Retroactive Plus-1 scenarios, per Dennis Dodd
- Thread starter bamanut_aj
- Start date
Interesting how he has all three of Saban's championships removed.
He took away Bama's 2009 championship because if McCoy hadn't gotten hurt Texas would have surely won. Hey Dennis, if you're going to go back and do a plus 1 scenario, you can't go back change the outcome of games that were actually played.
He took away Bama's 2009 championship because if McCoy hadn't gotten hurt Texas would have surely won. Hey Dennis, if you're going to go back and do a plus 1 scenario, you can't go back change the outcome of games that were actually played.
This is all you need to know about this writer. This guy is supposed to be a journalist for a national media conglomerate????
It's not much of a read. I had to check to make sure I wasn't on Bleacher Report. In some cases he takes teams that actually played in the championship, rematches them in the +1 championship and changes the score and/or winner. I understand the gist of the article but that part is ridiculous.
This guy is a complete idiot.
1) He doesn't think a DuBose coached team would beat FSU based on a loss to La Tech - yet that same team played by far the toughest schedule in the nation and was 10-2 at that point. He fails Yo mention La Tech was ranked 25th in the last poll.
2) Why is it always called an injustice that FSU played rather than Miami because of head-to-head but it's NOT an injustice to bypass Washington, who not only beat Miami head-to-head but did it on the road without depending on the opponent's FG kicker.
He's a dolt. I've only read through 2002.
3) So if Miami had played an extra game they were MORE likely to beat the Ohio State team they failed to beat? Is this clown serious?
1) He doesn't think a DuBose coached team would beat FSU based on a loss to La Tech - yet that same team played by far the toughest schedule in the nation and was 10-2 at that point. He fails Yo mention La Tech was ranked 25th in the last poll.
2) Why is it always called an injustice that FSU played rather than Miami because of head-to-head but it's NOT an injustice to bypass Washington, who not only beat Miami head-to-head but did it on the road without depending on the opponent's FG kicker.
He's a dolt. I've only read through 2002.
3) So if Miami had played an extra game they were MORE likely to beat the Ohio State team they failed to beat? Is this clown serious?
Good Lord, that's 20 minutes I'll never get back. But to gore this imbecile:
1) Why is it a playoff reduces your championships because of dark horses yet he has 2 three-peat teams (Miami, USC)? His very statements suggest the exact opposite.
2) He says it's just a national title it doesn't matter. Well if that's true then why is this idiot writing 3 blogs about it?
3) So... 2009 TCU would force Alabama to OT because....2010 TCU beat Wisconsin? Anybody else follow that?
4) How does he know that Colt wouldn't get hurt in the title game still? Dareus would still be playing.
5) OK State would beat Alabama? They would somehow score 36 points when it would take most teams THREE GAMES to do that? Is this dude on crack?
6) If playing more games lowers your chances then there's no way the SEC should have already won 6 in a row since the SEC has a conference title game.
7) Sure, Utah beat Alabama badly. Unless I'm missing something they DID get something: a Sugar Bowl trophy.
8) Should I point out his scenario ASSUMES those teams would have been ranked the same if the voters knew the top 4 advanced?
9) If we had a plus one in 1977 and 1983, Notre Dame & Miami both would have one less championship. I'm just saying.
1) Why is it a playoff reduces your championships because of dark horses yet he has 2 three-peat teams (Miami, USC)? His very statements suggest the exact opposite.
2) He says it's just a national title it doesn't matter. Well if that's true then why is this idiot writing 3 blogs about it?
3) So... 2009 TCU would force Alabama to OT because....2010 TCU beat Wisconsin? Anybody else follow that?
4) How does he know that Colt wouldn't get hurt in the title game still? Dareus would still be playing.
5) OK State would beat Alabama? They would somehow score 36 points when it would take most teams THREE GAMES to do that? Is this dude on crack?
6) If playing more games lowers your chances then there's no way the SEC should have already won 6 in a row since the SEC has a conference title game.
7) Sure, Utah beat Alabama badly. Unless I'm missing something they DID get something: a Sugar Bowl trophy.
8) Should I point out his scenario ASSUMES those teams would have been ranked the same if the voters knew the top 4 advanced?
9) If we had a plus one in 1977 and 1983, Notre Dame & Miami both would have one less championship. I'm just saying.
