Suikoden Ugly and Informational Kriegspiel Orgazmic Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Quality of Victory

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Sports
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Calvin

Legions of Zontar-Killers


Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Post Count: 2445
Location: Blight's Bay
817540 Potch
25 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:35 pm    Post subject: Quality of Victory Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

This is an issue that I've been thinking of recently because of certain widely-accepted opinions held by people in regards to the NFL. That is, how good a team is as determined by the quality of its victories and/or opponents. It would of course be naive to think that two teams with the same or similar records would be equals, but at the same time, I think that sometimes opinions are swayed by popular influence. Not to pick on Amyral, but I noticed he said this in another thread:

Amyral wrote:
Dallas has been playing against horrible teams, while New England has beaten some quality.


This isn't entirely accurate, in my opinion. Take into account the following records of the teams both Dallas and NE have beaten:

Dallas Strength of Schedule: 6-19
New England Strength of Schedule: 7-17


That's a one game swing. Not enough statistical evidence there to say that New England has played more talented teams based on win-loss records. What about other stats, such as number of playoff teams from last year faced so far?

Dallas: New York Giants, Chicago Bears
New England: New York Jets, San Diego Chargers


So that's 2 each, again, not enough to say that New England has played more talented or better teams. What about playing teams with a winning record?

Dallas: New York Giants
New England: None


New England hasn't actually played anybody with a winning record, but after 5 games Dallas has played only 1 team with a winning record. Not enough to say anythign conclusively.

Bottom line, a team can't control the record of the teams it plays, and this early in the season, a 5-0 team has handed its opponents 5 losses, which severely skews the strength of schedule. If you take out the 5 wins each has had and turn them into losses, suddenly the opponents don't look so terrible: Dallas' opponents would be 11-14, and New England's would be 12-13.

One thing I think that is often overlooked is the quality of a teams wins, of which both Dallas and New England have been great at this year. Here is the average points by which each team wins its games so far:

Dallas: 16 points
New England: 23.4 points


In this case, we can see that New England beats its teams by a higher margin than Dallas does. Of course, if we were to take out the Buffalo game for Dallas the numbers would be much closer, but lets give credit where credit is due--New England has been better in the area, which is I believe the most telling stat when determining who is actually the better team.

In short, I believe that New England is deservedly favored in the next matchup, but not because of their strength of schedule. Scoring 16 points more on average than your opponent is an excellent number and tells me that Dallas will be competing for homefield advantage in the NFC playoffs-New England, however is just doing that much better. Anything can happen on Sunday, but I can't fault people for picking New England. I just didn't like their reasons.

So in closing, I suppose I should ask what everybody else thinks determines what makes a team great? As I said, to me a great team soundly defeats its opponents, which I believe to be the greatest indicator of a very good team in all sports--not just American football.
_________________

I changed the number on my phone so you can't call me up at home, and you can't say those
things to me, that make me fall down on my knees.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tullaryx

Custodiae Corvi


Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Post Count: 5577
Location: Apacheta
4092785 Potch
200 Soldiers
20 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well, quality of victory in regards to those two teams should also factor in how the two teams have played in their five wins. How did each team do on both sides of the ball? From looking at how both teams have played so far I would say New England have overwhelmingly stayed ahead of Dallas in terms of quality of victory. While both teams have had injuries to their defenses, Dallas hasn't been able to truly say they've overcome theirs. While they've won all their games so far they've also have had some major defensive lapses in their secondary that has made average quarterbacks look good.

New England's defense in their first five games was missing not just it's starting safety, defensive lineman and corner from last year, but once again has had a rotating set of defensive backs. They've been able to remain the top scoring defense and in the top five in overall defense with missing players. With their own defensive stars back or ready to come back the New England defense will just get stronger and be more healthier as the long season continues on.

On the offensive side of the ball both teams have been lights out. But then we have to look at how the leaders of both offenses have performed. After the first five games one has to look at Brady's numbers and say that he has outperformed the gunslinger Romo by matching him TD pass for TD pass but also doing it with less INTs thrown. When looking at both offenses one can say looking at the numbers that New England has spread the ball more to just one or two people. This makes stopping them less certain since there's no one specific player outside of Brady who Dallas can say they can shutdown and win the game.

As the Dallas/Buffalo game has shown if an opposing defense can contain Owens the Dallas offense can be slowed down. Taking away Owens as a major contributor early took Romo off his rhythm and forced him to make mistakes. When Cleveland contained and slowed down Moss it didn't really stop Brady as he went to Stallworth and Watson instead.

