Which Teams Possess the Ingredients for a National Championship Run?

by T Kyle King on Jun 23, 2007 11:18 PM EDT in Football

Our SportsBlogs Nation colleagues over at the wonderfully named The Band Is Out On The Field recently offered a defense of the California Golden Bears, to whom Stewart Mandel showed little respect when the Sports Illustrated writer observed:

Remember last week when we discussed the carryover effect of Oklahoma's 55-19 game a few years ago and how it affected the perception of that program? Well, I can't speak for other voters, but Cal's humiliating defeat at Tennessee last year had much the same effect for me. This is a program that, for several years, I think many of us slightly overrated in anticipation of a breakthrough that seemed to be coming following Jeff Tedford's impressive turnaround job. Much of this was based on two games -- the upset win over USC in 2003 and the near-upset of the Trojans in '04. But the fact is, in nearly every big showcase game since then, the Bears have fallen flat, from the Holiday Bowl loss to Texas Tech to the past two USC games to that Tennessee debacle.

Before proceeding further, I should make a few disclosures and offer a few disclaimers. For all his successes, I believe Jeff Tedford shares Ray Goff's penchant for losing high-scoring games and, in my preseason BlogPoll ballot last August, I described Cal as "nothing more than Texas Tech with a better tan and more anti-war protesting."

In retrospect, that may have been a little harsh.

Nevertheless, I picked the Bears to beat the Vols last fall and I respect both the Pac-10 generally and Cal particularly. Beyond that, I have little patience for Stewart Mandel, who writes silly things solely for their shock value, and, as an advocate of resume ranking, I agree with Sunday Morning Quarterback that poll rankings should be based on present achievement rather than on past performance.

Here is what TBIOOTF's Kevin had to say (accompanied by a mild adult language advisory) about the Cal program under Coach Tedford:

[O]ver the last 20 years that I have been watching college football, no program has been as organically created as Cal. I am defining organic as being natural. Here are my criteria for organic success.

Good coach willing to stay at the program (you are out Louisville, NorthWestern, Utah, and 1991 Cal.
Good recruiting (helps if you can bring something other schools can['t] - like say the Bay Area.)
Easily tappable talent pool (nec[]essary to break through the upper ceiling.)
Money helps (And contrary to common belief, we have absolute shitloads of it.)
It just makes sense that a major power is located there (So long Rutgers, which wouldn't make the list regardless.)

Is there a comparable case of a fringe program from a major conference going from obscurity to entering unquestionably the Top 15 programs in the nation? Maybe the closest approximation is Oklahoma, but at least they had tradition. Virginia Tech I guess is on this list. K-State had a marginally successful run that has proved unsustainable (an argument that no one could possibly make about Cal, see points 3 and 5). Louisville very recently certainly was helped by the weakness of their conference. Florida State was in the same boat in the late 80s and early 90s, though in many ways their rise in the shadow of a greater power (Miami) was similar (I guess the same argument could be made of Florida.) I guess Oregon is the only similar Pac-10 team, but they have proved to be a bit behind the Bears (and I don't know if being handed gobs of cash is organic.) LSU seems to be somewhat like this i[n] the SEC, having risen from the second tier into the first, but their transformation was more gradual first starting (then stopping) under Gerry Di[N]ardo, before finishing with Nick Saban.

Ironically, I think the closest analog for this organic rise is probably Texas, who under Mack Brown, took eight seasons to have [a] breakthrough win and they had to wait for the national title game for that to happen. (By Mandel's logic, I believe they could have lost the NCG to USC and technically not been in the running for a national title.)

Texas is similar to Cal in that their program appears to generally be built on a good coach and recruiter (Lord, don't strike me down!) building a complete program in a location where a program naturally should thrive. In addition, both coaches took over for undeniable morons (John Ma[c]kovic and Tom Holmoe). Both programs['] rises coincided with the slightly faster rise of a rival program (Oklahoma and USC). (And both of those rival rises were arguably helped by those programs cheating.)

Under Mack Brown, Texas posted these records... 9-3, 9-5, 9-3, 11-2, 11-2, 10-3, 11-1. Then in 2005 they won the National Title.

Kevin's reference to the Scarlet Knights obligated me to include a picture of Rutgers alumna Kristin Davis.