In the thread over on the Non-Sports board about the tea-bagging incident in New Orleans I stated that I had never had the urge to put my junk on another man's face. That was before I read this. Now, I have an urge to mow the yard on a really hot day, drop trou and straddle Dennis Dodd's face like a bicycle seat. He is a freakin' idiot.
McCoy would have a huge difference? Like he did up until he got knocked out of the game? Little man did jack squat before Dareus busted his wing. We gift wrapped opportunities that McCoy failed to cash in on. When Gilbert came in, he was at least able to move the ball a little and score. If McCoy stays in that game it's probably even a bigger blowout because I don't see him moving them much against our defense.
As for his take on this season, he is beyond clueless. Oklahoma State couldn't stop Iowa State from running the football and their defense capitalized on turnovers because they play in a conference where the ball is in the air 50-60 times a game. Does that moron really think they're going to get a lot of turnovers against Alabama? I honestly can't remember the last time Trent fumbled. Methinks it was sometime in the eighth grade! If we played Oklahoma State in a plus-one, Trent probably gets 35 carries for somewhere near 200 yards and at least three touchdowns and Brandon Weeden and Justin Blackmon get exposed; Weeden because he's 12 years younger than me and would be a sitting duck against our pas rush and Blackmon, because he's never seen coverage like he'd see against us. Seriously... with our front four getting constant, unrelenting pressure we'd cover everything they ran. Look at what a middle of the road Arkansas did against a team that took Oklahoma State to overtime.
Dennis Dodd is an imbecile... but then I didn't need to tell y'all that, huh?
McCoy would have a huge difference? Like he did up until he got knocked out of the game? Little man did jack squat before Dareus busted his wing. We gift wrapped opportunities that McCoy failed to cash in on. When Gilbert came in, he was at least able to move the ball a little and score. If McCoy stays in that game it's probably even a bigger blowout because I don't see him moving them much against our defense.
As for his take on this season, he is beyond clueless. Oklahoma State couldn't stop Iowa State from running the football and their defense capitalized on turnovers because they play in a conference where the ball is in the air 50-60 times a game. Does that moron really think they're going to get a lot of turnovers against Alabama? I honestly can't remember the last time Trent fumbled. Methinks it was sometime in the eighth grade! If we played Oklahoma State in a plus-one, Trent probably gets 35 carries for somewhere near 200 yards and at least three touchdowns and Brandon Weeden and Justin Blackmon get exposed; Weeden because he's 12 years younger than me and would be a sitting duck against our pas rush and Blackmon, because he's never seen coverage like he'd see against us. Seriously... with our front four getting constant, unrelenting pressure we'd cover everything they ran. Look at what a middle of the road Arkansas did against a team that took Oklahoma State to overtime.
Dennis Dodd is an imbecile... but then I didn't need to tell y'all that, huh?
Even when he's not writing about Bama, Dodd just strikes me as pathetic. And maybe a little creepy.
He's selectively using his logic that if AL losing to La Tech in 1999 clearly shows that they were not national championship material, where is that that same logic when he predicts that an OK State team who lost to a 6-7 Iowa State team would beat BOTH AL and LSU in a 2011 season plus one scenario. Laughable to say the least.
You see, this is the problem with words. Anyone can just up and use 'em. Doesn't matter if they don't know how, such as Mr. Dodd here. Perfect example.
again...fodder for the hogs. But something to read in the offseason.
Or better yet, in the bathroom. Once you finish reading it you still another, and better, use for it. :wink:
Here's more logical nonsense: he states Gary Patterson is Nick Saban on offense. Yet in Dodd's world Saban has never even won a national title. I'm gonna split this guy more tomorrow after I'm on a real computer.
How about we just have Alabama play the other teams in the top 5 in 4 consecutive days at the end of the season and if they win all 4 of those games they are the champs. F the HATERS.
The whole thing is illogical and completely asinine. He makes logical blunders all over the place and is inconsistent in his thinking. He arbitrarily changes the outcomes of games on a whim without justification based on pure conjecture. He sometimes writes much better than this, but this piece is completely juvenile. His use of the word "Bammers" nothing but unprofessional, immature, and an obvious attempt at angering our fanbase.
