 7, 2003 09:05 PM | PERMALINK

"J. Michael Neal, shouldn't you be thanking the 11 unranked teams on your schedule for sucking balls. It's one thing that you lost to a crappy California team. It's another thing to realize that California was the 2nd best team you played all year."

That's funny. My Gophers didn't play California this year.

Posted by: J. Michael Neal at December 7, 2003 09:15 PM | PERMALINK

While we're griping about football procedure (and I don't know if anyone, perchance, already mentioned this above), I have to chime in on instant replay -- as the Falcons/Panthers game comes to a close.

I'm awfully tired of good plays getting reversed by instant replay.

I'm of the opinion that a great athletic play, if it's close enough for review, ought to be ruled in favor of the guy making the play. If it's THAT close, give the guy the benefit for a great play.

That is all.

Posted by: Miles at December 7, 2003 09:19 PM | PERMALINK

Hail to the Victors!

Kevin, I'm going to have to begin foraging for enough dead crows to bake you a pie. Would you prefer via mail or hand-delivered?

Posted by: Stefan Keydel at December 7, 2003 09:23 PM | PERMALINK

I think there's no possible way to resolve this argument satisfactorily, which is exactly why the whole BCS system is horrible. Why don't they have a play-off again?

Posted by: John at December 7, 2003 09:28 PM | PERMALINK

miles is right about instant replay, and bad officiating in general, except for one important point. if it works out to the advantage of the baltimore ravens, it's all good.

Posted by: Olaf, glad and big at December 7, 2003 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin >"...Once you look at this from the point of view of entertainment, not sports, it all starts to make sense..."

Bingo !

that is what all sports are about these days; ENTERTAINMENT & $$$$$$$, not competition

as far as LSU vs Oklahoma goes I`d watch the officals very close because that will be where the game is lost or won

it IS about time the Rose Bowl got some respect back...Yea !

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner (Georgia State University)

Posted by: daCascadian at December 7, 2003 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Can we now move away from football controversies? (just to remind that if USC loses to Michigan, there is no controversy anyway. Can't people wait till then to whine?). Anyway, it is basket-ball season, and speaking of Michigan, they are also playing a LA team, UCLA, on Dec. 27.

Posted by: cedichou at December 7, 2003 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

GO BLUE!

Posted by: Dano at December 7, 2003 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting discussion by most everybody. What everyone seems to be forgetting are that there are clearly 4 very good teams at the top (Michigan is clearly the best 2-loss team in the country). After that, there's a pretty big step to the second tier which includes a good 20-25 teams. On any given day, those teams can beat one another. Ohio State (they aren't pretty but they win), Texas, Tennessee maybe nearer the top. Teams like Purdue, Kansas State, and Georgia in the middle and then teams like Florida, Ole Miss, Oklahoma State, Nebraska closer to the bottom of that grouping.

Comparing losses to somewhat similar teams is fruitless depending on matchups, injuries, and often luck. That being said, Cal is the worst team of the KState, Florida, Cal grouping, but Oklahoma suffered the worse loss of the three teams (for a conference championship, the DB's were embarassed by a QB that isn't exactly known for throwing the ball 40 times a game). LSU shouldn't brag too much either. That Florida game was at home and they scored a grand total of 7 points on a team that sucks against the run. Nevertheless comparing these games is fruitless. The teams are relatively close.

So what should the criteria be? Obviously a playoff system is most fair. But that's not happening. The computers are horrible. The New York Times computer should just be put out of its misery. The rest aren't much better especially when removing margin of victory. The polls aren't awful, but obviously there's a bias (yes, it's too pro Big Ten and SEC). The coaches are a great idea except guess what? They don't watch the games (they're coaching--I know they watch film, but as a coach, I don't believe that's the same). They just hear about scores and catch what they can when they can. Half the time they don't fill their own ballot out.

