Date: 25/08/25 - 18:43 PM   48060 Topics and 694399 Posts

Author Topic: Looks like Syracuse's AD has the stones to step up.  (Read 1806 times)

March 11, 2007, 10:33:19 PM
Read 1806 times

~WabashRoll~

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1964
Where's the response from K-State?

What's the saying, "nice guys finish last".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orange crush: Syracuse not selected for NCAA tournament

March 11, 2007

SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) -- It's been four years since Jim Boeheim led Syracuse to its lone national championship. On Sunday night, it seemed like a lifetime ago for the Hall of Fame head coach.

The Orange were not selected to play in the NCAA tournament -- and Boeheim was stunned.

ADVERTISEMENT


And so was his athletic director.

"To say that I'm shocked would be an understatement. I was waiting for another bracket to come up," said Syracuse AD Daryl Gross, who planned to begin making calls to find out why Syracuse was bypassed. "I think it's the shock of the country."

It was the first time Syracuse (22-10) failed to make the NCAA tournament since the 2001-02 team finished 23-13 overall and 9-7 in the Big East. And it's only the sixth time in Boeheim's 31-year career at his alma mater that his team wasn't selected.

"I have no way of understanding why we're not in the tournament. You look at the numbers and it's hard to believe. But it's done. There's no use in talking about it," Boeheim said calmly after addressing the team. "Their opinion is that those teams are better than us. I'm very disappointed. It doesn't do any good to get angry."

Despite exuding confidence after Syracuse snapped No. 9 Georgetown's 11-game winning streak two weeks ago and finished the regular season winning five of its final six games, Boeheim said he was nervous when the selection show began. The 16-team Big East landed only six squads in the tournament after getting eight in a year ago.

"I'm always worried," Boeheim said. "I was worried all weekend. It's happened to us before. The players and coaches are tremendously disappointed. We were 7-3 in our last 10 games. We felt that would be enough.

"I would imagine we're one of the few, if not the only team ever in a BCS conference with a 10-win season that did not get in the NCAA tournament. I don't know what the thought process is. What's done is done. There's not much I can do about it."

After struggling through a midseason slump, Syracuse played its best basketball of the season in February, going 6-1, and also has a 5-5 record against the field of 65 teams selected to play in the NCAA tournament.

The wins: 72-58 over Big East champion Georgetown; 75-64 over Villanova; 70-58 at No. 18 Marquette; 72-64 over Holy Cross; and 78-60 over Penn. The losses: 74-66 to No. 13 Pittsburgh; 76-71 at No. 12 Louisville after blowing a 14-point second-half lead; 78-75 at Villanova; and twice to No. 20 Notre Dame, 103-91 at home and 89-83 on Thursday in the quarterfinals of the Big East tournament.

Good numbers. Not good enough this time.

"To say that I'm shocked would be an understatement. I was waiting for another bracket to come up," said Syracuse athletic director Daryl Gross, who planned to begin making calls to find out why Syracuse was bypassed. "I think it's the shock of the country."

That certainly seemed to be the overwhelming sentiment.

"I'm amazed Syracuse didn't get in," Michigan State coach Tom Izzo said without being asked after his Spartans were selected as the ninth seed in the East Region with a first-round matchup against eighth-seeded Marquette.

Syracuse finished the season tied with Marquette for fifth in the Big East at 10-6 and beat Connecticut in the first round of the Big East tournament before falling to the Irish.

"We had four league road wins and beat the best team in the conference by 14 points late in the year," Boeheim said. "You look at our overall season, and it was better than some in the tournament."

Boeheim has long been criticized for the Orange's non-conference schedule, which this season also included wins over Colgate, St. Bonaventure, Baylor, Hofstra, Holy Cross, Canisius, Northeastern, UTEP, and St. Francis of New York. Syracuse did schedule difficult opponents in December in Drexel and Wichita State, and the Orange lost both games at home.