The only remotely redeeming trait is he shows us what four teams would make a plus one in previous seasons.
1) How did UCLA get "screwed" in 1998? You had three one-loss teams. If they were unbeaten you could make that argument - but of course if they were unbeaten they would have played Tennessee.
2) 2000 - "The Huskies won six of their games by a touchdown or less."
This is given as justification for Washington LOSING but then you look at #3.
3) 2000 Huskies vs 2002 Buckeyes "based on nothing more than mojo, Ohio State would have won because it was a team of destiny winning half of its 14 games by a touchdown or less."
So in other words, if you win SIX games by a TD or less you're not really any good...however, if you win SEVEN then you have "mojo." Let's also not forget that Washington had a MUCH TOUGHER schedule (18th vs 42nd) than Ohio State did. The Buckeyes beat a mediocre Cincinnati team by all of four points.
And let's not forget that those seven were in FOURTEEN games to six in TWELVE for Washington. Again, how does one prove you're no good but the other proves you are?
4) 2000 - Who got screwed: In the real world, it was Miami. With a plus-one it would have been Virginia Tech. In Vick’s last season, the Hokies went 10-1 in the regular season, losing only to Miami, but were nosed out for the No. 4 spot by Washington. Tech was actually better than the Huskies in the computers but was hurt by its schedule strength.
So in other words, VIRGINIA TECH played a SOFTER SCHEDULE but got "screwed." (He does not apply this logic to 2011 Oklahoma State). And once again...why does head-to-head matter with Miami WINNING but does not count when Miami LOSES? (As in losing to Washington in a game that I saw and wasn't even as close as the five-point final margin as Washington led, 20-3, at halftime and was never in serious danger of losing the game. The Canes closed it to 5 with less than 3 minutes left).
5) 1998 - he fails to mention K-State would have been in this playoff without winning their conference (which he suddenly makes a big deal about in 2001, 2003, and 2011).
6) 2001 - he fails to mention the cancellation of the Washington State-Colorado game, which was part of the problem. Had Colorado won they would have played Miami but had they lost, it would have given the Cougars an SOS strong enough to push Oregon ahead of Nebraska.
7) 2003 - look, OU playing was a joke, ok? However, his problem with OU falling to "only" number three can be chalked up to the fact that every other contender had TWO LOSSES or more. As bad as the K-State loss was, it's impossible to justify dropping OU behind two-loss teams. The other exception was Michigan, but that wouldn't matter in a four-team playoff. (I should note here that TCU, Boise State, and Miami of Ohio - with Big Ben - all had one loss, but nobody gave them serious consideration as national champs. Boy did that ever change quickly).
8) 2003 - OU would have easily mauled Michigan. The Rose Bowl that season proved it.
Using this logic, K-State should have been in the playoff. I mean, I'll bet you money Dodd said BEFORE that game, "OU will easily maul K-State," because that's what EVERYBODY said. Well, everybody except Brodie Croyle. Interviewed by Verne Lundquist, Croyle said that LSU was "much better" than Oklahoma, and it should be noted that Alabama was the only common opponent for both teams.
9) 2004 - "For the first time in the BCS era, three undefeated teams stood atop the polls at the end. "
And we all know that if there was a Plus-One that Utah would have been ranked higher than Texas or Cal to resolve that situation. Oh, Boise was also unbeaten, but Dodd again doesn't bother to mention it.
10) 2005 - "considering how these Trojans were completing that 34-game winning streak. They failed to score less than 34 in any game. They scored at least 50 in seven games. They scored 60 twice and 70 once. '
Proof the Pac Ten didn't play defense any better a decade ago than now.
11) 2005 - "With his defense gassed and resting on the sidelines, this time Carroll decides to use Bush on fourth down. In the real game he didn’t. That allowed Texas to stop LenDale White on fourth down which led to the Horns’ winning drive"
In other words, Carroll knew White wouldn't make it, which makes you wonder how Carroll did NOT know that when he called for White in the first place. And besides - isn't it the job of the offensive line to block? I seriously doubt it would have made a difference. In fact, I thought it was the right call it just didn't work.
12) 2006 - "The Broncos proved they could play with the big boys, a cry that still is ringing in our ears today."