So you're left with a very bad system for a very wonderful game. Some team had to get screwed, but USC got screwed less than any other team would have. All three teams have a shot to win a national title (share or whole thing). If USC was in the title game that probably would not have been the case. With this sytem, this was probably the fairest outcome.

On a side note, the games most people probably looked at in judging OU's invulnerability (two days ago people were proclaiming this one of the best teams ever) were its wins over Texas (65-13) and Texas A&M (77-0). The win over an albeit poor A&M team (they have a name unlike say Rutgers) was in my opinion the most shocking result of the season in terms of the score. Stoops just flat out owns Texas, but the fact is he has enough athletes to match up with a team that has never played to its abilities (even when they win). In summary Texas isn't all that. These wins completely altered everyone's perceptions of Oklahoma.

Posted by: Double B at December 8, 2003 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Playoff System: 8 Teams; 3 Games; 3 Weekends; Championship Game Scheduled To Fall On The Saturday Before The Superbowl.

Am I the only one that thinks determining a national champion is the last thing college athletics needs?

We want a REAL national champion!

Why? Why?

HJow does this relate to the mission of the colleges and universities?

WHY?

Anyhow, Go Bucky!

Posted by: 16 at December 8, 2003 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry the Trojans got screwed, but Michigan is going to whip their butts. Despite 2 losses, Michigan is the strongest team in the country right now.

Posted by: Doug at December 8, 2003 03:54 AM | PERMALINK

--Jesse, that analogy fails. It's more like you instituting a new rule that the regular season champion of the West division gets a bye from the first round of the playoffs but the regular season champion of the South has to play a wild card game no matter what.

You can't punish the Big 12 and the SEC for having a championship game if the other 4 (3) BCS conferences don't have them. After all, nobody here is arguing that K State, with 2 or 3 conference losses, should be thrown into the Sugar Bowl or anything.--

The problem is, the other BCS conferences still crown a champ. If someone else has a rightful claim that they are the best team in your conference, and they beat you head to head, then you should not be put into the national championship game, which is chosen. The problem the BCS had was that it had six conference champs and two at-large teams, one of whom had already lost their conference in that conference's title game. I wouldn't recommend putting Ohio State in the title game - they lost their conference.

Otherwise, what's the point of automatic conference champ bids? Why privilege conference champs if being the best team in your conference doesn't mean anything?

Posted by: jesse at December 8, 2003 04:03 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmm...this stuff about sports played by other people must be a straight-acting thing. I can't imagine a gay guy concerning himself with worrying about things like this.

Straight-acting: eating chips and swilling beer while watching other people play sports.

Posted by: raj at December 8, 2003 05:02 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin - please explain to me how you are behaving any differently than Gearge Bush. You ask Michigan to beat Ohio State and they do exactly as you request. Now you expect them to lay down as per Max Cleland. That's a bunch of BCS, Kevin, and I have just two words and an initial in response: M Go Blue.

Posted by: LowLife at December 8, 2003 06:06 AM | PERMALINK

They lost to a conference opponent—that hates them big time—in three overtimes

That's true, we do hate them big-time, but if I was the Commissioner of the Pac-10 I'd be sending out the letter this morning. From now on, the Pac-10 champ plays in the Rose Bowl. Screw your computer geeks who read the entrails of the Notre Dame-Syracuse match-up. The Rose Bowl served the Pac-10 well for about 100 years and it should do fine for another century or so.

Those who think the Pac-10 is such a lousy conference might want to look at some of the big recent bowl games.

Number two ranked Oregon was shunned by the computers in 2000, so a Nebraska team, who had also just been mauled in their conference championship game by Colorado, could go to the "national title" game. Oregon beat the hell out of Colorado while Nebraska was losing a laugher to Miami. So much for your vaunted Big-12. Oregon clobbered Texas in a bowl game the year before. USC slaughtered a highly touted Iowa team last year in the Sugar Bowl.