I will confess to finding parts of Kevin's rationale somewhat confusing and perhaps contradictory. He characterizes Oklahoma as California's "closest approximation" while noting that "at least they had tradition." Kevin goes on, however, to characterize Louisiana State as a program that had "risen from the second tier into the first."

Although the Bayou Bengals certainly had an extended downcycle during the Curley Hallman era and in parts of the tenures of Mike Archer and Gerry DiNardo, L.S.U. had won seven Southeastern Conference championships, captured the 1958 national championship, and produced a Heisman Trophy winner in Billy Cannon prior to Nick Saban's arrival in Baton Rouge. The Fighting Tigers finished first in the S.E.C. twice in the 1980s, not counting the 1984 season in which Louisiana State finished second in an autumn in which first-place finisher Florida had its championship vacated. In short, I believe L.S.U. might be credited with "ha[ving] tradition," as well.

The same, obviously, could be said for the Longhorns, who won national championships in 1963, 1969, and 1970 and captured conference crowns three times between 1990 and 1996, with the last league title coming two years before Mack Brown's arrival in Austin. The rise of Texas in 2005 represented a restoration, as well. At a minimum, Louisiana State and Texas could not fairly be characterized as "fringe program[s]" toiling in "obscurity" even when they were losing more games than the norm.

Going 11-1 and almost beating Georgia in the Cotton Bowl does not constitute "obscurity."

Those, though, are ancillary concerns. While some of his examples may be a bit incongruous, Kevin's overall argument is sound and the central thrust of his position has been demonstrated repeatedly in the recent history of college football. His fundamental thesis, for which evidence abounds, is this:

If a major conference program consistently fields teams that win 10 or more games on an annual basis, that program has put itself into a good position to have a special season in which it catches the few crucial breaks necessary to produce a national championship.

Kevin cites Mack Brown, whose Texas teams went 11-2, 11-2, 10-3, and 11-1 before going 13-0 and winning the national title. Other examples include Florida State's Bobby Bowden (11-1, 11-1, 10-2, 10-2, 11-2, and 11-1, then 12-1 and a national title), Tennessee's Phillip Fulmer (11-1, 10-2, and 11-2, then 13-0 and a national title), and Florida's Steve Spurrier (11-2, 10-2-1, and 12-1, then 12-1 and a national title).

Naturally, even great coaches stumble slightly sometimes, as evidenced by Coach Spurrier's 9-4 marks in 1992 and in 1999 or by Coach Brown's nine-win seasons in 1998, 1999, and 2000. All indications are that Kevin is right, though . . . consistent winners put themselves in position to make a run at No. 1.

Although it pains me to think about the 1983 Sugar Bowl, I probably should mention that Joe Paterno guided Penn State to undefeated seasons and Orange Bowl victories three times between 1968 and 1973, led the Nittany Lions to ledgers of 11-1 or 10-2 in four of the five years from 1977 to 1981, and finally captured the first of his two national championships in 1982 as penance for my posting the foregoing picture from the 1984 Cotton Bowl.

Consider those contentions in the context of Kevin's five factors for long-term success and national championship contention: a quality coach who is committed to staying put; quality recruiting; a readily available pool of player talent; a readily available pool of financial contributions; and a location conducive to long-term success.

While bearing in mind Kevin's sensible contentions, ask yourself about the national championship prospects for a program possessing the following characteristics:

A head coach who wins at a consistent clip, is as accomplished as any coach in his league, has established his elite credentials, and is committed to sticking with the program
An in-state recruiting base rich in N.F.L. prospects overseen by a head coach whose vigorous efforts produce numerous early commitments
An athletic department absolutely awash in cash
Such "natural resources" as facilities and weather patterns conducive to success, a championship tradition in multiple sports, and a top-tier athletics program administered by a bold and innovative young athletic director

Do those attributes of a championship program sound familiar? They should.

Go 'Dawgs!

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Cal

As I read Kevin's comments, 2 things jumped out at me:
1) He seemed like a young fan - not being aware of the traditions and history or teams like Texas & LSU.
And with fear and a little trepidation I say...
2) a smidge of regional ignorance- meaning he probably wasn't as familiar with some of the programs not close to Cal. I am not trying to start a "Coastal Bias" debate here, because I am sure there is a lot about the schools out West that I don't know about.

