California Golden Blogs: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: The Nova Blog for Villanova Fans!

Tedford's Early Recruiting Classes- An Objective Re-Evaluation

(Bumped up. Well worth a read)

INTRODUCTION: This past signing day, according to Rivals recruiting, Cal signed two five star and seven four star prospects. But what does that mean? Someone rated 5.8-6.0 is four stars, evaluated as an “All-American Candidate.” Here is the Rivals scale:

*6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

* 6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

* 5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

* 5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player

*4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about

The rating is part projection of talent, part inflation to appeal to fan observers. While I’ll be pleasantly surprised if the nine Cal recruits rated four stars or better turn out to be All-Americans during their careers in Blue & Gold, I think reality will fall just short. On the other hand, I highly doubt all 20 four star University of Florida recruits will become All-Americans! How do we reconcile the hypothetical with reality? (Be warned: the very premise of this exercise will result in fewer four stars for our beloved Bears.)

OBJECTIVE:

The following research will be taking an objective, retrospective (pending, in the case of current players) look at a player’s contributions at the college level. Each player, as judged by their collegiate accomplishments, will then be awarded a star level and “Rivals Rating” score based on the scoring system employed by Rivals.com.

 

Star-divide

METHODOLOGY:

One nuance of college recruiting “stars” should be noted. Four- and five-stars are limited commodities. In any given class, only the top 25 are awarded a fifth star, while only the top 250 prospects are awarded four stars; in other words, it’s enough to have five-star ability if you are evaluated as the 26th best player in the nation. Because I am generous (well, mostly due to a misread before my research), for the purpose of this exercise, I have accepted the top 50 recruits in the Rivals 250 as five-stars.

Rivals released their top 250 list in 2007 for the first time, rating the best prospects from 1 to 250. I took the past three Rivals250 lists and averaged the number of four- and five- stars awarded by position, per year. To better understand the relativity inherent in the rankings—keeping in mind that stars are based as much on an individual’s talent vis-à-vis another prospect as that of the individual, independent—I divided the total number of prospects by seven for each of the six BCS conference plus an additional catch-all for Independents and other non-BCS conferences.  The result is shown below:

Positionbreakdown_mediumvia img213.imageshack.us

In reading the chart, let’s look at the defensive backs category. Over the three-year period, there were 106 DB’s rated at four stars or better with an average of 35 per year. During the same period, 62 players evaluated as "athletes" were rated with an average of 21 per year. For this project, "athletes" were re-classified with allocation as follows: 33% defensive backs, 33% wide receivers, 24% running backs, and 10% linebackers. Therefore, the yearly defensive backs average gains seven for a total of 42. Dividing that total by seven makes six which draws the following conclusion: the six best defensive backs in a conference in any given year is a four-star player (thinking about it in another way, would you expect the 7th or 8th best defensive back in a conference selected as an All-American that year?). The same process is done for five star recruits, reaching the conclusion that the best player in the conference at each position is five stars.

The challenge, then, is to find player ratings by year, by conference. For this, I consulted all-conference teams. I have a high degree of confidence in the evaluations, as the honor is conferred by coaches who weekly scout and gameplan against the opposition—I trust coaches’ evaluations infinitely more than media, scouting "experts," or myself, to be honest. In a typical year, the coaches will select one quarterback, two running backs, three wide receivers, one tight end, five offensive linemen, four defensive linemen, three linebackers, and four defensive backs each for first and second teams. Thankfully, this neatly corresponds to the "by conference" breakdown for four stars so that first (sometimes second) team selections are awarded four stars. The two exceptions are defensive linemen and receivers, where first and second teams are considered. Within four stars, the Rivals Rating is to be laddered as followed:

FOUR STARS

6.0- One first-team selection, plus at least one other first- or second-team selection

5.9- One first-team selection, plus an honorable selection from another season

5.8 One first-team selection, or two second-team selections

For five stars, there needs to be clear indication that the player was considered the best at his position relative to other conference performers. The following are ways to achieve five stars, awarded automatically

FIVE STARS

  • For linemen—both offensive and defensive—winner of the Morris Trophy
  • Conference offensive or defensive player of the year
  • Consensus first-team selection
  • Recipient of national honor for position play (for example, Doak Walker, Thorpe, Randy Moss, etc.)

Players who received second team (excluding receivers and D-line) or honorable mention but no first team were awarded three stars with a Rivals Rating of 5.7. Any special teams member who earned any All-Conference honor was given a 5.7 rating.