Oklahoma was exposed this week-end. They didn't just lose, like in triple overtime on the road, they were embarassed. And before anyone starts screaming that Cal was a "crappy" team, don't forget K State lost to Marshall.

Oklahoma doesn't deserve to be in the "national championship" game and they aren't. They're in the BCS Championship game. They will be beaten by a very good LSU team who should be playing USC for the real national championship. The Big-12 is about to go down in flames again, big-time. You don't go into a championship game coming off a four touchdown loss on a neutral field to a 15th ranked team. Blow Sooners!

Posted by: Pug at December 8, 2003 06:25 AM | PERMALINK

Michigan was playing great at the end of the season. However, after a 6 week lay-off, who knows how sharp they will be on 1-1-04.

I guess that is why they play the games!

Back to the conference champions in the major bowls (and 1 or 2 at large) and 1 more game for the top 2 teams left standing, a college Super Bowl. There will still be some bitching from that #3 team, but this bowl game quasi playoff would really help make the top 2 teams a bit more clear and maintain the loyalty to the bowls.

Go Blue!!!!!! Yes, It's Great to be a Michingan Wolverine!

Posted by: MaiznBlue at December 8, 2003 06:53 AM | PERMALINK

This is last years results, but the Big-10 sent 7 teams to bowl games and won 5 of those, the Big-12 sent 8 teams to bowl games and won 5 of those, the Pac-10 sent 7 teams to bowl games and won 2 of those. And for you SEC fans, 7 teams sent, 3 games won.

I never understand why people think the heartland teams are over-rated.

I do, however, sympathize with Lizette. While I enjoy the stunning upset of OU by my beloved K-State it did kind of hang Texas out in the breeze.

Posted by: Ron at December 8, 2003 07:12 AM | PERMALINK

The team that's really getting screwed is Miami. Not the Hurricanes; the Redhawks. That Marshall team that beat K-State in Manhattan? Miami pummeled them 45-6. Two wins over a very good Bowling Green.

That's one very good team playing in the GMAC Bowl.

Posted by: J. Michael Neal at December 8, 2003 07:33 AM | PERMALINK

I'm amused by the PAC-10 defenders. If they can't see how pathetic the PAC-10 is THIS year, and how they're generally the 4th best conference in the Country (behind the Big 10, Big 12, and SEC), then I just can't help any of you. Pug can point out to one good team every couple of years. Congrads. One team does not a conference make. So nobody here is saying that USC flat out stinks. They're just saying the combined teams that USC played (they didn't play "great at Autzen but can't play on the road Oregon") SUCKED. And that's true. From top to bottom this year, no conference, not even the Big East, is worse. Cal, who couldn't sniff the top 25 if it had a scrach-and-sniff USA today, finished 3rd in the conference. 3rd! Stanford, Washingotn State, Washington, Arizona, Arizona State, "road" Oregon, California, Fresno State, and depending whether you look at 59-24 to what's apparently an "overrated" Oklahoma a demolition, UCLA, either lost to a team from a non-BCS conference (I'm calling out Washington State's and Stanford's losses to Notre Dame) or got DEMOLISHED in a non-conference game.

That's 9 for 10, for those keeping score.

Posted by: Justin at December 8, 2003 08:31 AM | PERMALINK

In the absence of a rational playoff system -- Armando's is probably the best version -- the Mythical National Championship is always going to be "mythical" unless you get lucky, as the BCS has been until this year , or, more precisely, until last Saturday night. Now we're back to the way it has always been, with a couple of legitimate claimants to the mythical title and endless media and barstool controversy. And what's wrong with that?
Now I'll be watching both the Rose and Sugar Bowls avidly instead of awaiting the Sooners' coronation. Twice the beer and nachos. Twice the arguments. Twice the fun. That scream in the background is from my wife, but I get another respite from furniture shopping.
I have no rooting interest, so let's see some great football!