While Dallas deserve all the accolades its gotten for having a 5-0 start it is still difficult to say that they're in the same class as New England, or even Indianapolis. While those two teams have played their 5 games close to perfection as any team could Dallas has shown glaring weaknesses. Tomorrow's game between the two should show whether Dallas is ready to return to the ranks of the elites or just another team pretending to be one.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Exile

Sword Brothers


Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Post Count: 7365
Location: Lion's Maw
6894145 Potch
200 Soldiers
91 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I think sometimes it's not the margin of victory that determines a good team but that it's an ability to play a game badly and still somehow come up with the win that helps identify top teams. Even off their game if a team can find a way to scrape together the win and continue ticking over then that is an extremely positive sign as things move forward.

Of course it can't be something done with much regularity otherwise that points to being the norm and then I suppose you're looking at a team that is only just winning most games and not being convincing. Like I say still managing to pull one out of the bag and win when you're off form once in a while is a good indicator of quality (and often team depth) I think.
_________________

Cry woe, destruction, ruin, and decay -
The worst is death, and death will have his day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Aurelien

20.01.08


Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Post Count: 7736
Location: Jowston Hill
1567728 Potch
0 Soldiers
157 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I'm not sure if this is meant to be NFL (Dallas and New England comparison) only or not, but I'll try to look at it from a broader angle for sports in general.

To me, quality of victory matters, but it's not the most important thing that defines whether a team or an athlete is good or not. In the end, winning is what you want to achieve, and if you win, that means that you're good.

Let's pick a simple example with tennis as the chosen sport. You're playing in a tournament with players ranked 100-200 in the world, while I'm playing in a tournament with players ranked 1-99 in the world. We both won our tournaments. Can you say that you are as good as me just because we're both winners? Obviously not. It shows that quality of competitions does matter.

But at the same time, it's not always about that. Now let's play each other in tennis. I'm number 1 in the world, and you're number 2 in the world. I just defeated you in a tennis match with a score of 7-6 0-6 7-6. I won because I won 2 sets compared to your 1 set. But if we count the score, I only won 14 games while you won 18 games. Yet, I'm the winner. Technically speaking, it can be said that you outplayed me, but I ended up winning none the less. Am I better than you? Or are you better than me?

Similar to the above scenario but with soccer league. What if the team that ended up second actually beat the team that ended up first when they played head-to-head during the season? Or back to NFL, how about if New England ended up winning the Superbowl but always beaten by Dallas during the regular season (and didn't face each other in the play-off)? Does that mean that New England is really "the best"?

It's not really easy to answer. And that's why it's pretty much impossible to really answer whether quality of victory really matters or not when it comes to say how good a team or an athlete is. It definitely does matter, it's just that it's not always the case. So to me, it's very situational and can't be answered the same way for every case.
_________________



~City-States of Jowston and Tinto Republic~
06.06.2004 - 20.01.2008


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

In the NFL we have the advantage that we see more teams in the league play against each other. I don't think my reasoning for picking New England really warranted a thread of its own for you to nit pick, as opposed to just talking about the concept generally. It seems quite ridiculous to do so if you're not going to just use it as a short example to address a larger point, as opposed to just using the larger point to do the nitpicking.

Dallas beat the Giants when the Giants floundered, yes, they have beaten a team with a winning record, New England hasn't. However, they also had two of their wins against the only winless teams in the NFL, St. Louis and Miami. New England hasn't played either at this point. Romo has looked good against terrible teams, including the Giants at the beginning of the year, as they never really got their legs until later.

Let's look at Dallas's schedule. A San Diego team who has been awful on both sides of the ball, a winless Miami team, a winless St. Louis team, a Chicago team who barely had an offense to speak of, and Buffalo, whom they barely beat.

We can't throw out the game against Buffalo. The refs gave Dallas that game. There's no way an onside kick would only take two seconds, and that final second turned out to be important. We saw the Romo we saw at the end of the last year, and Dallas struggled against a terrible team, which New England beat well.

In New England's schedule, we have the same San Diego and Buffalo teams, only without New England needing the refs to hand them Buffalo. We have the Jets, who are bad. Then we have Cleveland, a team with a lot of talent who has had to compete against Baltimore and Pittsburgh, and the other team in New England's roster, Cincy. Cincy is a good team that has had a fairly brutal schedule, including Baltimore, Seattle, the aforementioned Cleveland team, and New England. They may not have a positive win/loss record, but they've not had an easy schedule and way you slice it.