The rest of the class was awarded three or two stars, and along with their Rivals Rating, this was accomplished exclusively from player participation based on the number of games played per season:

TWO-THREE STARS

5.6 and Three Stars- Played in at least 75% of eligible games

5.5 and Three Stars- Played in 50-75% of eligible games

5.4 and Two Stars- Played in average of four games a season

5.3 and Two Stars- Played in average of three games a season

5.2 and Two Stars- Played in average of two games a season

5.1 and Two Stars- Played in average of one game a season

5.0 and Two Stars- Zero participation, transfer, non-qualifier

Without further ado, here are the re-rankings of Coach Jeff Tedford’s 2003-2007 recruiting classes. Please keep in mind that the last two classes—2006 and 2007—are still in progress and subject to change based on performance in the next few seasons.

 

2003class_mediumvia img689.imageshack.us

2004class_mediumvia img43.imageshack.us2005class_mediumvia img687.imageshack.us

2006class_mediumvia img688.imageshack.us

2007class_mediumvia img688.imageshack.us

The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.

4 recs  |  Comment 36 comments  |  Add comment |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

So ...

Our recruiting class sucks?

This is way too much “out-of-the-box” math for this early in the day. Explain this to me like I was 5. Is this a good class or no?

Whose Axe?

OUR AXE!

by SoCal Oski on Feb 5, 2010 8:32 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Our recruiting class sucks?

No. It’s a function of there being only one ball to go around. While Florida may have 20 guys rated 4 stars or higher coming in for this recruiting class, it only speaks to their ability as future “All-American Candidates”. The reality is that the majority of those guys will never become All-Americans, either because they don’t pan out or they are overshadowed on the depth chart. The fan expectation inherent in the star system sets them up for disappoinment. I am almost certain that if I were to re-rank every team, the top half of BCS teams will all find lower number of four star players.

by ttgiang15 on Feb 5, 2010 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My assumption is that our recruiting’s slowly been getting better. We’ve had several top performers in the past, but we have really started to see a shift towards more solid (3 star) performers in the past several years.

Am I right in assuming this?

by Shadwhand on Feb 5, 2010 8:52 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I would think so...

It seems we are adding more top level talent, but when I look at these star levels, I think it would be more appropriate to say we are recruiting better mid-level talent, i.e. more 3 stars than 2 stars.

Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN

by CruzinBears on Feb 5, 2010 9:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oops, meant that. Our midline has become increasingly better the past couple years. Our topline is pretty standard – we usually have 1-2 top performers.

Regardless, this is a good analysis.

by Shadwhand on Feb 5, 2010 10:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

just looking at the trends, the challenge for the coaching to staff is to find a higher ratio of three stars (contributors) to two stars (limited contributors). A harsh but real assessment is that two stars are wasted schollies.

by ttgiang15 on Feb 5, 2010 11:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A harsh but real assessment is that two stars are wasted schollies.

Unless you’re Wazzu

Whose Axe?

OUR AXE!

by SoCal Oski on Feb 5, 2010 11:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Boom!!!! Roasted!!!!

Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN

by CruzinBears on Feb 5, 2010 12:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

…but many of those two star prospects out of high school become three star contributors in college. Washington State’s completed classes probably look a lot like Cal’s incomplete 2007 class: few four stars (1st or 2nd teamers), some 5.7s (honorable mentions), a lot of 5.5s and 5.6s (contributors), and a lot of two stars who never qualified.

by ttgiang15 on Feb 5, 2010 12:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That 2005 class was something.

Whose Axe?

OUR AXE!

by SoCal Oski on Feb 5, 2010 10:25 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I disagree with the rankings

You’re looking at it strictly from a statistical/mathematical standpoint which discounts the impact a player had.

How in the world is Aaron Rodgers, Syd’Quan Thompson, an Zack Follett to name a few not 5*? They arguably had program changing effect during their years at Cal.

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Feb 5, 2010 10:25 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

The problem is that in spite of their awesomeness, they were still overshadowed within the conference by other big time players (USC, specifically). Take 2008, Cal had amazing linebackers, but since USC had multiple first round picks, only Zach Follet received 1st team recognition.

by chowder on Feb 5, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That means

Almost by definition then, no so-called 5-star recruit playing for a team like Cal, Iowa, or Clemson is actually a 5-Star recruit because the 5-Star recruit playing for USC, Ohio State, or Florida is on the more awesome team.

I tend to think that an athlete’s abilities are independent from their team, and a 5-Star player is a 5-Star player regardless of team.

Whose Axe?

OUR AXE!

by SoCal Oski on Feb 5, 2010 11:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Completely agreed.

by chowder on Feb 5, 2010 11:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that didn’t seem to prevent DeSean Jackson, Brandon Mebane, Daymeion Hughes, Marshawn Lynch, or Alex Mack from a well-earned fifth star. Antoine Cason would be a five-star. Taylor Mays would not. The star-team bias is reduced to a minimum because most of the selections are based on in-conference coaches picks.

by ttgiang15 on Feb 5, 2010 12:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is measuring impact as it pertains to college football, the Pac -10, not Cal.

Aaron Rodgers suffers from the JC dilemma. Rivals doesn’t give away too many five stars to JCs because their period of contribution in college is half of that of a prep recruit. I agree. Rodgers also had the unfortunate timing of sharing first team honors with Leinart, who was also conference player of the year and Heisman Trophy winner in 2004. By college production, it’s hard to argue Rodgers > Leinart.

Syd’Quan’s not as accomplished as Hughes. Both were twice first-team conference selections, but the latter was the DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR. They’re not equals in terms of their accomplishments. Zack Follett, at best, was always second fiddle to Rey Maualuga, who was selected as defensive player of the year in 2008—Zack’s best season—so the coaches disagree that Follett had more impact than Maualuga. Regardless both of these guys were rated 6.0 which is the next value down from 6.1-five star. Adjust your perceptions and realize that the amount of stars is not the end-all.

by ttgiang15 on Feb 5, 2010 11:30 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The whole Rodgers - Leinart argument

Thought experiment:

You take Matt Leinart (or Aaron Rodgers) and clone them. Put one on USC and one on Cal. They are identical in their ability, etc. By this reasoning, USC Leinart is a 5-Star and Cal Leinart is not.

Yes?

Whose Axe?

OUR AXE!

by SoCal Oski on Feb 5, 2010 11:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

take off the homer glasses…you’re talking about one of the most decorated players in college football history and a two-year JC contributor. This is exactly why everything was reduced to formula. This is all about college productivity, not an evaluation of talent (which would naturally tend towards NFL projections).

by ttgiang15 on Feb 5, 2010 12:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My disconnect

I may still be totally confused by this (too many OTC allergy pills washed down with Jameson will do that), but I think that this whole post has less to do with actual Star Rankings (in terms of player impact and value to the team), and much more with things like All-American prediction.

Now, for me personally, the rankings of recruits has always meant more about how they will help a team and what sort of impact they will have, rather than whether they get some trophies or stuff after the season is done. If that’s the case, then re-ranking all these players actually de-values them rather than appropriately values them. Case in point, Leinart vs Rodgers. Sure, Rodgers didn’t win the Heismann, but to say that his impact on the team, or his performance was somehow lower than Leinart seems a bit odd.

Or am I way off base here?

Whose Axe?

OUR AXE!

by SoCal Oski on Feb 5, 2010 11:45 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Now, for me personally, the rankings of recruits has always meant more about how they will help a team and what sort of impact they will have, rather than whether they get some trophies or stuff after the season is done. If that’s the case, then re-ranking all these players actually de-values them rather than appropriately values them. Case in point, Leinart vs Rodgers. Sure, Rodgers didn’t win the Heismann, but to say that his impact on the team, or his performance was somehow lower than Leinart seems a bit odd.

Or am I way off base here?

Yes, the intent was to do a retrospective evaluation…it’s not a prediction or projection. The block quote shows your approach is wrong in considering the evidence. It has nothing to do with how a recruit “will” do something, but a look at how much a player “did” in college. I would argue that garnering any of the requisite honors for a five-star is illustrative of a combination of ability, accomplishment, and impact…and considering that only one or two players are selected from the entire conference, the entire nation in the honors for five-star, it’s safest of assumptions that these guys are among the top seven in conference (more or less the threshold for five stars as evidenced in the table).

by ttgiang15 on Feb 5, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It has nothing to do with how a recruit "will" do something, but a look at how much a player "did" in college.

Okay, I get that. Looking back, evaluating performance, etc to see if Recruits, Scout, or ESPN got it right.

Of course, it begs the question of defining the whole “what a player did in college” bit. Basing that value on things like overall team success, post-season accolades, and so forth brings in a lot of subjective criteria, as well as not accounting for such factors as teammates, conferences, biases, etc. I mean, yeah, the Heisman is great, but often times does not actually go to the best player. Similarly, this sort of thing tends to over-reward and over-penalize players based on their team, injuries, and so forth.

The actual rankings used for prospects by the recruit evaluation services also does this, but to less an extent, as they tend to have a greater evaluation of an individual player independent of their HS team, according to somewhat more measurable metrics such as speed, on-field individual performance, and so forth. Sure, it makes it more like trading horses or a cattle auction, but it does seem to de-emphasize uncontrollable criteria.

This isn’t to say that your analysis is flawed at all – and as something that tries to measure how accurate recruit rankings are as a predictor of post-season awards, this is quite helpful! But it really (at least it seems to me) places too much emphasis on external variables, and not enough on individual talent.

In any case, this was some pretty impressive work.

Whose Axe?

OUR AXE!

by SoCal Oski on Feb 5, 2010 12:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I may still be totally confused by this (too many OTC allergy pills washed down with Jameson will do that)
SoCal Oski on Feb 5, 2010 11:45 AM PST

Late night, or getting an early jump on weekend festivities?

by atomsareenough on Feb 5, 2010 1:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What day is this???

Whose Axe?

OUR AXE!

by SoCal Oski on Feb 5, 2010 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Get a job, sir!

THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOSE.

by atomsareenough on Feb 5, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey!

"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/. Go Bears!

by MadBum on Feb 14, 2010 10:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not you, Lebowski. Isn’t your screen name inspired by a Giants prospect anyway?

by atomsareenough on Feb 14, 2010 10:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

Boo Dodgers!

"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/. Go Bears!

by MadBum on Feb 14, 2010 1:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah, the Dodgers… a.k.a. “Dem Bums” :)

by atomsareenough on Feb 14, 2010 2:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is awesome!

I love this kind of objective numerical evaluation of talent. Rec’d x 1,000,000

by Kai on Feb 5, 2010 12:17 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Wow, not a single recruit from 2003 from outside CA…

Quantity AND quantity!

by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 5, 2010 1:05 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Thanks

Interesting read. A few comments

1) If the objective is to show who did or did not reach their Rivals’ projected potential, could you revamp the graphics to show Rivals’ original projections to your achievements scale side-by-side?

2) Wouldn’t the 2006 & 2007 evaluations be too early since most of the players in those classes haven’t finished their careers yet?

3) Just going thru this in my head here. I might have misunderstood this, so correct me if I’m wrong.

FOUR STARS

6.0- One first-team selection, plus at least one other first- or second-team selection

5.9- One first-team selection, plus an honorable selection from another season

5.8 One first-team selection, or two second-team selections

Let’s take Pac10 and their starters as an example cuz it’s easy and always x10. The implicit assumption is that 1/10 QBs, 2/10 RBs, 6/30 WRs, 1/10 TEs, 5/50 OLs, 8/40 DLs, 3/30 LBs, 4/40 starting DBs should achieve 4stars retrospectively. To score 6.0, a starting QB is facing at least 1/10*2/10 = 2/100 odds. But to earn 5.8, a starting QB is facing [1/10*1 | 2/10*2/10] = 1/10 odds, assuming 100% for a QB to start again if he had been selected 1st team before.

First of all, seems like a big jump from 5.8 to 6.0 even just w/i the 4stars level of achievement. The odds are WAY stacked against 4stars recruits to achieve their potential, but better if they played RB, WR, or DL? Perhaps we need more consistency.

BTW – I just gained even more respect for college fb recruits. These odds really suck for becoming college stars. I haven’t even figured in the fact that projected Rivals 4stars don’t have starting jobs yet.

by solarise on Feb 5, 2010 1:48 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

1. if you look at each graphic, the “RR” refers to the original Rivals Rating, and the “REVISED” refers to the adjusted rating based on performance. For example, Alex Mack’s original evaluation was a 5.3 and his post-collegiate rating is 6.1, or a +0.8 gain.

2. yes and no. For the 2006 guys, anyone with a 5.7 or above can still move up to a 5.9 or higher. Anyone with a 5.6 or less can only move up to 5.8 at the highest (unless one expects a 5.6 to become player of the year or win the Heisman). Meaning, because Gibson and Larson are gone, only Mohamed can become a 6.0 based on all-conference selection, and only Chris Guarnero can move up to 5.9 by virtue of all-conference.

For the 2007 guys, there’s still a lot of potential for improvement. Still way too early to project, I agree, but the early returns are that ’07 will easily surpass ’06 with Cattouse, Jordan, Schwartz and Vereen already at 5.7 with two years of eligibility remaining.

3. Two things. First, yes, there’s a BIG difference between a 5.8 and a 6.0, which is why I pleadw with folks not to get too caught up on the number of stars, exclusively. One way to think about it is the rating as directly correlated with the probability that the player will have earned a spot on an all-american list for at least one national publication, for example:

- 6.1 five star: 100% – 6.0 four star: 75% – 5.9 four star: 50% – 5.8 four star: 25% – 5.7 three star: 0%

The second part is out of my control. I can’t make adjustments for equity purposes because the breakdown is a reflection of the Rivals bias towards awarding more stars to certain positions. But I agree, these positions are better positioned for four and five stars than others.

I just gained even more respect for college fb recruits. These odds really suck for becoming college stars. I haven’t even figured in the fact that projected Rivals 4stars don’t have starting jobs yet.

Glad you noticed. One of the big takeaway points from this exercise.

by ttgiang15 on Feb 5, 2010 7:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Could you please

add the 2008, 2009, 2010 classes below the tables for the prior years? I take it you aren’t including them in your analysis, and that’s why you left them out. However, it’s nice to see them all side by side.
I think you should be able to edit your initial post.
Thanks.

by concordtom on Feb 6, 2010 8:11 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Did anyone else look for a “Conclusion” section, not find one, and therefore not read anything in the whole article, nor any of the comments? Yeah, “conclusion” is a necessary section. C’mon guys!

by Missing Barry on Feb 6, 2010 10:28 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Don't Hate

I think the piece works well without a conclusions section.

Futhermore, I appreciate the time and effort involved in writing this. I would also suggest you take the time to actually read something rather than wasting your efforts clamoring for bullet points, advertising your laziness, and criticizing someone for not putting forth enough time and effort into a for-fun personal interest to suit the needs of your slothfulness.

by chowder on Feb 7, 2010 5:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Missing Barry, are you unable to think without somebody telling you what’s what?

President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2010 9:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs


User Tools

The California Sports Website that's .....different from all the rest.

GoldenBlogs' FAQ
Start posting about the Golden Bears »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Cal_2_small
And You Thought Pac-10 Refs Couldn't Get Any Worse
Cms_small
Cal Pro Day
Jones_1_squared_small
Spring Practice Preview

Recent FanPosts

Small
Cal Basketball Tourney Viewing Parties
1262541127_small
Reminder: Join the CGB Tournament Pick'em Challenge and Fantasy Baseball League!
Boosmall_small
Cal Baseball Splits Series With #9 Rice
P1_marshawn_small
DBD 3.15.10 Don't Forget To Sign Up For the CGB March Madness Pool!
Small
Cal's Ruggers Skunk Chico State 97-12
P1_marshawn_small
DBD 3.12.10 The Newest Fantasy Sports Craze!
N1222878_43736576_541_small
DBD 3.11.10: BOW DOWN TO THE FACE OF MEDIOCRITY!!!
Jeff_mug_h2_small
SB Nation's Pac-10 Tournament preview

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS

SBNation.com Recent Stories

geeeeeno +1 updates

The 2010 NCAA Women's Basketball Bracket Is Set

Duke students cheer prior to Duke's matchup with North Carolina in an NCAA college basketball game in Durham, N.C., Saturday, March 6, 2010. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

Bracketology FAIL: How The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee Botched The Field

Iowa coach Todd Lickliter calls to his team from the sidelines in the first half against Illinois in an NCAA college basketball game Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2010, in Champaign, Ill. (AP Photo/Heather Coit) +1 updates

Iowa Makes It Official: Fires Todd Lickliter As Basketball Coach

More from SBNation.com >


Marshawnthusiasts!

Bear_small ragnarok

Script_cal_small HydroTech

Cal_football_2005_09_16_roll_07_012_small CBKWit

P1_marshawn_small TwistNHook

1262541127_small yellow fever

Jahvidtician

Giorgiorope_small Berkelium97

Calflag_small Avinash

Member Of The Follettariat

Bear__small norcalnick

Official Partner of CBS Sports