Posted by: C.J.Colucci at December 8, 2003 08:46 AM | PERMALINK

C.J. It's still mythical even if its unaninimous, because it's not awarded by the NCAA and it's not proven on the field. It's "mythical" because it's some outside, unofficial observer saying "Hey, that team, I like that team."

Posted by: Justin at December 8, 2003 08:56 AM | PERMALINK

hey, it could be worse. your team could have lost to duke at home for the final game of the season. like certain teams i know...

Posted by: unc student at December 8, 2003 09:12 AM | PERMALINK

must...kill...ny times poll. it's practically insane, a virtual kangaroo poll.

"On Oct. 11, Oklahoma beat Texas 65-13.

Oklahoma finished 12-1. Texas finished 10-2.

This morning's New York Times computer rankings, a component of the BCS rankings, has Texas fourth and Oklahoma fifth. "

Posted by: nova silverpill at December 8, 2003 09:35 AM | PERMALINK

without agreeing with BCS i do have problem with " these human " coaches and sportswriters " experts " . they behave more like a herd of sheep . ever seen a team losing rank because they barely managed to win where , if ranking were correct , they should have kicked ass ? i recall a couple of years ago maryland was ranked number 5 ( when they should have been some where between 15-20 ) by these " experts " only to get it's ass kicked by florida ( ? ). i can go on and on .

Posted by: badri at December 8, 2003 09:44 AM | PERMALINK

if usc does kick michigans butt, then you can brag. until that happens, they have beaten NOBODY this year.

Posted by: tim at December 8, 2003 09:59 AM | PERMALINK

I think this is a case of the polls getting it wrong, and the BCS as a whole getting it right. I've been saying for weeks that assuming LSU won out, it should be them and OU in the Sugar Bowl. It's exactly right that OU is a victim of a late loss with the poll results, one of the very things the BCS is set up to prevent. USC lost to Cal, and beat practically nobody during the season. They didn't even have to play a Conference championship game, let alone play a good team in one.

Oklahoma, with their one loss (same as USC and LSU), is still obviously the best team in the country, and LSU earned the right to play for the championship *way* more than USC did. So blame the humans for "blowing" this, and thank the computers for giving the most deserving teams the championship game. The real travesty will be if the Sugar Bowl winner isn't given the outright title.

Posted by: Justin at December 8, 2003 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

As a measure of the strength of the PAC10 we will see how Cal does against my Hokies in the Insight.com Bowl. If VT works over the Bears then I will have a little less respect for how good USC is. With a bunch of one loss teams how do you decide? The BCS is one way of deciding. How did the two polls become gospel for so many? They seem to operate mostly on number of losses then the perception of the significance of those losses. Sounds as flawed as the BCS to me.

Posted by: gooey at December 8, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Most of you are missing the point -- neither humans nor computers can reliably pick the best team in the country. That's something that can only be decided on the field, not by a vote or by some arcane computer data.

Hopefully this latest mess will help blow the BCS into a thousand pieces and eventually lead to some kind of a real playoff, just like you'll find in every other sport.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at December 8, 2003 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Amen CJ.................

Rose and Sugar, 2 games "championship games" equals twice the beer, food and fravolity!!!!!

Go Blue!

Posted by: MaiznBlue at December 8, 2003 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

As a Blue fan and alum, I have to say that I'm glad for this Rose Bowl matchup. Exactly how it should be - Pac-10 vs. Big 10.

I'm a little less certain of a Michigan victory, because I do think the University of Spoiled Children has a quality team. I am, however, glad to see that virtually all of the pressure is on SC. No one is saying a thing about Michigan, since the best U-M will be able to do is split the national championship, and even that will take some help. Michigan does much better in games in which the team is not being hyped.

Posted by: Linnaeus at December 8, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

I just want to point out there are now two Justins. Although we don't really disagree here, one of us needs to change our handle.