There's more than just "popular opinion" or win/loss records to it.

I think judging it by blowouts is fairly ridiculous. College football is the best example of this. Teams pad their schedules with cake-puff teams (or play in-conference cake-puff teams). Let's look at the biggest offender this year, the Ohio State Buckeyes, in college football. They're the number 3 team in the nation, soon to be number 1, despite the fact that they've played a schedule that is weak by any standards. The fact that they they've blown them out doesn't show that they deserve to be ranked #1. As of now, the only ranked team they beat is Purdue, at #24. In fact, they could end up being the only team that is ranked at the time they play them.

I don't just look at win-loss record. A great team with a brutal schedule will still be better than an average team with a weak schedule.

What makes a good team good? A good team will always be good, regardless of who they play or how much they win by. The quality doesn't change whether they show it by barely beating a strong team or blowing out a weak team. Ohio State is good, I'm not denying it, but they're not any better by shellacking weak teams than they would be by barely beating stronger teams. In college football, half of the element (the human part) will say otherwise, namely because that half also relies on strong name recognition.

Now then, the question becomes what is the best way to identify what teams are really good, and I don't think having margin of victory be that factor is a very good way at all. A game between good teams can end with only a few points difference, whereas a bad team can blow a terrible team away by 30 points in football. Let's look at what happened on Saturday. LSU barely loses to #11 Kentucky. Meanwhile, Ohio State blows out a bad Kent State team. Might Ohio State be better than LSU? Sure, but the fact that they have had blowouts against teams no one would consider as good as technically good as the teams LSU has beaten doesn't make them better, nor does it show them to be any better.

We see who is better by having good teams play each other, and even then, any number of factors can change that.

I also don't care who was in the playoffs last year. This isn't last year, no team is exactly the same.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
fuji




Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Post Count: 7067
Location: North Sparrow Pass
9643133 Potch
16500 Soldiers
100 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The BSC has proven strength of schedule and quality of victory are retarded. If you beat the teams you are supposed to beat what more can you ask. I hate the idea that you must run up a score on an opponent to some how prove to some statistical algorithm that you are better than another team you may not have played yet.

In the end Zonder, I'll say if you win the games you play, that's all that matters. This is why they play the games on Sunday (or uhhh any other day that the other sport would be played >_>)
_________________
______ "We're still flying"

___ "That's not much"

"It's enough"


Last edited by fuji on Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Calvin

Legions of Zontar-Killers


Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Post Count: 2445
Location: Blight's Bay
817540 Potch
25 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
I'm not sure if this is meant to be NFL (Dallas and New England comparison) only or not, but I'll try to look at it from a broader angle for sports in general.


Nah, I meant it to be a sweeping disccussion about sports--its just that I know more about football than any other sport.^^;

Quote:

In the NFL we have the advantage that we see more teams in the league play against each other. I don't think my reasoning for picking New England really warranted a thread of its own for you to nit pick, as opposed to just talking about the concept generally. It seems quite ridiculous to do so if you're not going to just use it as a short example to address a larger point, as opposed to just using the larger point to do the nitpicking.


I apologize if you feel that I created this thread just to nitpick your opinion. That isn't the case. I simply noticed your opinion, which I felt was common, and used it as an example. I didn't mean any harm by it and I apologize if I offended you.

I also agree with fuji that it is dumb the way college football does its rankings. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think teams should have to win the old fashioned way--by beating their opponents in a tournament. But, that argument is for another thread.

Obviously if New England soundly beats Dallas there will be no question that New England is the better team. But to me, there are too many variables in football and too much up to random chance to say that because New England beat Buffalo soundly and Dallas didn't New England is better; or that if either team wins by a slim margin that that team is automatically the better team. Tony Romo found out his father had prostate cancer right before the Buffalo game, did you take that into consideration when decided whether or not the game was indicative of Romo's future play? I'm not saying that it definitely caused him to play badly, I'm just saying that one bad game does not make a quarterback, and that there could be other reasons for a bad performance. Troy Aikman also had a 5 interception game once. As I said--anything can happen, which is why I wouldn't make a decision based on one bad game.

I also don't subscribe to the "brutal schedule" theory this early in the season because as you said, last year is last year and a team should be defined by how well its doing this year--and this year, New England hasn't been playing teams that have done very well. I like Cincy, but they are an overrated football team that didn't even make the playoffs last year, and they also made the Browns look better than they are this year. Seattle is only an average team that will barely make it to 9 or 10 wins in possibly the weakest division in football.