I do agree with the comments you made about his proposal and what that should mean for the Dogs. Hopefully it will, very soon.

by fotodog on Jun 24, 2007 8:52 AM EDT reply actions

My Opinion

I feel Kevin's comments are smack with arrogance and ignorance.

No program has been more organically created than Cal? FSU by and far has been more "organically" created than Cal. Based on all his criteria FSU fits the mold perfectly. Good coach willing to stay at the program? Check. Good recruiting? Check. Easily tapped talent pool? Check. Money? Check. Makes sense a power is there? Check.

I believe that are numerous other programs as well that are more organically created than Cal, but that's a whole other post.

"Is there a comparable case of a fringe program from a major conference going from obscurity to entering unquestionably the Top 15 programs in the nation?"

Here's where the arrogance kicks in, as I wouldn't even list Cal as amoung the Top 25 programs in the nation. He list them as unquestionably Top 15 programs in the nation. On what basis?

Not only does he have an inflated ideal about the position of is own program in the world of college football, but as fotodog said, he seems to lack the knowledge of the history of many college football teams. Which, considering the internet, should not be hard at all to do a little research.

What it comes down to is that Cal has had a few good years under Tedford in comparison to the rest of Cal's history. Using his logic Tedford has only been there for 5 years, hardly a coach "staying long term", and only posted two seasons out of those 5 with more than 9 wins. In UGA's worst year in awhile UGA posted 9 wins.

I'd also like to know what criteria he uses to judge whether Cal has a lot of money at their disposal like other top programs. He claims they have a "shitload" of it. Psh, Forbes doesn't even consider Cal to be a top 15 valuable program (sarcasm, but worth to note) and based on this website (http://www.midmajority.com/info.php?a=schools-budget) Cal ranks 26th in athletic department expense. Behind such notables as Texas Tech and South Carolina.

Not sure how to equate that to how much money the football program has at their disposal, but I would be hesitant to say that Cal has a "shitload" of money at their disposal in comparison to other programs of high caliber.

All in all, I understand being a Cal fan he's going to be slightly biased and, like the fat girl on the cheerleading team, have a higher self-esteem about one's self than they should.

by 440 on Jun 24, 2007 2:26 PM EDT reply actions

Success Without a National Championship

I would add one more criterion to the list of factors contributing to a school's prospects for success: a favorable schedule.

Even if a program has money, a good coach, tradition and quality recruits, it can still be undone by its schedule. When the schedule is too easy, a team won't garner sufficient respect to win the national championship. In the case of a schedule that is too difficult, a loss becomes almost inevitable, as most college players simply aren't capable of performing at the highest level week after week.

If we define success in the narrow terms of a national championship, it seems that a school needs to play and win two or three marquee games on national television and spend the rest of its season blowing out overmatched opponents, thereby remaining undefeated, going to the BCS championship and becoming "a success". While such a schedule will do a great disservice to the fans who are forced to sit through one blowout after another, the alternative of playing too many good teams and losing a game along the way likely will leave an otherwise deserving team on the outside looking in.

Florida proved to be the exception to this rule last season, but it seems clear in retrospect that the best team in the country almost didn't make it to the title game because they simply played too many good teams. This is why I argue that the current BCS bowl system is ill equipped to deliver a true national champion. It rewards teams that shy away from too much stiff competition and punishes those teams that challenge themselves by scheduling quality opponents and providing exciting contests for their fans.

Therefore, until the current bowl system is abolished, I believe we need to redefine success not in terms of being the national champion but rather in terms of beating the most quality opponents. Instead of fixating on the best way to avoid losses, we should focus on teams that accumulate the most victories over other good teams. Because the current system is so likely to crown an inferior team as the "national champion", we must acknowledge the possibility, if not the likelihood, that the best and hence most successful team in the nation may not even play in the title game under the current system.

Personally, I'm glad Georgia plays in the SEC East, because that means I get to attend lots of close games against good teams. With Georgia's ever improving out of conference schedule, even more good football should ensue. Unfortunately, this same schedule will continue to make a national title highly unlikely for the dogs, because 10-2 or 11-1 just won't get you to the big dance many years.

Of course, a playoff would resolve most such issues, but that's a topic for another day.

by Marshal J Duncan on Jun 24, 2007 3:28 PM EDT reply actions

Kudos

Kyle,

You beat me to it. I had this same idea for a blog entry, but you did it far more eloquently than I ever could have. The comments above mine are also spot on.