P.S. I'm the one whose email address is "none@none.com" (which is, of course, fake)

Posted by: Justin at December 8, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Justin,

I never tried to make the argument that this was a strong year for the Pac-10. It wasn't. You list (with a sneer)teams like Oregon, California, Arizona State and UCLA that Southern Cal played.

Have you looked at LSU's schedule? Here's some teams from that impressive list: Louisiana-Monroe, Arizona (also beaten by USC), Western Illinois, Mississippi State, Auburn (also beaten by USC), Louisiana Tech, Alabama (who was 4-8 this year) and South Carolina.

Is this supposed to be an impressive schedule? That doesn't mean LSU is not a very good football team, they are. It hardly supports your statement that "LSU earned the right to play for the championship *way* more than USC did".

How so? Do victories over Arkansas, Georgia and Ole Miss, on a missed field goal, combined with a loss to a pretty mediocre Florida team add up to some kind of killer schedule in your mind?

True, Georgia was 5th ranked. So was Washington State when they played USC. Big deal. Arkansas is pretty good, but not that great. Ole Miss missed tying LSU by about three feet on a field goal attempt.

Again, I think LSU is a very, very good football team this year. But if they deserve to be there "way more" than USC, then why did the computer honks figure they were .2 better?

As for your statement that "Oklahoma, with their one loss (same as USC and LSU), is still obviously the best team in the country. . ", well, perhaps you should watch the tape of Saturday night's game again. There really isn't much more to say about that.

I think if there is a national championship game it's LSU vs. USC. The way it is now, there will be two national championship games, and if USC wins it will be interesting to see if the coaches actually vote the BSC winner number one. I know it won't be unanimous like it is supposed to be.

Posted by: Pug at December 8, 2003 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Pug, the fact is that LSU's schedule, while certainly not the toughest in the nation, is clearly tougher than USC's. They played #12 Georgia twice, #24 Florida, #20 Arkansas, and #23 Mississippi. That's 5 games against the Top 25 versus USC's 1.

As for your second comment, I didn't say that. As I mentioned above, there are two Justins. While I agree with him in the sense that Oklahoma's overall 14 games are more impressive than USC's or LSU's set of games, I disagree with him that this can be solved through the "straight face" test by itself.

But for the sake of argument, let's look at Oklahoma. Their games against the top 25 are:

#5 Texas (an absolute blowout), #16 Kansas State, #19 Oklahoma State. That's 3 (more than USC), and to get us to #38 Cal you have to include games against #31 Texas Tech (another absolute blowout), and #32 Missouri. That's still 5 games against the top 38 versus USC's 2, and OU went 4-1 in those games versus USC's 1-1.

http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

All rankings come from Anderson and Hester, fwiw.

Posted by: Justin at December 8, 2003 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

When #4 ranked UofM hands #1 ranked USC it's ass, regardless of what the two other teams do (Okla v. LSU) then Michigan is #1. Period.

Snickering as I recall the 1992 Freedom Bowl IX game, held in the rain at Anaheim Stadium where Fresno State blew USC out of the park 24-7... ugly, but stunning. It cost the USC coach his job too.

Go BLUE!

Posted by: CadillaqJaq at December 8, 2003 02:29 PM | PERMALINK

This is just another example of the East Coast media bias against the West Coast. This isn't a grand conspiracy, but rather the result of one simple fact: sports writers in the East don't regularly watch Pac-10 & WAC games. They are unfamiliar with the players and largely ignorant of conference dynamics. This is constantly seen in the various polls factored into the BCS system.

What happened to USC is a replay of the travesty Oregon experienced two years ago. To refresh your minds, Oregon lost the chance to play Miami in the national championship to a Nebraska team that had been blown out in the Big-12 playoffs by Colorado. The Ducks proceeded to demolish Colorado, while Miami disrobed the fraudulent Cornhuskers. Because of the ludicrous BCS system, we'll never know how Oregon would have done against Miami. The only people happy with that result were the folks in Lincoln, NE.