"I don't think that has anything to do with it. We've been doing that for 31 years," Boeheim said of the non-conference schedule. "Obviously, the committee thinks that Arkansas, lllinois and Texas Tech are better than us. If 10-6 in the Big East isn't good enough to get in, then I don't think we should be in the Big East."

Now, the Orange, who suffered first-round losses in their previous two NCAA tournament appearances, have to get ready to play South Alabama (20-11) in the Carrier Dome on Wednesday night in the NIT. It won't be an easy adjustment.

"It will be very difficult for them to get geared up," Boeheim said. "The players are disappointed."


"Just a general question...Anyone else think Brian Smoller sounds like Bob Costas? I've told him that for years and he never believes me". - D. Scott Fritchen

March 11, 2007, 10:39:15 PM
Reply #1

lynchmb1029

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 514


"I have no way of understanding why we're not in the tournament. You look at the numbers and it's hard to believe. But it's done. There's no use in talking about it," Boeheim said calmly after addressing the team. "Their opinion is that those teams are better than us. I'm very disappointed. It doesn't do any good to get angry."




"I would imagine we're one of the few, if not the only team ever in a BCS conference with a 10-win season that did not get in the NCAA tournament. I don't know what the thought process is. What's done is done. There's not much I can do about it."




The Stones to do what??? Say they are dissapointed?

March 11, 2007, 10:40:08 PM
Reply #2

ksu_FAN

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 11401
I missed the part where they said they were turning down their bid. :)

Seriously, I hope Weiser has something similar to say to the press. 

March 11, 2007, 10:49:00 PM
Reply #3

~WabashRoll~

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1964
Quote
The Stones to do what??? Say they are dissapointed?


What don't you get about this?

Instead of taking it lying down, they're actually calling out the NCAA selection process for what it is, a JOKE.

They're sending back a message with a strong public response.

Would K-State be well served to the same as any other major University in the same position? Hell yes, and I hope they do.

You can either be agressive or you can passively take the attitude of "Oh well, we're just little ol' K-State, we didn't really deserve any better anyhow".

Sometimes you've got to stick up for yourself.





« Last Edit: March 11, 2007, 10:51:31 PM by ~WabashRoll~ »


"Just a general question...Anyone else think Brian Smoller sounds like Bob Costas? I've told him that for years and he never believes me". - D. Scott Fritchen

March 11, 2007, 10:49:16 PM
Reply #4

Racquetball_Ninja

  • Guest
Weiser's a vagina... he's rather go after message board posters like Dax as opposed to sticking his neck out publicly.  The sports nation hates us and we're all we've got in times like these.   Group hug motherfarkers. :poundon:

March 11, 2007, 10:55:06 PM
Reply #5

Meatbag

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 540
I can understand the right to bitch out to the press, but really, its not like the committee is going to piss down their collective legs and subtract a team to add them.


However, it would probably make some of us feel better if Weiser would put his weiner on the chopping block and state something similiar..


March 11, 2007, 11:27:14 PM
Reply #6

~WabashRoll~

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1964
My only strong desire it to see some people in authoritative positions start standing up for this school and getting agressive about some REAL problems in this conference.





"Just a general question...Anyone else think Brian Smoller sounds like Bob Costas? I've told him that for years and he never believes me". - D. Scott Fritchen

March 11, 2007, 11:31:11 PM
Reply #7

Super PurpleCat

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 2211
  • Personal Text
    Since 1996
Quote
"It will be very difficult for them to get geared up," Boeheim said. "The players are disappointed."

Good.  Because they'll be the laughing stock of the nation when they mope around and lose to South Alabama.

Alamo Bowl, anyone?

March 11, 2007, 11:33:21 PM
Reply #8

Meatbag

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 540

March 11, 2007, 11:55:48 PM
Reply #9

phicat1448

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1080
  • Personal Text
    7-5 ^idiot
What is the point of complaining???  They aren't going to change the brackets because some whiny athletic directors feel their school got screwed. This happens every year, teams get in that shouldn't and teams get left out that shouldn't. We are only noticing it now because it happened to us this time.  All we can do now is prove we should have belonged and win the NIT.  Get over it and lets move on! We were a bubble team along with like 15 other teams. Someone had to get left out. It sucks but once again we got screwed! Real K-State fans should be used to this by now.