"Better team" will always be subjective unless the two teams play each other and one wins soundly. As for saying that margin of victory is a good way to determine great teams, I stand by that. By nature, things like strength of schedule would come in later in the season (right now, it doesn't help at all), as well as overall record and if the teams have played each other. Obviously, when two great teams play each other the margin of victory isn't likely to be that high. That's just the way it goes. I think that it is a sign of a good team if you can soundly beat the opponents you are supposed to beat as well as win those inevitable close games against good teams. Guess I wasn't clear about that in my above post.

But, in general, I think margin of victory is a good thing to go by, and right now it is definitely better than going by strengh of schedule, because we don't know enough about each teams opponents to say one way or the other. That's just something I consider in addition to other things such as watching the actual games, and it works pretty well for me in general.
_________________

I changed the number on my phone so you can't call me up at home, and you can't say those
things to me, that make me fall down on my knees.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Zonder wrote:
I also agree with fuji that it is dumb the way college football does its rankings. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think teams should have to win the old fashioned way--by beating their opponents in a tournament. But, that argument is for another thread.


Can't be that old-fashioned, since Div-1 has never used a playoff :P

Either way, with as many teams as there are, I like the bowl system, since it gives a lot more teams the opportunity to end their season on a high note on a national stage, which gives them a chance to get talent that would otherwise just go to the schools with the legacies.

But yeah, that's an argument for another thread.

Zonder wrote:
Tony Romo found out his father had prostate cancer right before the Buffalo game, did you take that into consideration when decided whether or not the game was indicative of Romo's future play? I'm not saying that it definitely caused him to play badly, I'm just saying that one bad game does not make a quarterback, and that there could be other reasons for a bad performance. Troy Aikman also had a 5 interception game once. As I said--anything can happen, which is why I wouldn't make a decision based on one bad game.


I agree, one bad performance doesn't make the QB, I didn't say that it did. Neither does performing well against bad teams. Romo has shined against teams that have been bad this season and they hail him as the second coming of Brett Favre (or as John Madden horribly puts it, that Brett Favre is the old Tony Romo). I wasn't basing it just on Romo though, even though he had a bad game. The only time I mention Romo is to say that we saw the same thing as last year, that Romo wasn't the flawless QB he seems to come out as. The team as a whole hasn't been challenged, where I think New England's schedule contained teams that are and will show themselves to be better.

Zonder wrote:
I also don't subscribe to the "brutal schedule" theory this early in the season because as you said, last year is last year and a team should be defined by how well its doing this year--and this year, New England hasn't been playing teams that have done very well. I like Cincy, but they are an overrated football team that didn't even make the playoffs last year, and they also made the Browns look better than they are this year. Seattle is only an average team that will barely make it to 9 or 10 wins in possibly the weakest division in football.


If you don't care about last season, why are you calling Cincy overrated for not making the playoffs last year?

I'll agree, strength of schedule is better measured retroactively towards the end of the season, but at that point, I think it will always be better than margin of victory. Even bad teams can run up the score on terrible teams. A team isn't any better just because they won by 30 on a team just because another won by 3. USC beat Nebraska by 18. Oklahoma State beat that same team by 31. That doesn't make Oklahoma State better than USC, it means Oklahoma State ran up the score on a bad team. Margin of victory very rarely indicates anything substantial, beating good teams means quite a bit most every season.

You are right in alluding that we don't know which teams are good until later on, but judging by how far teams run up the score doesn't indicate anything.

There's a reason they removed it from the BCS, teams ran up the score against horrible teams to boost their rankings. It was beneficial to teams to keep their starters in to get 70 as opposed to give their back-ups playing time when the game was in hand. That doesn't make them any better, it just means they run up the score against teams that were over-matched.

Zonder wrote:
As for saying that margin of victory is a good way to determine great teams, I stand by that. By nature, things like strength of schedule would come in later in the season (right now, it doesn't help at all), as well as overall record and if the teams have played each other. Obviously, when two great teams play each other the margin of victory isn't likely to be that high. That's just the way it goes. I think that it is a sign of a good team if you can soundly beat the opponents you are supposed to beat as well as win those inevitable close games against good teams. Guess I wasn't clear about that in my above post.


Except the margin of victory can be high when two great teams play each other, that's just the nature of the game. A freak mistake like a high snap can lead to a close game being blown open. It's happened before and will happen again. Putting two great teams together doesn't necessarily mean a great game. I'll never buy margin of victory as an indicator of anything serious.