Posted by: Quack Attack at December 8, 2003 02:44 PM | PERMALINK

Feh. There's only one Big Ten football team I despise more than the my-shit-don't-stink-while-you're-a-bunch-of-racist-losers-and-did-we-mention-that-we're-better-than-Harvard craphole known as that blue university in Ann Arbor. That would be the Buckeyes.

Fight On, Trojans. Your band knows more songs than theirs, too.

And if you can't beat Oregon when they didn't have their Lightning Yellow on, what makes you think you'll do better against a superior Pac-10 team?

Posted by: Dr. Squid at December 8, 2003 03:11 PM | PERMALINK

Have to correct QuackAttack, but only slightly. Colorado blew out Nebraska to keep tham from even getting to the Big12 title game. So that's right, it was the number 3 team in the Big 12 got to play in that fraud of a game against Miami.

Posted by: Dr. Squid at December 8, 2003 03:15 PM | PERMALINK

Dr. Squid: I guess I can say two things to that...1) A trip to the bathroom just disabused me of any notion of believing what you think I believe about my waste products and 2) At least the Big Ten team you despise more is the Buckeyes. We can agree on that one.

Posted by: Linnaeus at December 8, 2003 04:08 PM | PERMALINK

Quack, are you nuts? The computer polls, not the human ones, is what doomed USC. How this can be east coast bias is beyond me.

Posted by: Justin at December 8, 2003 06:21 PM | PERMALINK

Here's my issue - if you can't win your conference, you SHOULDN'T BE PLAYING FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. If you aren't the best team in your conference, how can you be the best team in the nation?

It used to be a truism in pro ball than any team could beat any other team on any given Sunday. It's odd that I don't seem to hear that more.

In my view, the discrepancy between the BCS rankings and the 'human' rankings simply validate that humans are way more subjective. As an OU alum and fan I was embarassed and humiliated by what happened in KC. I couldn't understand what on earth was happening. Since I live on the West Coast, this was the first time I got to watch them play this season. After the game I talked to my sister, who still lives in OK and has watched them a bunch this year. Now she's and alum of Oklahoma State and so no Sooner fan, but she said that what she saw on the field that night did not look like the same team she'd seen all season. It was like a bunch of different players with the same names.

So anybody can have an off day, yes? What's more important: an off day late in the season or an entire season of dominating football? The human polls are too subjective in their emphasis on what happened last. I think the whole season should count more than the most recent performance.

But then, I'm a Sooner fan.

MKK

Posted by: Mary Kay at December 9, 2003 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Foot Cravings - Gay Super Cocks - Interracial Sex Fest - Club Titties - Perfect Orgy - Bushless - Taboo Insertions - Bimbo Wives - Pom Pom Porno - Street Strippers - Cigarette Sluts - Xxx Reality TV - Blow Queen - Ex Sluts - Anal Bliss - Zebra Sex

Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 21, 2004 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

gangbangsquad galleries gangbang squad galleries gangbang squad images gangbang squad movie clips gangbang squad movie gallery gangbangsquad movies gangbang squad movies gangbang squad movie sample gangbang squad mpegs gangbang squad photos gangbangsquad pics gangbang squad pics gangbangsquad pictures gangbang squad pictures gangbang squads gangbang squad trailers gangbangsqaud videos gangbang squad videos

Posted by: street blowjobs at June 30, 2004 06:35 PM | PERMALINK

gangbang squad video samples gangbang squad video trailer herfirstbigcock her first big cock her first big cock galleries her first big cock gallery her first big cock images her first big cock movie clips herfirstbigcock movies her first big cock movies

Posted by: mikes apartment at June 30, 2004 06:40 PM | PERMALINK

Best XXX Sites -
Teen Cash -
Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat -
Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders -
Oral Sex -
Anal Sex -
Group Sex -
Cum Shot -
Free Porn -
Free Sex

Posted by: Sano at August 10, 2004 03:10 AM | PERMALINK