Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Fox Sports Power Rankings

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Fox Sports Power Rankings

    RkTeamW-LLast WkUnadjustedOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    1.COLTS7-0112629
    Indianapolis sets a new all-time record for look-ahead letdown games: 15 days. NEXT: BYE, then at NE — A game that will be so over-hyped that we'll be sick of it three days before kickoff. The hype will be so pervasive that even peasant families in North Korea are going to be sick of it three days before kickoff. Iraqis have added "No Manning-Brady Debate" clause to their new constitution. Martians will land on Earth solely to tell us to shut up.
    2.BENGALS5-22241018
    Current ranks: third in pass offense, sixth in rush offense, fifth in pass defense, and 29th in run defense. Doctor, can you diagnose the problem? NEXT: vs. GB. Fantasy stampede for Tony Fisher!
    3.CHARGERS3-33831411
    San Diego has lost four games by a total of 12 points. Each of the teams that beat the Chargers is ranked number 13 or higher in our power rankings. The Chargers' three wins have each come by two touchdowns and the worst team they've played, at least according to our ratings, happens to be the defending Super Bowl champion. If that blocked field goal lands two feet closer to the line of scrimmage, Matt Ware gets tackled and the Eagles still have to drive down the field to try to win the game. Of course anybody in their right mind would prefer wins to a nice power ranking, but that doesn't mean that San Diego isn't one of the league's best teams. But we said before the season that San Diego would have the league's hardest schedule, and we weren't kidding. NEXT: vs. KC
    4.JAGUARS4-26101517
    Remove their defense from the Tommy Maddox game, and Jacksonville would drop to seventh in defense and ninth overall. More here. NEXT: at STL, where they will chomp on Jamie "Maddox of the West" Martin and spit out the bones.
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    5.STEELERS4-24512716
    To read why one backup keeps Pittsburgh out of the top spot in the rankings, click here. The Ray Lewis dance is next up on the Hines Ward World Mimicry Tour 2005. NEXT: vs. BAL on Monday night.
    6.SEAHAWKS5-27611722
    Seattle receives karmic payback for the loss to Washington. NEXT: BYE, then at ARI
    7.REDSKINS4-2171561225
    Next week is a big battle in this year's best division, the NFC East, and DVOA has Washington (24.40%) and New York (24.33%) basically tied. The question of whether anyone should go up 10 spots because they stomped San Francisco is addressed here. NEXT: at NYG
    8.GIANTS4-2548221
    This ranking is less about the Giants dropping three spots and more about three teams passing them. Denver really pressured Manning with a series of blitzes where John Lynch or Al Wilson would wait for the initial blocks to set up and then sprint towards Eli unblocked. Giants need to solve that one before every opponent is doing the same thing. NEXT: vs. WAS
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    9.COWBOYS4-3971659
    About the Bledsoe interception: I keep hearing people on television say, "That's not the kind of decision a veteran quarterback should make." Have you people never watched Drew Bledsoe before? Where have you all been the last 12 years? NEXT: vs. ARI
    10.CHIEFS4-2181471912
    This rise in the rankings is only partly about their win against Miami. Their strength of schedule looks a lot better after Oakland and Washington win big. NEXT: at SD
    11.BUCS5-18318414
    For two years, DVOA has ranked Tampa Bay much higher than its record. We are now in the very strange position of ranking the Bucs much lower than their record. NEXT: at SF
    12.EAGLES4-2101213832
    The Eagles stacked up to stop LaDainian Tomlinson. Denver likes to run (except, oddly, on third downs). Set up your Tivo for instant replay. NEXT: at DEN
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    13.BRONCOS5-21211101624
    Guess what: Denver got kinda shafted in this one. The refs called a number of phantom penalties, while "Plaxico" is apparently Spanish for "pushing off" (Plaxico, Plaxicas, Plaxica, Plaxicamos, Plaxicais, Plaxican). But with Tatum Bell, Mike Anderson and a great offensive line, why on earth does Denver keep calling for an empty backfield on third down? NEXT: vs. PHI
    14.BEARS3-3191627210
    Not only is Chicago the league's best red zone defense, they are also the league's fourth-best red zone offense. You know, when they manage to get down there. On 13 possessions, they've got nine touchdowns, two field goals and zero turnovers. NEXT: at DET
    15.RAIDERS2-4201752528
    From FO's Michael David Smith: "Derrick Burgess is really starting to look like one of the best pass rushers in the league. I think he's a great fit for the Rob Ryan defense, which is all attack and no read-and-react for the defensive ends. It helps that Ryan shuttles guys off the field a lot and splits his ends wider than Ted Washington's pants." NEXT: at TEN