I replied to Kevin's post under my other blog, the CFB Authority.

Cal isn't on the perennial national title contender track yet. They are on the track to GET to that track.

Would you agree that for a team to be considered to be a perennial national title contender, they need to show a knack for winning conference titles consistently? I know Texas didn't win one for awhile before their title in 2005, but anyone else?

by The Power T on Jun 24, 2007 9:59 PM EDT reply actions

I'd comment...

...but I am too busy coming up with new plans to help evade NCAA regulations and cheat.

I just don't buy the "organic" part, nor the location argument. The bulk of football talent in California is in the southland; there are good players up north but not nearly the same quantity, so Cal just doesn't have the same pipeline as USC or Ucla. They don't have the Stanford excuse either; Cal has been willing to take a chance on marginally literate players for years if they are good enough. Basically, Cal hasn't completely sucked over the years, but neither have they been exactly dominant. And we are talking about a school that hasn't been to a Rose Bowl since 1959. That's a slightly longer fallow period than SC's iffy 20 year run in the BCE (Before Carroll Era).

The last time that Cal was consistently good, year in and out, before the 50s, was the 1930s, I think. When I was helping to write a piece for Conquest Chronicles about the 1932 USC Thundering Herd, I came across this description of the 1928 USC visit to Cal, which I thought I would add in on the question of "cheating":

The playing field conditions at Cal were terrible and were the subject of considerable controversy. To begin with, the field had no grass and was covered with a thin layer of sand. Also, despite the absence of rain all week,the field was extremely wet. As the Herald reporter observed: "Just how it got wet is one of those intriguing mysteries. One version is that there was a slight precipitation, limited by some strange meteorological freak to the confines of the Memorial Stadium." To make matters worse, prior to the main event there was a preliminary game between the Cal freshmen and a service team, which left the field a disaster before USC and Cal came out of the locker rooms. Interestingly, neither Brick Morse nor Dan Brodie mention any of this in their otherwise fine histories on California football. -- Ray Schmidt, 1989.

Cal has a good team, but they suffer from not having a stout defense at the moment, and this current iteration is prone to wilting under pressure. As for the broader context, I think that some of the assumptions made about facilities and Tedford's longevity with the program are perhaps best taken with a grain of salt until a new stadium is completed, and the attractiveness of the area and strength of local player pipeline are perhaps colored by homer glasses.

by DC Trojan on Jun 24, 2007 10:14 PM EDT reply actions

Hi Everybody...

Kevin from TBIOOTF here.

First, off, thanks a lot for the post, and the grammatical help (damn public school education!) This was a late-night, top-of-mind type post, so I somewhat surprised it was so coherent.

Third, I pretty much agree with most of the comments above.

Cal is only an unquestionable Top 15 program in my mind. My logic is that if you asked the Top 100 recruits in the nation where they wanted to go, Cal would definitely be Top 15. We have Top 15 appeal (and sexy yellow uniforms), if not Top 15 success.

On more talent being in SoCal, that is true but not super relevant. Not even USC can lock down SoCal, and Cal currently has a decided recruiting edge over UCLA and everyone else in that market. Cal is also winning NorCal, which probably has equivalent talent to many Southern states. Maybe not Georgia, but definitely as much as Alabama or Mississippi. Owning NorCal was Tedford's first goal when he came to Berkeley and it has paid off in spades. Aaron Rodgers and Marshawn Lynch both are NorCal kids. When Tedford arrived, Miami had more big local recruits than the Bears (Ken Dorsey and DJ Williams for example. Kyle Wright turned Tedford down - nice career choice there! All three were from within 20 minutes of Berkeley.) The fact that Tedford is a SoCal guy by birth has obviously helped also and a lot of our guys are from there (Nate Longshore and DeSean Jackson for example.)

On the same front, Berkeley has a lot of appeal to many kids both from SoCal and across the nation. Very very few programs are located in a place that is more interesting. It gets a bum rap for sure, but if you are 18 and have the choice between Berkeley and Eugene or Corvallis or Seattle or Pullman or Palo Alto or Boise, you are picking Berkeley. The academics don't hurt either. Plus a new Memorial Stadium will be built soon. (Oh, and according to Sports Illustrated, our current stadium location is the most beautiful place to watch a college football game.)