March 12, 2007, 01:06:04 AM
Reply #10

opcat

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 5189
Weiser's a vagina... he's rather go after message board posters like Dax as opposed to sticking his neck out publicly.  The sports nation hates us and we're all we've got in times like these.   Group hug motherfarkers. :poundon:

 :lol:  Your best post!  Props to you!  Made me laugh.

March 12, 2007, 04:33:03 AM
Reply #11

Leyton

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1757
"The toughest call of the day apparently was eliminating Syracuse, in large part because of the human element. Walters said that Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim is a personal friend, and he was hoping he would remain so after the Orange didn't get a bid."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney07/columns/story?id=2795023

Yeah.  Good luck with that.

March 12, 2007, 05:12:34 AM
Reply #12

asava

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1374
  • Personal Text
    started the auburn/ksu hillbillie war
Quote
Kansas State won only one game against the stronger South Division teams, and that was noted among the 10 wins the Wildcats earned this season.

wtf is he talking about? texas, baylor, ou, and texas tech.

and you can't discredit the tech win if you are going to let arkansas in after their performance. i am confused.


bold and daring

March 12, 2007, 07:25:33 AM
Reply #13

WildGunman

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 384
  • Personal Text
    I said throw down, boy!!
Seriously, "won only one game against the stronger South Division", all of the people who keep saying we only had one RPI top 50 win..... did any of these fools actually bother to research the things we DID accomplish this year? It's almost like our name came up in the discussion, the chairman asked what everyone new about us, the members all shrugged, and they decided to move on.

 :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I can handle not making it, I really can. I'm not completely convinced we deserved it, we played some very sh*tty ball at times. Just please, when someone asks, "why not K-State", have a sound, fact-based argument ready instead of making something up on the spot. Or at the very least be a little more creative and entertaining....... "KSU? I don't think they even play basketball."......"KSU? They got all of their wins against the Big 12 north, and we all know teams like Colorado, NU, and Mizzou are made up of a bunch of monkeys."...."no, I'm sorry. I'm not the committee chair. I'm...ahh...the...ahhh...janitor here. Yeah, that's right, I clean the crappers. I think the chairman just went out that door over there."

Oh well. As a wise man once said....."F*ck it Dude. Let's go bowling."

March 12, 2007, 08:01:14 AM
Reply #14

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
Maybe Baylor, OU, and Tech aren't the "stronger" Big XII South teams.  I guess we were 1-2 against the "stronger" teams.  Maybe 1-1?

March 12, 2007, 08:05:56 AM
Reply #15

ksu_FAN

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 11401
I think this is getting at what the real problem seems to be with this year's selection; it doesn't seem the committee came out and said what 3 or 4 criteria were most important or consistently had 3 or 4 they really followed

It seems to change based on who they are talking to.  This would be a case in point, our win vs Tech doesn't seem to "count" b/c we beat them in the conference tournament.  Yet Arkansas only got in b/c of what they did in their conference tournament.  They are making no sense with that.  If they come out and say "this year we looked very strongly at quality wins, how you did in your conference tournament, and unbalanced schedules in leagues" fine, so be it.  But I don't see them saying that, in fact the only theme seems to be this unbalanced league stuff, but even then they fail to point out Purdue's 6 games in the Big 10 vs >150 RPI teams and Illinois having 5 of those.

March 12, 2007, 08:08:16 AM
Reply #16

WildGunman

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 384
  • Personal Text
    I said throw down, boy!!
Maybe Baylor, OU, and Tech aren't the "stronger" Big XII South teams.  I guess we were 1-2 against the "stronger" teams.  Maybe 1-1?

If that is the way they meant it, then why don't we get credit for Tech? Didn't they finish third in the south? Oh, I forgot, Tech gets to use the "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" excuse.