I agree that strength of schedule comes into play better later in the season, but I wasn't making any scientific analysis, I was looking at what teams I think are better based on how I saw them play.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Calvin

Legions of Zontar-Killers


Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Post Count: 2445
Location: Blight's Bay
817540 Potch
25 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:

If you don't care about last season, why are you calling Cincy overrated for not making the playoffs last year?


I brought them up because they didn't make many changes in the offseason and seem to have the same problems they did last year.

Quote:

Except the margin of victory can be high when two great teams play each other, that's just the nature of the game. A freak mistake like a high snap can lead to a close game being blown open. It's happened before and will happen again. Putting two great teams together doesn't necessarily mean a great game. I'll never buy margin of victory as an indicator of anything serious.


Yeah, it can be, but on average a weak team vs. a strong team will result in greater disparity than a strong team vs. a strong team.

Your college argument holds no weight because in the NFL nothing is actually determined by margin of victory so teams don't have any real reason to "run up the score." Also, NFL teams are much closer in talent than college teams are.
_________________

I changed the number on my phone so you can't call me up at home, and you can't say those
things to me, that make me fall down on my knees.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Zonder wrote:
I brought them up because they didn't make many changes in the offseason and seem to have the same problems they did last year.


Palmer has more experience, he didn't start off the season with a bad knee like he did last year, they didn't have nearly the level of off the field problems, they had draft picks, new injuries/suspensions, etc etc. If last year doesn't matter, than it doesn't matter, they're not the exact same team as last year.

That's my biggest beef with college football. Before the season starts, it's lined up for the legacy schools to have a major advantage over everyone else before a down is played, solely because they are traditionally big names.

Zonder wrote:
Yeah, it can be, but on average a weak team vs. a strong team will result in greater disparity than a strong team vs. a strong team.


In general, but countless times in every sport, the general rule of who should perform doesn't apply, so it doesn't matter. We were talking about the individual cases, it's based the summation of their individual performance, the quality of which has to be measured against the quality of their opponents.

Even then, there's more than enough cases of teams playing above or below their skill level in sports that your rule doesn't apply. Upsets aren't really that rare.

Zonder wrote:
Your college argument holds no weight because in the NFL nothing is actually determined by margin of victory so teams don't have any real reason to "run up the score." Also, NFL teams are much closer in talent than college teams are.


You said this thread wasn't just about NFL, but the general ways that teams are identified as good or bad, didn't you? You brought up that margin of victory is useful, I brought up reasons that it wasn't.

They don't have any postseason implications to run up the score, that doesn't mean they never do. There are plenty of times I've seen them keep players in beyond when they could have, or go for scores when they didn't need to. Sometimes they're fueled by rivalries, sometimes they do so to help players get records, sometimes the coaches just do it for no reason.

However, running up the score is only one scenario in margin of victory. The inverse also applies. There are games where the final score is deceptively close as well, not showing that one team really dominated the floor more than it'd appear. Often occurring when teams have no chance of winning, but go for scores at the end anyways, either to make it look like they didn't do that poorly or for morale sake. It doesn't mean played any closer when they lost by 14 instead of 21.

In the NBA, I've seen multiple occasions where, when the game, for all intents and purposes, over and a player will just toss in an easy layup, which can push the win to double digits, or decrease it from that.

In the NHL, empty net goals really mean nothing, but it effects margin of victory. A team will only empty the net in a desperation attempt, but every goal adds to the disparity of the victory, much moreso than it would mean in the NBA, but the goals couldn't be more meaningless.

As for the comment about talent, yeah, that's true, but it doesn't make margin of victory any more valuable or schedule strength any less valuable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Tullaryx

Custodiae Corvi


Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Post Count: 5577
Location: Apacheta
4092785 Potch
200 Soldiers
20 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well, in regards to looking at who had the quality of victories between Dallas and New England, I think after Week 6 we know that the Pats making things look easy didn't mean they played worst and easier opponents. The best the NFC had to offer did a good job not to get blown out in the first half. It looked like the game was going to get out of hand after the Patriots went up 14-0 in the early going of the first quarter. Dallas showed that they weren't going to just fold after getting punched in the nose that early.

In the end, only one half and part of the third quarter was all the Cowboys could manage against the Patriots. After Dallas went up 24-21 halfway through the 3rd the Patriots counted off 27-3 margin in scoring the rest of the way. What this game has proven is that New England is the best team in the league right now. Dallas, as good as they've been in the NFC, are just pretenders. They're not ready to be part of the elite club once again.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Sports All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me