Two things to clarify the shitload of money - something our fans would understand better than outsiders. First, while you might have heard of the delays in building our new stadium, you probably didn't know they were building a $125 million stadium with private funds - an effort that should keep Tedford in Berkeley forever. Second, Cal has an enormous and incredibly rich alumni base. Most major corporations, law firms and investment banks worldwide are full of Cal grads. The University is located in the heart of the Bay Area - which has the highest per capita income in the nation. Median home prices, even in a bad market, are $660,000 just to give you a frame of reference. That was the type of money I was referring to.

On Florida State, I totally agree that their rise was organic. Originally they were meant to serve as the last program (roughly 20 years ago) to have done this. I think this got lost in a fog of late night edits and rearranging.

Just to note - Jeff Tedford is 45 and Bobby Bowden is 77. So, Tedford has some time.

by Kevin @ Dawg Sports on Jun 24, 2007 11:51 PM EDT reply actions

Interesting re: stadium

I hadn't realized that the funds were in hand and privately raised - that's pretty impressive and a real vote of confidence in Tedford, I think.

I'll take Kevin's word for it that there is plenty of talent in the northern part of the state - I was going off memory and the fact that almost every PAC 10 team has heavy representation from southern California.

Whether the Bears are a top 15 team now, Tedford has got them competitive and that is an achievement in itself. I certainly look forward to the Cal game now in a way that I didn't a few years ago, inasmuch as it certainly won't be dull.

by DC Trojan on Jun 25, 2007 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Does the $125 million in private funds

include a corporate sponsor?

It's impressive if you raised $125 million from your alumni; not impressive if you found a corporation willing to toss you a chunk of change to have their name plastered on your stadium in return for paying to build it.

I wouldn't rank Cal as a top 15 program, even using your definition of questioning 100 recruits.
You may get 5 recruits who'd mention Cal, but not 15. Even if you got 15, that's 15%, which means the other 85% are looking elsewhere. That puts Cal in the bottom 100-117 programs in the nation, not the top 15.

by Beergut on Jun 25, 2007 2:16 AM EDT reply actions

Nope

No "corporate" sponsor at all. Obviously corporations are giving money, but is isn't going to be Papa John's Stadium. Apparently, the major donor on the project is an individual who wishes to remain anonymous for the time being. As of last fall, the University had raised 95 million of the 125 million required for Phase I of the project without a public fundraising program that I know of (but obviously soliciting major donations behind the scenes and taking minor donations that came in.)

Apparently, 125 million is just the fundraising goal of the first part of the project - the student-athlete performance center. That doesn't include the bulk of the stadium rebuild. There are are going to be new law and business school facilities (they all share the southeast corner of campus) at similarly absurd costs (Apparently between 120 and 160 mil) again all private. So, I really have no idea what the project as a whole is going to cost when you factor in rebuiling a big stadium on a major fault line, but it appears astronomical.

by Kevin @ Dawg Sports on Jun 25, 2007 3:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Response

I would like to add some comments in defense of my paisan Kevin.

I am a California grad, so naturally my views will be filtered through a California perspective.

In a previous comment, 440 accuses Kevin of lacking knowledge of the history of other college programs while also stating "What it comes down to is that Cal has had a few good years under Tedford in comparison to the rest of Cal's history."

I do not understand how anyone can claim that Cal does not have a very proud history in college football. From 1920 to 1960, California was without doubt one of the premier teams in college football, highlighted by 8 Rose Bowl appearances, including 3 straight from 1949-1951, and an overall record of 359-159-41 (68% wins) through 1956.

One period of Cal football during this time deserves special mention. Under coach Andy Smith, California compiled a record of 44 - 0 - 4 from the years 1920 to 1924. The 1920 Wonder Team outscored their opponents 510 to 14 and defeated Ohio State in the Rose Bowl 28 - 0. There are very few teams that have had such a dominant 5 year run, and this is the bar by which all Cal teams will be measured. Andy Smith died of pneumonia at age 44 in 1925, so who knows what else he would have accomplished had he lived on.

Now, the period from 1960-2001 does not match the achievements of the prior era. A sub-500 over record during this time, no Rose Bowl appearances, few other bowl appearances, only one share of the Pac-10 conference championship in 1975, and several periods of sanctions for various . There are many reasons to explain this unusually difficult period, including poor coaching, administrative indifference, and political turmoil on campus which led to decreased attention for the football program.