March 12, 2007, 08:24:52 AM
Reply #17

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
I think this is getting at what the real problem seems to be with this year's selection; it doesn't seem the committee came out and said what 3 or 4 criteria were most important or consistently had 3 or 4 they really followed

Yeah, they definitely seem to apply different criteria in different places.  I don't see why they can't list criteria in order of importance so:

A)  Teams know what they need to do year-to-year to improve their resume
B)  They can logically explain seeding and who gets in or out.

March 12, 2007, 08:38:03 AM
Reply #18

chum1

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 6944
That wouldn't help with the controversy.  Look at the rules for the BCS, for example.  The rules would be too hard to define and there would always seem to be exceptional cases.

March 12, 2007, 08:42:27 AM
Reply #19

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
That wouldn't help with the controversy.  Look at the rules for the BCS, for example.  The rules would be too hard to define and there would always seem to be exceptional cases.

I think it helps tremendously with the BCS.

And it wouldn't be that difficult to define.

March 12, 2007, 08:48:34 AM
Reply #20

ksu_FAN

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 11401
I agree some of it is somewhat hard to define.  It just seems to me in the past the committee chair did a much better job describing the criteria they focused on and they seemed to follow it more consistently.  I really don't care what they come up with as long as they are consistent.  This seems to be the most consistent they've been in quite some time, of course there seemed to be a much more muddled mess of bubble teams as well.

March 12, 2007, 08:50:23 AM
Reply #21

chum1

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 6944
The BCS could very well be more controversial than the simple pre-BCS voting system.  If nothing else, it's a close call.  It's not that it is difficult to define.  It's that you can't catch all of the exceptions when you try.  Since we have exceptions now, we would be no better off with rules.

March 12, 2007, 08:55:29 AM
Reply #22

Kat Kid

  • Administrator
  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 8821
  • Personal Text
    warm up the EMAW
Weiser's a vagina... he's rather go after message board posters like Dax as opposed to sticking his neck out publicly.  The sports nation hates us and we're all we've got in times like these.   Group hug motherfarkers. :poundon:

He got us Bob Huggins and Ron Prince who both took us to post-season play after 11 years and 2 years of droughts in both sports respectively.

Am I missing something here?
ksufanscopycat my friends.

March 12, 2007, 08:56:21 AM
Reply #23

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
The BCS could very well be more controversial than the simple pre-BCS voting system.  If nothing else, it's a close call.  It's not that it is difficult to define.  It's that you can't catch all of the exceptions when you try.  Since we have exceptions now, we would be no better off with rules.

Why do there have to be exceptions?  Set rules and follow them.

March 12, 2007, 09:00:21 AM
Reply #24

chum1

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 6944
By 'exceptions,' I mean teams that get left out with lots of people saying that they should have been included.  That's the same as what we have now.  People won't change simply because things are written down.

March 12, 2007, 09:03:04 AM
Reply #25

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
By 'exceptions,' I mean teams that get left out with lots of people saying that they should have been included.  That's the same as what we have now.  People won't change simply because things are written down.

The difference is that exceptions in the BCS are more easily explained.  Sure, exceptions suck, but at least we could make an attempt to make them make sense.

March 12, 2007, 09:10:25 AM
Reply #26

cireksu

  • Guest
they need a rubric that is public and very specific.  Rubric's don't lie.

March 12, 2007, 09:32:30 AM
Reply #27

sys

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 10936
  • Personal Text
    gmafb
kenpom.  1-34 (not accounting for automatics).  simple and objective.
"these are no longer “games” in the commonly accepted sense of the term. these are free throw shooting contests leavened by the occasional sprint to the other end of the floor."

March 12, 2007, 09:40:30 AM
Reply #28

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
kenpom.  1-34 (not accounting for automatics).  simple and objective.

We would have been the 2nd to last one out, with Xavier and Air force &@#%ing us over:  (auto bids in red, teams left out in green)

  1 North Carolina            ACC  28-6  .9880   123.4/2    84.1/2      21.2/197 -.054/282  .8255/5   110.6/3    96.6/24    .6310/77
  2 Kansas                    B12  30-4  .9867   118.0/14   81.1/1      23.8/282 +.027/94   .7405/61  107.2/55   97.9/63    .5175/164
  3 Florida                   SEC  29-5  .9821   122.6/3    86.5/11     25.9/323 +.006/155  .7179/72  106.8/62   98.5/76    .3493/300
  4 Ohio St.                  B10  30-3  .9814   121.7/5    86.2/10     19.6/126 +.050/49   .8028/17  107.6/43   95.2/5     .5725/115

  5 Texas A&M                 B12  25-6  .9797   120.4/8    85.9/8      24.5/300 -.046/270  .6943/81  105.8/85   98.5/77    .3631/288
  6 Georgetown                 BE  26-6  .9794   123.6/1    88.4/17     22.6/248 -.003/170  .8022/19  108.2/35   95.8/9     .5270/153
  7 Wisconsin                 B10  29-5  .9760   117.2/20   84.9/5      23.2/269 +.041/68   .7703/41  107.2/53   96.5/21    .4975/179
  8 UCLA                      P10  26-5  .9709   117.6/18   86.7/12     19.3/114 +.012/133  .8170/9   110.0/6    96.6/25    .7194/37
  9 Memphis                  CUSA  30-3  .9692   116.2/24   86.1/9      19.9/139 +.016/124  .6052/116 103.2/138  99.5/99    .6548/67
 10 Duke                      ACC  22-10 .9679   114.2/38   84.9/4      20.4/160 -.064/301  .8532/3   110.9/1    95.2/4     .6796/53

 11 Maryland                  ACC  24-8  .9671   115.1/29   85.7/6      22.1/232 -.022/219  .7709/40  107.8/40   97.1/42    .4575/214
 12 Pittsburgh                 BE  27-7  .9587   118.9/10   90.5/26     19.8/132 +.030/90   .8189/7   109.6/12   96.1/13    .5895/107
 13 Michigan St.              B10  22-11 .9546   113.6/42   87.1/13     25.4/318 -.042/266  .7887/27  108.6/23   96.8/37    .5074/171
 14 Georgia Tech              ACC  20-11 .9539   118.5/13   91.1/32     25.3/316 -.058/291  .7917/23  108.6/20   96.7/29    .4754/195
 15 Louisville                 BE  23-9  .9536   115.0/30   88.5/18     18.6/86  -.037/258  .7652/45  107.3/51   96.8/32    .4514/218
 16 Texas                     B12  24-9  .9534   122.1/4    93.9/59     22.1/235 -.019/212  .7634/48  107.5/46   97.1/43    .4750/196
 17 Notre Dame                 BE  24-7  .9524   120.9/6    93.1/50     24.4/299 -.013/195  .6687/84  104.7/106  98.5/78    .2293/333
 18 Kentucky                  SEC  21-11 .9513   117.6/16   90.8/30     18.3/81  -.039/264  .8647/1   110.7/2    94.2/1     .7897/20
 19 Villanova                  BE  22-10 .9511   115.0/31   88.8/19     19.8/134 -.037/259  .8431/4   110.3/5    95.3/6     .6383/75
 20 Indiana                   B10  20-10 .9505   119.4/9    92.4/43     23.2/270 -.056/286  .8091/16  107.5/47   94.8/3     .6124/91