They beat a team who didn't even want to be there because they felt they got jobbed (and actually did) in the Oregon game. Oh, and Boise only plays with "the big boys" if they get a ton of extra time to prepare.
13) 2006 - Ohio State beats LSU
Ohio State had - at this point - never beaten an SEC team (and given the vacated win still haven't got a win on record) but they would have won THIS one?
14) 2007
Let's be honest - it is unlikely LSU would have moved up from 7 to 2 in a Plus One scenario, so the rest is kind of fluff.
15) 2008 - "In his last season, Sam Bradford threw 50 touchdown passes"
That's incredible. If 2008 was his last season then how did Bradford get injured in both the BYU and Texas games in 2009?
16) 2008 - "Who got screwed: Utah. It beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. It beat Alabama bad. It deserved something after finishing as the only undefeated team in the country."
Why didn't he apply this logic to Utah in 2004 - at least as far as getting in the Plus One?
17) 2009 - "The setup: The game was decided when Alabama’s Marcel Dareus took out Colt McCoy on the contest’s fifth play."
The score was 0-0. Texas had first and goal at the one and settled for a field goal. And once again, can anyone please explain to me how Colt McCoy was:
a) going to prevent Alabama from scoring 37 points
b) help Malcolm Williams catch the touchdown he dropped that only hit him right in the hands
c) play defense and stop TR and MI from BOTH rushing for over 100 yards?
On a further note, I can just as easily argue that if Sam Bradford (who despite what Dodd said in 2008 actually did play in the 2009 Red River game) had not been hurt then Texas isn't even in the game because they lose. Do you not think Bradford could have made up all of THREE POINTS had he played? Yet once again Dodd doesn't even mention this.
18) 2011 - "Alabama played one offense all season ranked in the top 30 (Arkansas, 29th) and 10 ranked 84th or lower. "
True - becuase they played EIGHT GAMES in the SEC, where they actually PLAY DEFENSE. When you do that guess what? YOUR NUMBERS ARE LOWER, YOU MORON!!! Let's look at how the SEC scored points in their bowl games this year sans the BCSNCG:
Georgia - 30
Arkansas - 29
Mississippi State - 23
Vanderbilt - 24
Auburn - 43
South Carolina - 30
Florida - 24
Note that these teams had a combined 0-10 record against LSU and Alabama. Auburn scored 43 points against Virginia ALL ON OFFENSE!!! Their offense against Alabama? O points. Against LSU? 3 until there was 2:22 left in the game and they were playing the third-string D.
19) Let’s assume that Oklahoma State gave up its average of 27 points.
Fine. But then you also have to assume that Alabama gave up it's average of 8, and this game is a blowout already. (Keep in mind that's ASSUMING the Tide D doesn't score).
20) Let’s assume Alabama gave up more than its average of eight points against the nation’s No. 2 offense.
According to your very scenario, they could have given up TWENTY-SIX points and still won the game. Number of teams that scored 26 points against Alabama in 2011: 0.
21) Let’s assume that it matters that the Cowboys were fifth in field-goal accuracy and Alabama was 85th.
Why would they need field goals if you think they're going to score all this bunch of touchdowns? And besides, their kicker choked the ONE TIME it mattered, so I'm not exactly sure how this helps you. Black lies, white lies, statistics.
22)Let’s also assume that Oklahoma State’s 44 turnovers gained – the most in the sport in eight years – matter.
While we're at it, let's note Trent Richardson does not fumble the ball (which renders this argument pretty much mute, Gary Danielson) and AJ McCarron does not throw interceptions - virtually ever.
23) The Cowboys had an average defense, not a bad one.
For those not paying attention, a 107th ranked defense is AVERAGE, but offenses ranked 84th are TERRIBLE. Got it?
24) Oklahoma State 36 Alabama 34
Take Alabama's two worst defensive performances of the year and combine them into ONE GAME. They'd give up 28 points. And that wouldn't happen. OSU ran up some huge numbers against pass-oriented teams that play no defense. Simply consider the fact that OSU gave up 34 points to ULL, 33 to Tulsa, 45 to K-State (who only got 16 against an Arkansas team Alabama absolutely massacred), and 37 to Iowa State.
And the notion they would beat Alabama and LSU in back-to-back weeks tells me you DO need to be tested for hallucinogens.