Since Tedford's arrival in 2002, California football is entering a period of stability not seen since the 1950s. Yes, Tedford has not yet made an appearance in a BCS game or won a conference championship outright, but he has only been a head coach for 6 years so far and he will certainly achieve more success over time.

I think using rankings like a "top 15" program is difficult because it causes an arbitrary cutoff and leads to arguments over which teams deserve to be included.

I would say say that California has re-emerged to its previous position as a college football power as it naturally should be. The flagship public university of the most populous state in this great nation that loves college football so much should be in that position, considering that many flagship universities in much smaller states have excellent football programs. Cal is in the 5th largest media market (the Bay Area) and has a large recruiting pool right in its backyard. Of course, every successful team recruits players from areas beyond its local area, including out of state. Add to that a large and wealthy alumni base and I think Cal will be a college football contender well into the future.

by djmoney on Jun 25, 2007 3:50 PM EDT reply actions

Regaining momentum

I'd suggest only that it's going to take a while for Cal to overcome a 40 year period of the doldrums, and a large part of that is perception - how much time will it take for recruits and others to believe that Cal is back, and to have that match results on the field?

Put another way, USC went through a 20 year period of generally ho-hum football - when they went 11-2 in the 2002 season, it was the first 11 wind season since 1979 and the highest ranking since 1988. And yet during that fallow period, they were still getting some good players, despite the fact that the team wasn't that good. That's residual perception working, I think, and I wonder how long it's going to take for Cal to build up enough credit that recruits will believe it, and that they can ride out a couple of iffy seasons.

by DC Trojan on Jun 25, 2007 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Overcoming history

No part of my argument was intended to imply that Cal has a great football history, because frankly they really haven't done anything since the fifties (when they lost a bunch of Rose Bowl in a row. woohoo!)

However long it takes to overcome that, Cal has already done it. A now 17-year-old was 12 when Tedford got to Berkeley -- the Bears have been a stylish, entertaining, up-and-coming team their entire lives.

I figured that once DeSean Jackson, out of Long Beach Poly (far and away the best high school program in the nation in producing NFL players) chose Cal over USC, the program had officially put anything negative in its past behind it.

USC fans are incredibly bitter about losing Jackson with good reason. Frankly the best recruiting pitch we have right now is that D-Jax would still have been sitting on the bench at USC behind Jarrett and Smith and instead already has 19 career touchdowns in two seasons with the Bears.

Cal is the pretty much the only West Coast school with a prayer of pulling top recruits away from USC.

by Kevin @ Dawg Sports on Jun 25, 2007 11:41 PM EDT reply actions

We are?

bitter, that is? To be honest, I don't remember one way or the other, but that's because I'm a bit of a lightweight fan (in terms of seriousness, not girth, unfortunately). I'll tell you what, though, if Turner, Patterson, and Hazleton have adaption issues with being in the starter mix, I may change my tune.

However, I will say that any top-notch recruit who doesn't pick USC and goes to Cal instead of UCLA is all right with me.

by DC Trojan on Jun 26, 2007 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions

A little bitter at least...

This was basically the entire build-up to last year's Cal-USC game.

DeSean was called not so bright here.

More here...
From the comments on that thread...

I said to my dad and brother last year after watching him in the Cal-USC game that I was glad that he was not a Trojan, even with all the talent that he brings. Just watching his poor attitude and petulance during the beatdown was enough to convince me that his type of attitude wouldn't have fit. It seemed as though he thought that the reason for Cal's loss last year was that he didn't get the ball enough.

That being said, it the Trojans even kick it anywhere near this guy on Saturday, it could get ugly.

Now, of course, DeSean got freakin' leveled at the beginning of the game last year, Longshore threw a pick and got rattled, and the Bears lost. But I still gotta say that USC wouldn't mind him on their team this year.

But if UCLA and Stanford continue to be horrible, I guess neither of us can be very bitter.

by Kevin @ Dawg Sports on Jun 27, 2007 2:57 AM EDT up reply actions

Oh sure...

...use the archival power of the internet to actually prove your point instead of just winging it. Maybe I could have unlocked that potential had I taken my proferred place at Cal. Too late now...

by DC Trojan on Jun 27, 2007 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions