Jump to content

USFreak

Member
  • Posts

    459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by USFreak

  1. Sorry to hear about the illness Howie.  Get well soon.  That sounds scary.

    And if you sort the Rivals rankings by Average Star Rating (an indication of quality vs. quantity). We are currently tied for #23. Miami(#7), Florida(#11) and FSU(#17) are ahead of us but we rank first among NBE teams.

    As BrotherBull said this is the important one to look at -- Avg Star ranking.

    See below:

    http://rivals100.rivals.com/TeamRank.asp?Year=2005&Type=0&Sort=6

    Or go to the site and then just click on Avg Star ranking up top.  You'll see USF listed at 23rd tied w/ Oregon and Penn State.  Bottom line -- the early guys are quality.  There isn't anybody that is going to moan about Taurus, Grothe, Anderson or DeArmas (or Benzer).  

    1  LSU 10 0 7 3 3.70 977

    2  Ohio State 14 2 6 5 3.64 1,444

    3  Georgia 15 0 9 6 3.60 1,410

    Southern Cal 10 1 4 5 3.60 981

    5  Tennessee 14 0 8 6 3.57 1,268

    6  Oklahoma 18 0 10 8 3.56 1,706

    7  Miami-FL 12 1 5 5 3.50 1,086

    Utah 2 0 1 1 3.50 131

    Texas 12 1 4 7 3.50 1,075

    10  Michigan 19 1 7 9 3.37 1,583

    11  Auburn 15 1 5 7 3.33 1,168

    Florida 9 0 3 6 3.33 634

    13  Nebraska 23 2 6 12 3.30 1,849

    14  California 17 0 6 10 3.29 1,162

    15  Arizona 22 0 7 13 3.23 1,409

    16  Virginia Tech 18 1 4 11 3.22 1,323

    17  Florida State 10 0 5 2 3.20 624

    18  Texas A&M 26 0 9 13 3.19 1,644

    19  Virginia 24 1 5 14 3.13 1,555

    20  Purdue 17 1 3 10 3.12 957

    21  UCLA 19 1 4 10 3.11 1,113

    22  Iowa 16 0 3 11 3.06 918

    23  Penn State 15 2 0 9 3.00 831

    Oregon 10 0 2 6 3.00 353

    South Florida 4 0 0 4 3.00 119

  2. ND has no need to join a conference. They get the benefits (Big East bowl tie-ins) without the costs (having to share revenue). Besides, if they wouldn't join the league when it had Miami, BC, and Va Tech there is little reason to think they would join now.

    I'll give you one reason.  To actually show up in a BCS bowl.  I can almost hear the collective whoopie! from the Irish faithful at the prospects of the Gator Bowl.

    Bottom line -- with the schedule they play and the state of their program it is highly unlikely they end up in the Top 6 (or 10)

  3. Did you watch any Penn State games this season? 14 points might be enough to meet that requirement.

    Yes, the lack of focus/improvement on defense this season was upsetting. But at this point I'm going to file it under "aberration" given our history in that area, the general youth of the unit, and the fact that our recent good recruiting classes are going to start maturing here soon.

    If we're halfway through next season and our defenders are still taking bad angles and arm-tackling, then I'll start worrying. But our staff is proven, and I think they'll get things straightened out.

    We're in a big-time conference now. It's time we started acting like it. A bad Big Ten team should not be an insurmountable challenge.

    Well, you are correct that the Bulls will get better.  But will they be able to put it together on the road in their first game back?

    You are a betting man.  My bet is if you were putting money on it you'd put it on the Penn State side.  There are just too many unknowns.

    After a 2-2 start they need to win 4 of 7 of Louisville, WVU, Pitt, Cuse, Cinci, Rutgers, UConn...I only see 2 in that pile USF will be favored in.

    Again, would you put your money on anything higher than 5-6 right now?  

    They do need to start acting like it, but you are talking a LOT of improvements between here and Sept. 3rd.

  4. Freak, I think we can be a little more optimistic than that. We're not going to beat UM. But UCF and FAMU are feeble, and Penn State isn't exactly going places. We almost NEED to win all three of those not to embarass the NBE. If the defense improves, Andre Hall returns, and we find a quarterback, 6-5 ought to be possible.

    And yes, ding dong the witch is dead.

    Listen, I'd love to agree with you if the team actually matured this season.  The QB position -- wide open.  The defense.  Listen, that defense was flat out bad this season.  There wasn't a position on that side of the ball that sparked.   No QB and no defensive continuity and you expect to waltz into State College the first game back and end up with more points on the board after 4 quarters?

    You are correct it was winnable, but that was when everyone thought the team was going to move forward.  It moved sideways/back in certain areas.

    Sorry for the diatribe.  The bottom line is 2-2 is all that can be expected.  Yes, if God smiles on the Bulls that first day the Bulls could pull an incredible upset.  That's what it would be too.  Penn State is bad, but they are Big 10 bad.  Right now the Bulls are C-USA bad and there is simply no comparison.

    Leavitt seems to indicate he'll get the car in the shop and be ready to race.  

    Armchair QB recommendations? -- get your most "comfortable" qb on the field.  The one that doesn't flinch when you throw a bucket of scrap metal at him.  Get Johnnie Jones as SS and pray he stays healthy.  Move Jenkins to FS.  Get Mompremier back and on the field.  Get Tim Jones back out there and get his motor running.  If Kendrick Stewart signs find a way to get him on the field on the D-Line.  He's out of control good.

    I know there is talent on this team, but to win 3 of 4 (and at least one or two BE games on the road) the Bulls will need to get it ready to play football in short order.

  5. First of all this is FRICKIN AWESOME NEWS. Way to go Doug!

    I suspect this deal is more contingent on 12-game seasons being approved, since that's the only way we could play the mystical sixth home game. Or, maybe DW convinced the Glaz-- er, "TSA" that Miami once is more profitable than Tennessee Tech twice. Which it is.

    This is also a good opportunity to bring a road crowd. This will not be a marquee game for UM, and UM attendance is crap if it's not a marquee game. So we could have a significant fan presence in their stadium. That could be helpful later in 2005 if we have a good season and are in the running for a bowl spot.

    I'm not worried about Miami cancelling the return date. UM over the years has been quite willing to play semi-dangerous OOC road games: La Tech, Arizona State, Memphis, Houston, East Carolina, and San Diego State when they had Marshall Faulk.

    And yes this NEEDS to be a Saturday game.

    My suspicion is that the Miami side of this game will be played on a weeknight; USF side they will make sure shows up on a Saturday and ESPN, Fox be damned.

    It looks like Gary got his 5 game wish....although I still believe a 1 for 1 front-loaded game was the best goal as it kept everything in tact when the 12-game rule gets passed.  Figure FAMU filled the normal I-AA homer and that the first choice had to be a game with someone like UNC that came here first.   That probably never got close to getting done.

    What the 6 Away game thing does is it realistically takes USF out of any real bowl talk painfully early next year.

    After 4 games you can almost presume the Bulls are 2-2 and they need to find 4 wins in a Big East lineup....and realistically they need to win the early ones.  

    I'm not saying it shouldn't be done.  It clearly should.  A 1 for 1 with Miami is definately something you do when you are USF.  It FILLS (and I'm not talking lower level) your stadium and there is none of this 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 B.S.  It is simply great that this happen.  Honestly, it is the only game that should have really torn down the 6 game wall.

    I'm already excited about the roadie to Miami on the 18th.  

    Still, USF is clearly sacrificing 2005 for a very real chance at glory in 2006.  

  6. Thanks, I guess I won't be asking anymore bullseye questions on the board though, I just didnt understand they would leave something as basic as the recruits name out of the headline.  

    If I knew who they were talking about it would more interested in registering to the site and reading into it.

    We certainly include name sometimes.  We mix it up a bit depending on recruit and what phase of the process they are in.  Obviously an interview with Mike Benzer doesn't need to be "Post-commit interview w/ Top Kicker" and video of Kendrick Stewart doesn't have to be "Check out Video of top Central Florida D-Lineman."  We have unearthed some new names lately so it is nice to give the subscribers some juicier information when it requires digging, networking, calling, etc.

  7. was he any good?

    s. bien?

    I doubt you'll see much interest from the Bulls on him.  QB recruiting in the state of FL this year is painfully thin and the Bulls are as in as they can be with really the two best prospects - Grothe and Hill.

    I think Beck is overrated and same with this kid from Daytona.  With the spread still being a very real part of the Bulls future I doubt you see any slow-footed QBs on the roster in the future.   Pull up the 2003 TCU game and "Sackapaloosa" for more on this subject.

  8. cubanbull hits it on the head...

    How do you energize the Bulls fan base?  To me, this board is a micrcosm of Bulls society.  There are diehards that are here daily talking about their Bulls.  And there are those that flee once an "L" is hung on us.  Or, better yet, they ***** and then they flee...

    When I lived in Tampa, and had hoops tickets in Row 3 of the lower level I attended nearly every game - also going to the Green and Gold room afterwards.

    Things have changed since then, but the feeling I had back then was that people pay dollars to join the Athletic Association (name at the time, now Bulls Club) they expect to be part of something.  The feeling I had back then was the USF donor base was not unified, that a certain small group of pals kept passing the leadership back and forth among them.  And, while I was giving the same or more money then them, they received special treatment from the AA as well as the coaches at varying events.

    Now, having been gone so long, I can't tell you what it is like.  People like me can be 2300 miles away and still be a fan.  Others can live on Fletcher and need proper motivation.

    How does the Bulls Club inspire a broad and active membership?  They once published a donor list...Thousands of donors.  Why don't they attend games?  We have virtually all the season tickets on the lower level of the Sun Dome sold out - why don't they attend?

    More than five years ago, I got the sense from many university personnel that we were too small to think this way or that way - especially in a "big-time" way.  We were a small fish with a small core of fans.  In their opinion, we should size our goals to the size of our perceived small fan base.  I didn't come across any big time thinkers back then.  I often had the feeling that many were content with the status quo - additional work, in their minds, was hardly worth undertaking because the results were already known - no benefit.  I was very critical of the AA back then.

    "Win and they will come" - I've said that a thousand times.  Unfortunately, we can't always wait for that to come to fruition.  Who's in charge of building a "community" of donors that want to see each other, that look forward to the games as an event?  That is what we need.  People that are attached by more than just their annual donation.  People that have been conditioned to support the Bulls by attending games - good season or bad.  People that look forward to seeing other donors and interacting with the Bulls Club officers and admins.

    There are two groups out there.  Those donating and those that don't.  Those that are donating need to be taken better care of, made to feel part of the family.  Attending games should be like going to your nephew's graduation.  You owe it to him.  And you want to go.  Besides you'll see your brother and an old pal there.

    If we did a good job with this first group, they would help bring in those not donating.  I always felt like, back in the mid to late 90s, their goal was to run a small social club - not a large donor base.  I sure hope that has changed.  With Vicki involved, I know it is at least changing.

    This is all easy for me to speculate on, since I have not been in the fold for a few years.  But as I referenced above - this board has it's diehards that would be here, interested in the Bulls and supporting them even through winless seasons.  Over the years, we have built a small online community that brings people back for the Bulls, the other interesting people here as well as the topics on the other boards.  

    I like the idea of the student lounge at the Sun Dome, we need to keep building on these things that get people to the venues.  Who cares right now, if they watch the whole game (i.e. Pirate  Ship at RJS)?  Get them there, treat them well.  Make them want to come back voluntarily, not by guilt or coercion.

    To me the key is treating people right and giving them reason to be there - other than a "W".  You're not going to get "Ws" all the time - better have a plan to keep your fans.

    It's like my wife once told me - "If you can get someone to do something 21 consecutive times - it becomes a habit".  Unfortunately for her, I count everything now and recently stopped taking out the garbage without being asked.  It was the 15th time - I did not want that to be a habit.  I stop doing everything I dislike by the mid-teens...  I'm on to her theory.  But before I caught on, she had me "trained" on a number of things...

    Give people a reason to care (other than they went to school there - we already know that doesn't have a lot of staying power) and get them hooked.  

    There are a number of ways to get people involved - I have mentioned some of my ideas as have others to members of the AA/Bulls Club.  Perhaps it will all come together in the form of increased  participation in the near future.

    I guess I should have issued a "Ramble Alert".

    ;D  

    Wow Brad, great post.  It is funny that I posted one that hit on a lot of the same points on the Bullpen at Rivals site.  I agree 100% with the sentiment.  The big one being:

    "Those that are donating need to be taken better care of, made to feel part of the family.  Attending games should be like going to your nephew's graduation.  You owe it to him.  And you want to go.  Besides you'll see your brother and an old pal there."

    I'll post it here just for kicks too.