 21 Oregon                    P10  26-7  .9432   118.8/12   93.0/49     20.8/178 +.021/118  .7206/71  106.6/68   98.2/72    .2943/317
 22 Purdue                    B10  21-11 .9378   111.2/67   87.8/15     25.9/322 +.002/162  .7904/26  108.6/21   96.8/31    .5653/125
 23 Arizona                   P10  20-10 .9356   120.4/7    95.4/76     20.4/164 -.006/179  .8576/2   110.3/4    94.4/2     .8120/11
 24 Illinois                  B10  23-11 .9352   106.8/104  84.7/3      24.7/306 -.006/178  .7786/33  108.1/37   96.9/40    .5359/144
 25 Clemson                   ACC  21-10 .9338   112.8/51   89.6/21     21.6/216 -.031/244  .7840/30  109.1/16   97.5/57    .4093/246
 26 Virginia Tech             ACC  21-11 .9335   114.7/35   91.1/33     24.8/310 -.020/213  .8148/13  110.0/8    96.7/27    .5538/136
 27 Butler                   Horz  27-6  .9323   117.6/17   93.6/56     24.5/303 +.008/146  .6266/107 104.3/113  99.7/101   .7250/36
 28 Marquette                  BE  24-9  .9316   113.8/41   90.7/28     20.2/154 +.005/157  .7574/52  107.6/44   97.4/54    .4046/251
 29 Syracuse                   BE  22-10 .9307   113.2/45   90.3/25     16.2/34  -.071/309  .7416/60  105.9/83   96.6/26    .4166/242
 30 Arkansas                  SEC  21-13 .9291   111.4/64   89.0/20     22.8/258 -.028/240  .8124/14  110.0/9    96.8/36    .5942/106

                                                                                                 STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE      NON-CONF SOS
Rnk Team                     Conf   W-L   Pyth    AdjO/Rnk  AdjD/Rnk    Cons/Rnk  Luck/Rnk   Pyth/Rnk  OppO/Rnk  OppD/Rnk    Pyth/Rnk
31 Mississippi St.           SEC  18-13 .9278   114.8/34   92.0/40     21.0/188 -.117/333  .7762/37  108.3/31   97.2/47    .4655/206
 32 Creighton                 MVC  22-10 .9271   114.1/40   91.5/36     20.5/169 -.017/206  .7605/50  106.6/69   96.4/18    .6176/89
 33 Washington St.            P10  25-7  .9264   111.8/61   89.7/22     16.5/41  +.013/132  .7442/59  106.8/63   97.3/51    .3758/279
 34 Xavier                    A10  24-8  .9254   117.8/15   94.7/62     20.6/171 -.054/280  .6256/109 104.9/103 100.3/118   .6698/61
 35 Southern Illinois         MVC  27-6  .9250   108.9/86   87.5/14     12.8/1   +.026/96   .7989/20  109.5/13   97.1/44    .7531/27
36 West Virginia              BE  22-9  .9240   117.3/19   94.4/61     25.5/319 -.012/192  .7169/74  106.3/77   98.0/66    .3446/302
 37 Florida St.               ACC  20-12 .9233   116.1/25   93.5/54     22.3/241 -.011/190  .8149/12  109.8/11   96.5/22    .4949/182
 38 Oklahoma                  B12  16-15 .9217   109.3/82   88.2/16     30.5/336 -.137/335  .7630/49  107.2/52   96.9/38    .4306/238

 39 Tennessee                 SEC  22-10 .9209   115.1/28   93.0/46     19.1/106 +.042/67   .8164/11  109.3/14   96.0/11    .6336/76
40 Air Force                 MWC  23-8  .9188   115.2/27   93.3/52     29.1/335 -.019/209  .6239/110 105.0/96  100.5/124   .4850/188

 41 Missouri St.              MVC  22-10 .9149   113.2/46   92.1/41     23.8/286 -.019/210  .7509/54  107.3/49   97.5/56    .5717/117

 42 Boston College            ACC  20-11 .9148   118.9/11   96.7/92     24.6/304 +.026/98   .8178/8   110.0/7    96.6/23    .5108/170
 43 Southern California       P10  23-11 .9141   112.3/57   91.4/35     24.1/290 +.019/120  .7384/65  106.4/73   97.2/49    .3640/286
 44 Kansas St.                B12  22-11 .9137   111.3/65   90.6/27     24.6/305 +.023/110  .7394/63  107.3/50   98.0/65    .4739/199

March 12, 2007, 09:43:08 AM
Reply #29

cireksu

  • Guest
Starting to realize that I'm just a homer and that is the only reason that I feel we got shafted.