RTR
2) 2000 - "The Huskies won six of their games by a touchdown or less."
This is given as justification for Washington LOSING but then you look at #3.
3) 2000 Huskies vs 2002 Buckeyes "based on nothing more than mojo, Ohio State would have won because it was a team of destiny winning half of its 14 games by a touchdown or less."
So in other words, if you win SIX games by a TD or less you're not really any good...however, if you win SEVEN then you have "mojo." Let's also not forget that Washington had a MUCH TOUGHER schedule (18th vs 42nd) than Ohio State did. The Buckeyes beat a mediocre Cincinnati team by all of four points.
And let's not forget that those seven were in FOURTEEN games to six in TWELVE for Washington. Again, how does one prove you're no good but the other proves you are?
4) 2000 - Who got screwed: In the real world, it was Miami. With a plus-one it would have been Virginia Tech. In Vick’s last season, the Hokies went 10-1 in the regular season, losing only to Miami, but were nosed out for the No. 4 spot by Washington. Tech was actually better than the Huskies in the computers but was hurt by its schedule strength.
So in other words, VIRGINIA TECH played a SOFTER SCHEDULE but got "screwed." (He does not apply this logic to 2011 Oklahoma State). And once again...why does head-to-head matter with Miami WINNING but does not count when Miami LOSES? (As in losing to Washington in a game that I saw and wasn't even as close as the five-point final margin as Washington led, 20-3, at halftime and was never in serious danger of losing the game. The Canes closed it to 5 with less than 3 minutes left).
5) 1998 - he fails to mention K-State would have been in this playoff without winning their conference (which he suddenly makes a big deal about in 2001, 2003, and 2011).
6) 2001 - he fails to mention the cancellation of the Washington State-Colorado game, which was part of the problem. Had Colorado won they would have played Miami but had they lost, it would have given the Cougars an SOS strong enough to push Oregon ahead of Nebraska.
7) 2003 - look, OU playing was a joke, ok? However, his problem with OU falling to "only" number three can be chalked up to the fact that every other contender had TWO LOSSES or more. As bad as the K-State loss was, it's impossible to justify dropping OU behind two-loss teams. The other exception was Michigan, but that wouldn't matter in a four-team playoff. (I should note here that TCU, Boise State, and Miami of Ohio - with Big Ben - all had one loss, but nobody gave them serious consideration as national champs. Boy did that ever change quickly).
8) 2003 - OU would have easily mauled Michigan. The Rose Bowl that season proved it.
Using this logic, K-State should have been in the playoff. I mean, I'll bet you money Dodd said BEFORE that game, "OU will easily maul K-State," because that's what EVERYBODY said. Well, everybody except Brodie Croyle. Interviewed by Verne Lundquist, Croyle said that LSU was "much better" than Oklahoma, and it should be noted that Alabama was the only common opponent for both teams.
9) 2004 - "For the first time in the BCS era, three undefeated teams stood atop the polls at the end. "
And we all know that if there was a Plus-One that Utah would have been ranked higher than Texas or Cal to resolve that situation. Oh, Boise was also unbeaten, but Dodd again doesn't bother to mention it.
10) 2005 - "considering how these Trojans were completing that 34-game winning streak. They failed to score less than 34 in any game. They scored at least 50 in seven games. They scored 60 twice and 70 once. '
Proof the Pac Ten didn't play defense any better a decade ago than now.
11) 2005 - "With his defense gassed and resting on the sidelines, this time Carroll decides to use Bush on fourth down. In the real game he didn’t. That allowed Texas to stop LenDale White on fourth down which led to the Horns’ winning drive"
In other words, Carroll knew White wouldn't make it, which makes you wonder how Carroll did NOT know that when he called for White in the first place. And besides - isn't it the job of the offensive line to block? I seriously doubt it would have made a difference. In fact, I thought it was the right call it just didn't work.
12) 2006 - "The Broncos proved they could play with the big boys, a cry that still is ringing in our ears today."
They beat a team who didn't even want to be there because they felt they got jobbed (and actually did) in the Oregon game. Oh, and Boise only plays with "the big boys" if they get a ton of extra time to prepare.
13) 2006 - Ohio State beats LSU
Ohio State had - at this point - never beaten an SEC team (and given the vacated win still haven't got a win on record) but they would have won THIS one?
14) 2007
Let's be honest - it is unlikely LSU would have moved up from 7 to 2 in a Plus One scenario, so the rest is kind of fluff.
15) 2008 - "In his last season, Sam Bradford threw 50 touchdown passes"
That's incredible. If 2008 was his last season then how did Bradford get injured in both the BYU and Texas games in 2009?
16) 2008 - "Who got screwed: Utah. It beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. It beat Alabama bad. It deserved something after finishing as the only undefeated team in the country."
Why didn't he apply this logic to Utah in 2004 - at least as far as getting in the Plus One?
17) 2009 - "The setup: The game was decided when Alabama’s Marcel Dareus took out Colt McCoy on the contest’s fifth play."
The score was 0-0. Texas had first and goal at the one and settled for a field goal. And once again, can anyone please explain to me how Colt McCoy was:
a) going to prevent Alabama from scoring 37 points
b) help Malcolm Williams catch the touchdown he dropped that only hit him right in the hands
c) play defense and stop TR and MI from BOTH rushing for over 100 yards?
On a further note, I can just as easily argue that if Sam Bradford (who despite what Dodd said in 2008 actually did play in the 2009 Red River game) had not been hurt then Texas isn't even in the game because they lose. Do you not think Bradford could have made up all of THREE POINTS had he played? Yet once again Dodd doesn't even mention this.
18) 2011 - "Alabama played one offense all season ranked in the top 30 (Arkansas, 29th) and 10 ranked 84th or lower. "
True - becuase they played EIGHT GAMES in the SEC, where they actually PLAY DEFENSE. When you do that guess what? YOUR NUMBERS ARE LOWER, YOU MORON!!! Let's look at how the SEC scored points in their bowl games this year sans the BCSNCG:
Georgia - 30
Arkansas - 29
Mississippi State - 23
Vanderbilt - 24
Auburn - 43
South Carolina - 30
Florida - 24
Note that these teams had a combined 0-10 record against LSU and Alabama. Auburn scored 43 points against Virginia ALL ON OFFENSE!!! Their offense against Alabama? O points. Against LSU? 3 until there was 2:22 left in the game and they were playing the third-string D.
19) Let’s assume that Oklahoma State gave up its average of 27 points.
Fine. But then you also have to assume that Alabama gave up it's average of 8, and this game is a blowout already. (Keep in mind that's ASSUMING the Tide D doesn't score).
20) Let’s assume Alabama gave up more than its average of eight points against the nation’s No. 2 offense.
According to your very scenario, they could have given up TWENTY-SIX points and still won the game. Number of teams that scored 26 points against Alabama in 2011: 0.
21) Let’s assume that it matters that the Cowboys were fifth in field-goal accuracy and Alabama was 85th.
Why would they need field goals if you think they're going to score all this bunch of touchdowns? And besides, their kicker choked the ONE TIME it mattered, so I'm not exactly sure how this helps you. Black lies, white lies, statistics.
22)Let’s also assume that Oklahoma State’s 44 turnovers gained – the most in the sport in eight years – matter.
While we're at it, let's note Trent Richardson does not fumble the ball (which renders this argument pretty much mute, Gary Danielson) and AJ McCarron does not throw interceptions - virtually ever.
23) The Cowboys had an average defense, not a bad one.
For those not paying attention, a 107th ranked defense is AVERAGE, but offenses ranked 84th are TERRIBLE. Got it?
24) Oklahoma State 36 Alabama 34
Take Alabama's two worst defensive performances of the year and combine them into ONE GAME. They'd give up 28 points. And that wouldn't happen. OSU ran up some huge numbers against pass-oriented teams that play no defense. Simply consider the fact that OSU gave up 34 points to ULL, 33 to Tulsa, 45 to K-State (who only got 16 against an Arkansas team Alabama absolutely massacred), and 37 to Iowa State.
And the notion they would beat Alabama and LSU in back-to-back weeks tells me you DO need to be tested for hallucinogens.
RTR
Last edited:
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: The Pac-12 is back! Will Boise State rule this lea...- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
ESPN: TTU coach backs QB Sorsby: 'Red Raider for life'
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: McGuire: TTU willing to play Texas in Week 1
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Big 12 coaches OK preference for 24-team CFP
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0