    You are correct.  Those RV cultures at Alabama games, Georgia games, the World's Largest Cocktail party in Jax.....that's what you have to develop and you have to really give fans (not just superfans and donors, but regular fans) some ownership in these teams.  Make them feel like part of the success and failure AND, as you say, make it a true event and a rewarding experience.

    I pointed out in my post that some of the nuissance stuff -- 11am starts, tailgating gestapo, etc. -- may all seem like little stuff, but little stuff adds up to big stuff and turns people off to the program because it makes it less fun overall and you want everybody from the casual fan --> diehard love every minute of it.

    As you also said:

    "To me the key is treating people right and giving them reason to be there - other than a "W".  You're not going to get "Ws" all the time - better have a plan to keep your fans. "

    Exactly.  Exactly.

    The big thing here is the next generation of Bulls (1998 graduates and on) are the big growth market for this program.  Make the people you got on board (season ticket holders) extra happy and make the new ones (students) have great experiences so they will feel compelled to follow and support the program in later years.

    It isn't gimmicks.  It is a grassroots effort and providing a great experience each and every week.

    Lastly, I always wish there was something we could do to get "us" -- meaning this site and the other site together -- I know you and Dave have talked about it in the past and I guess there were some snags.  Obviously it would be a benefit for fans, the university and our public perception to do so, but obviously there were logistics in the past.  Maybe some of that could be discussed to our mutual benefit at some point down the line.  I think we'd both find there were a lot more positives than negatives from such an arrangement.

  9. DIdnt want this to get lost in the other Blue Chip Thread...

    on the fron page of FLVarsity.com  they have an update about Taurus Johnson, a top 50 WR in the nation we were after.  

    Headline reads "Taurus the Bull, literally" and body reads  The questions have all been answered. The moving van is gassed up and ready to go. The next four years are all lined up. Taurus Johnson is packing his bags, and he has given FloridaVarsity.com the exclusive details about his choice.

    so i can add things up and say we just got us a good WR without revealing anything from their subscription service

    He committed to Buffalo. :-)

  10. Remind me, how many games were we allowed to play in 2001 and 2002 per NCAA rules? How many did we play instead? How many road ends did we get out of the way so we could play I-A home games in 2003-2009?

    I agree, but let's not go overboard.  USF was an independent and unnamed indys don't exactly get to make the call who they schedule.  

    I think you acknowledge these next two points, but sometimes I'm not too sure.

    1) USF had to win games.  That was first and foremost.  People forget about the Drakes and Elons, but remember the 8-3 and 9-2s.  That's important and it did more to drive this program

    2) The 6 home games were highly instrumental in that.  USF was not USM with anyone, anyplace, anytime.  They won for YEARS at home and never lost.  RJS and the 6-games played into that.  

    3) That success led to good things like a conference home (albeit late), new facilities, coach retention, and, by God, the Big East.

    Looking back and criticizing what looked to be boneheaded scheduling moves is counterproductive.  This was not Lee Roy Selmon.  This was Jim Leavitt channeling Bill Snyder.  Kansas State is routinely criticized for OOC pansies, but they win more than they lose.  Even a 6-5 record gives a fanbase hope for the next season.  See UCF and 0-8 for what you don't want to do (knowing of course if you lose to Buffalo you have more problems than scheduling).

    But their model is such where they aim for 2 for 1s with Syracuse, WVU, Auburn, etc. and then they get beat on both ends - home and away.  It demoralizes the fanbase and since most of the games are front-loaded (early in the season) by the time the Knights find their way to conference play they have nothing to play for (figuratively).

    We had the 12-game year before and it did us no good. Our only hope is that DW can utilize it better than LRS did. Which is very possible.

    Indeed, and there is the point.  I'm of the camp that if you do schedule a team out of your league (ie. Auburn, Florida, etc. -- AWAY) you need something to balance it out.  I-AA games do have a purpose.  Now I think you end the scheduling at 1 a year, but in a 12-game season nobody is going to fault you for it.

    The challenge for Woolard is finding the "right" team.  Beggars can't be choosers, but Woolard needs to find two teams (basically two outside of the CUSA 1/1 deal) that:

    1) Put a fair number of asses in the seats

    2) Doesn't look too embarassing if USF loses on the road to them later on down the line.

    The candidates are the usual suspects -- lower tier BCS teams, a handful of MWC teams, and some CUSA teams.

    You don't do a 1 for 1 with Troy or FAU.  

    If the 12th game is approved. And that still doesn't address 2005.

    My suspicion is 2005 will be handled as follows:

    Home:  3 BE/UCF/Army/1-AA

    Away:  4 BE/Penn State

    Army then becomes an away the next season:

    2006

    Home:  4 BE/1-1 AA/Tulane (or somebody of that ilk)

    Away:  3 BE/Army/Auburn/UCF

    The 12-game thing will be approved.  I have no doubt.

    As with the 12-game schedule, our location and conference alignment haven't helped so far. We don't need "Big East muscle", we just need the friggin' competence to work out a game contract and then honor it. It's just not that **** difficult, and I'm sick of it being a massive obstacle for our program every single year.

    Again, EMU, Bowling Green and some of those "disasters" were not truly disasters.  The big goal of this program was to get out of CDOA and play a higher level of football.  Now barring USF busting into the SEC or ACC they've really managed to pilot their way deep into the ranks in 8 years.   The "disasters", you have to believe, were by design.  I do and I constantly look at Snyder's moves to validate that.  Winning is everything.  A 3-4 season doesn't help, but this "lame duck" year is tough for a lot of other reasons than just rebuilding.

    The only true disaster that I can point to in the past four years was the I-AA scholarship requirement that burst the bowl bubble last year.  A win vs. TCU or UAB would have nixed that, but the bigger point is that 7-4 teams GO to bowls.  They don't go to bowls if the opponent is not a qualified opponent.  That was the only true misstep and it was costly because the Tangerine Bowl had open arms.

  11. Well, Freakster, I see you're right on cue. Nice timing. But try reading the whole post next time:

    If the 12-game season is approved for 2006, which there's a good chance it will, then our home/away needs for 05-10 fall out as follows. I've included 2010 this time so it will be a cycle of an even number of years:

    2005 (home/away games needed): 2/0

    2006: 2/2

    2007: 3/1

    2008: 2/2

    2009: 3/1

    2010: 2/3

    After that we'll have 14 home and 9 away spots to fill. Spend one pair on another mandated CUSA home-away and it's 13/8. And that's assuming the UCF series is played, and that it meets the CUSA exit requirement.

    If all these road availabilities are wisely spent on home-away deals, that leaves us with 5 home-only dates over 6 years. If they have to be spent on I-AAs, at least that's close to an acceptable minimum. I'd prefer fewer such games but I'd be quibbling.

    The problem is, "spending wisely" is such a big IF. I remember the last time we had this conversation, you purported to make it all work out (mostly by cancelling the future road-only games), and then USF booked another road-only trip, to Auburn. This whole thing doesn't work until USF realizes it can't play six at home AND road-only games. If Woolard decides to spend his 12th-game bounty more one-way trips, we'll be going through this conversation again. Hopefully DW is smarter than that.

    If we have to play six at RJS to appease the Glazers or for some other stupid reason, so be it, but I'd like USF to stop hamstringing itself in the process. Woolard needs to apply some creative solutions to the problem. Here's one: 2-for-1 with FIU (or FAU). They'd probably go for it, we get two I-A home games out of the deal, they get a BCS home game, and we get a travelable road date.

    But surely you must admit that the sixth home game has already done its damage. Without it, we'd already have Marshall and Bowling Green coming in to Tampa for 2005 and later, and UConn at RJS this year instead of Tennessee Tech.

    I'll stop beating the drum when people stop asking why the band is out of rhythm.

    To misquote a former president: "It's the scheduling stupid!"   :D

    Seriously, you are building a complex solution for a simple problem.  Put it to 12 and the problem is solved.

    OK, so we got a lot of away onlys -- the obvious solution is a I-AA to mirror Auburn, Florida, Florida, Penn State.

    Then you need a series of home and homes.  They HAVE to have these and there has to be three of them.

    The goofy 4/3 configuration of the BE necessitates some sort of 1 and 1 and the CUSA team fills that void immediately.  I'd find it funny if it wasn't UCF.

    Now the other two games obviously need to be 1 and 1s.  The problem is going to be finding a decent one.  I, for one, would have little problem with the service academies -- great draw and nobody turns their nose up at Army, Navy or Air Force like they do Troy State or North Texas.  The indys (Army/Navy) would be the best bet and Army has already made overtures they would continue on w/ USF.  Now the problem is they need to play in RJS again next year.  Maybe that's why USF lost. :-)

    Absent that, USF really just needs to see that they've gained a little muscle (not a lot) by joining the Big East and find middle to lower tier BCS schools that think playing in the state of Florida is important to their recruiting efforts.

    It is simple really.

  12. Jim,

    USF's practice of demanding six home games, and then spending its few road openings on teams that will never visit RJS, leaves USF no availability to play the road end of any series. Here's our availability for the next few years:

    2005

    HOME (4): 3 BE, UCF

    AWAY (5): 4 BE, Penn State

    NEED: 2 home games

    2006

    HOME (4): 4 BE

    AWAY (4): 3 BE, UCF

    NEED: 2 home games, 1 away

    2007

    HOME (3): 3 BE

    AWAY (5): 4 BE, Auburn

    NEED: 3 home games

    2008

    HOME (4): 4 BE

    AWAY (4): 3 BE, Florida

    NEED: 2 home, 1 away

    2009

    HOME (3): 3 BE

    AWAY (5): 4 BE, Florida

    NEED: 3 home

    That's 2 road availabilites, and 12 home games to be filled. And we need to spend one road game on a C-USA school per the terms of the exit agreement. And maybe both, if UCF bails on us in 2005-06 as rumored or if they don't count towards meeting the exit agreement. In any event, we have no room for home-and-aways.

    Even if the 12-game schedule comes to the rescue in 2006, that's 6 away and 12 home. That would be better, but still leave a lot of home games to fill without virtue of an away trip.

    Since USF has no ability to play away ends, any game would have to be home-only. If we call some MAC school and ask for a game at RJS in 2005 with a return date in 2010 and a $50,000 buyout option, they'll just laugh at us.

    See above. We'd have to play the away game(s) at some point, which we currently can't do.

    We need to ditch the sixth home game or the one-way road trips. That's what's forcing USF into this absurd position of "we have to schedule 10 OOC games the next 5 years and they all have to be at home but we can't afford to buy a I-A home game or play the road end of a series." Mr. Woolard, the AD at Liberty is on line one.

    Beat that drum Gary.  Beat it.   :D

    12 games will be a reality in 2006.  I'm not soothsayer, but I did nail the ACC/BE/CUSA meltdown.  I'll bet you your 2005 Hold 'Em winnings 2006 is the beginning of the 12-game season.

    Now obviously you aren't proposing a 5-game home stand for that year.  6 Home/Away would be reasonable by everybody's standards.

    I know we've all had this argument going for years (and yes I was on the 6 home game side of it for mathematical AND W/L reasons), but why argue something like this when the Bulls will have more games to work with and the 6th game is now easier to acquire?

    I say they don't need to change a thing.  

    So what does it do to 2005?

    Easy.

    Home -- 3 Big East, 1 UCF, 1 1-AA, Front end of a 1 and 1.

    Away -- 4 Big East, Penn State.

    Well ****, that was simple.   Somebody from the AA send me a job offer.

  13. As a neutral observer, it was still a crap call. I bet if you reviewed film of all the field goal attempts in the NFL this season, you'd find at least two dozen instances of "landing on another player" that weren't called.

    The officials' decision to be ultra-pedantic at a critical moment ruined a great game.

    I disagree.  The official's decision actually made it a great game.

    "Colts engineer most dramatic comeback in NFL History" makes a much better headline than "Colts score three but ultimately fall short."

    I'm not saying the refs engineered a win for the Colts, but they certainly weren't going to stop it (they gave the Bucs their chance with that "roughing the punter" call.  The Bucs blew it.)

    I've come to expect a little give and take in the games.  Is it good? No, but ultimately it probably all balanced out.

  14. I know this is my beloved Bulls chat,but what an idiotic blowned call by the refs!!! The Buccs should have had another chance at scoring and winning the game.  I bet they were SEC refs!

    1.  The Bucs lost the game long before that call.

    2.  That was a makeup call for that botched "roughing the punter" call vs. the Colts.   It works that way.  There are make up calls and that was one of them.

×
×
  • Create New...

It appears you are using ad blocking tools.  This site is supported through ads.  Please disable in order to enjoy full access to The Bulls Pen.  Registration is free and reduces ads.