    16.DOLPHINS2-4112021118
    Zach Thomas is the only player in the league to be involved in more than 25% of his team's plays (tackles, passes defensed and takeaways). NEXT: vs. NO in Baton Rouge
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    17.PANTHERS4-2151323919
    According to Charlotte Observer, head coach John Fox attended Friday night's Rolling Stones concert. Earth to Fox: Everyone knows that Super Bowl winning coaches prefer Bon Jovi. NEXT: vs. MIN
    18.FALCONS5-2139112413
    Leading the league in both rushing yards and cell phone minutes. NEXT: BYE, then at MIA
    19.PATRIOTS3-3162392915
    We all make fun of the NFC North, but that division currently has more teams at .500 (Chicago and Detroit) than the AFC East does (New England). Patriots are also the only AFC East team to win on the road this year. NEXT: vs. BUF
    20.BILLS3-4141826202
    Buffalo's problems against the run aren't just about the front seven; they're also having serious tackling problems in the secondary. 30% of the opposition's rushing yards have come more than 10 yards past the line of scrimmage, the highest percentage in the league. NEXT: at NE
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    21.LIONS3-3262431326
    During the first half, Jeff Garcia burned two timeouts and took a delay of game. The announcer said, "Garcia is not afraid to burn timeouts today." I bet you know what comes next: the first half ended with the Lions in field goal range but unable to get the field goal team on the field because they were out of timeouts. NEXT: vs. CHI
    22.TITANS2-5242119263
    Defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz prides himself on emphasizing third downs, and it seems to be working even though the Teen Titans defense is struggling otherwise. Tennessee's defensive DVOA is ranked 30th in first downs, 26th on second downs, but ninth on third downs. NEXT: vs. OAK
    23.BROWNS2-4212720236
    I've read the complaints across the Web, and I want Cleveland fans to know I have asked for the Browns helmet logo. Your wish is my command. NEXT: at HOU
    24.RAVENS2-42325241523
    Although Jamal Lewis looks like a shell of his former self and the offensive line is having major troubles in run blocking, both are doing one important thing well: Baltimore is 8-for-9 on what we call "power runs" (1-2 yards needed on third down, fourth down, or the goal line). NEXT: at PIT on Monday night
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    25.PACKERS1-52219142830
    Are you a male between the ages of 21 and 35? Can you run? When you shake hands, do you hold on tightly? Do you like cold weather? If you answered "yes" to all these questions, you could be the next starting running back for the Green Bay Packers. Operators are standing by, so call now. NEXT: at CIN
    26.VIKINGS2-42930252120
    Packers-Vikings is game that always has something on the line. This year, that something was "which team is less pathetic." Since home field is worth three points, and the Vikings won by three points, the answer seems to be a tie. NEXT: at CAR
    27.JETS2-52728301327
    Angry fans anxiously debate which offensive lineman will be taken with 2006 first-round pick, only to discover Jets have already decided to take a long snapper in the first round. NEXT: BYE, then vs. SD
    28.CARDINALS2-42522281817
    According to DVOA, Arizona is one of the league's five most consistent teams. Consistently boring. NEXT: at DAL
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    29.RAMS3-43026183021
    To paraphrase Tricky Dick: "You won't have Mike Martz to kick around anymore." Here's a mind-blowing stat for those of you who have not yet bought our book Pro Football Prospectus 2005: Since 1970, Mike Martz has the highest winning percentage of any NFL head coach in games where his team had a lead sometime in the fourth quarter. Red Miller is second, Joe Gibbs third. NEXT: vs. JAC
    30.SAINTS2-52829222731
    When Saints challenge a call, will the announcers say, "It's the drapeau rouge in Baton Rouge"? NEXT: vs. MIA in Baton Rouge. With Nick Saban coaching the other team, does this even count as a home game?
    31.TEXANS0-6313129324
    "Yes, Houston Chronicle? My name is D'Brickashaw Ferguson. Can you please send me a copy of your real estate section? Only the really expensive cribs, please." NEXT: vs. CLE
    32.49ERS1-5323232315
    San Francisco currently has -83.9% DVOA. Our stats are available going back to 1998, and the current record for worst team is the 2000 Arizona Cardinals at -46.9%. NEXT: vs. TB


    http://msn.foxsports.com/name/public/NFL/PowerRankings
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Fox Sports Power Rankings

    Okay.

    Stopped reading after I noticed Cincy is 2 and Jacksonville is 4. Pit popped Cincy in the jaw in Cincinatti, but they're ranked 3 spots below them? GET REAL. If it was a close game in PA, then maybe. If it was a close game on a neutral field, I'd agree they should be right under the Steelers. But get absolutely dominated at home?

    EDIT: Bears are ahead of NE, Panthers, AND the Falcons.
    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Fox Sports Power Rankings

      The steelers completely dominated the Bengals, and yet the Bengals are 3 spots over them? ESPN had the Falcons at #3. I think thats too high, but #18and to have the the Dolphins, Raiders, and Bears ahead of them is just crazy.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Fox Sports Power Rankings

        This was at the top of the rankings:

        How important is a single game? The answer to that question is integral to understanding this week's FOXSports.com NFL Power Rankings. A blowout shoots one team up the ratings. One game with a backup quarterback keeps another team out of the top spot. And while the Colts and Bengals still top our ratings, things are a lot closer than they were last week.




        About Football Outsiders
        Football Outsiders.com tackles the NFL with a mix of innovative statistics, game tape analysis and good old-fashioned fan debate. They are the authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2005.

        For further in-depth coverage, click here.


        The FOXSports.com Power Rankings are based on the innovative DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) ratings from FootballOutsiders.com. The DVOA system breaks down every single play of the season and compares each one to the NFL average based on situation and opponent. Each play is judged on both total yards and yards towards a first down. (Click here for further explanation.)


        Teams may be ranked from 1 to 32, but in reality there is not equal space between each team and the one below it. The ranks may be the same, but this week Indianapolis and Cincinnati are a lot closer to the rest of the league than they were last week, for two reasons. First, of course, Cincinnati lost to Pittsburgh, and it wasn't close. The Bengals are still ranked second, but the loss cuts their DVOA by 25 percent. Second, as we get more data each week, we strengthen the adjustments for strength of schedule. And the Colts and Bengals have primarily built their records on a succession of creampuffs.


        (Why are the Bengals still ahead of the Steelers if Pittsburgh beat them soundly? As I explain here, you can blame Tommy Maddox.)


        Besides adjusting for strength of schedule, we also adjust the ratings to cancel out the effect of luck on a fumble recovery and the effect of weather and altitude on special teams. That's one of the reasons why these rankings will often look a little different. To show you just how much these adjustments change things, this week we've listed each team's "unadjusted" ranking as well as its standard power ranking. Those strength of schedule adjustments move San Diego (3-4) and Jacksonville (4-2) into the top five ahead of Tampa Bay (5-1) and the Giants (4-2). The adjustments also drop Atlanta way down and move Washington and New England way up.


        This week made Washington's strength of schedule a bit easier, though, as they blew out that bottom-ranked San Francisco 49ers. Should we let a blowout jump a team 10 spaces? That's discussed in the commentary below the rankings.


        The power ratings table only gives each team's rank from 1-32. If you want to see the actual DVOA ratings, along with some additional numbers we use to judge teams, you can find those on FootballOutsiders.com. The team totals are here, and we also have separate pages for offense, defense, and special teams. There's also a more developed explanation for our methods here.


        In past weeks, ratings have been based on both 2004 and 2005 performance, and each week the current year became more important. This is the final week we're giving last year any weight, and it is only five percent, not enough to move any team more than one spot up or down.


        Remember, of course, that any statistical formula is not a replacement for your own judgment, just a tool to use in analyzing performance.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Fox Sports Power Rankings

          Originally posted by btowncolt
          FOX's rankings are calculated a little differently.

          Go to that page and read how they do it. It's not a week-to-week kneejerk thing, which is why they only really need to post it every 4 weeks or so.

          EDIT- The original poster needs to put a link in there or risk the wrath of the forum Gods.

          The BCS is closer to being fixed then their calculations. I'm not going to understand how they come up with their conclusions, even if it's in plain english and has an example to go along with it.

          However they rank teams, it's plain stupid.
          “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Fox Sports Power Rankings

            Originally posted by btowncolt
            Links still needed..............
            Opps. . I fixed it

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Fox Sports Power Rankings

              I stopped reading when I saw the Chargers at 3. As much as I love Drew Brees there is no freakin' way that team is third.

              Comment

              Previous template Next
              Working...
              X