Jump to content

THE College Football Playoff Rankings Thread [MICH,WASH,TEX,ALA]


texifornia

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bullet said:

Agree.  I thought the committee would have been better, but it has been far worse.  When Alvarez and Osborne were on it was the worst.  Committee members said they deferred to the coaches.  And it was two 3 yards and a cloud of dust coaches who didn't respect the new offenses.  TCU should have been in 2014.  Its group dynamics.  Groups often get swayed by the most opinionated and they take over.  At least with the polls, the people are responding independently.

I'll be glad when all they do is pick 6 or 7 and the champs all get in.  A #10/11/12 isn't getting badly screwed if they miss it.

How has the committee been worse? Refer to my post on the previous page. I don't see much controversy with the selections generally. Champions get in over non-champions with equal records. 2014 featured a bunch of 1-loss champions, so someone was going to get left out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Sagarin and Massey are both score-weighted elo-like systems.  Massey does a better job for controlling for it by using win probabilities instead of actual scores, but that style of system as a wholes tends to punish difficult schedules.

It also hurts teams like Texas that have significant injuries that impact scoring differential, but still manage to win. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

They may be better than Washington, but to me the line is crazy (although  I'm not a betting man, for good reason).  Washington beat them by 3 in Seattle, which would seem to imply a push on a neutral site (home field advantage ~ 3 points).  Washington + 9.5?  I don't get it.

Because Nips is playing better than Penis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

You've been wrong about a lot of things. And this is also one of them. A power 5 champion has never been left out in favor of a non-champion with the same or worse record: 

  • 2014 - Oregon (Pac 12 champ), FSU (ACC champ), Ohio State (Big 10 champ), Alabama (SEC champ)
  • 2015 - Clemson (ACC champ), OU (Big 12 champ), Alabama (SEC champ), Michigan State (Big 10 champ)
  • 2016 - Alabama (SEC champ), Washington (Pac 12 champ), Clemson (ACC champ), Ohio State (11-1, non-champ) - Ohio State got in because Penn State had two losses
  • 2017 - Georgia (SEC Champ), OU (Big 12 champ), Alabama (non-champ), Clemson (ACC Champ) - Alabama gets in because Big 10 Champ Ohio State has two losses, Pac 12 Champ USC has 2 losses
  • 2018 - Alabama (SEC champ), OU (Big 12 champ), Clemson (ACC Champ), ND (12-0, ND) - Notre Dame gets in over conference champs because they all have losses
  • 2019 - LSU (SEC champ), OU (Big 12 champ), Clemson (ACC champ), Ohio State (Big 10 champ)
  • 2020 - Alabama (SEC champ), ND (10-1, ND), Ohio State (Big 10 champ), Clemson (ACC champ) - COVID year, so things are weird with ND, others didn't play full schedule or had more losses
  • 2021 - Alabama (SEC champ), Cinci (champ of non-power 5), Georgia (12-1, non-champ), Michigan (Big 10 champ) - Georgia gets in because all other champs have more losses, and ND had 1 loss
  • 2022 - TCU (12-1, non-champ), Michigan (Big 10 champ), Georgia (champ), Ohio State (11-1, non-champ) - Ohio State and TCU got in because all other teams had two or more losses

 

 

I'm not sure how to do it easily but it would be interesting to see how SOS looked for these teams and the 2 or 3 below them.

the committee does value conf championships because coaches value a trophy,  they value losses/wins because each game is like a little trophy.

what they have proven time and time again they don't value is SOS(computers) because coaches love to say you can only play who is on the schedule.  AD's on the committee don't punish cheesy OOC because they want to schedule auto wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

Georgia had a chance to roll Tech and couldn't do it.

Refs called 3 UGA TDs back and overruled a catch that would have lead to a 4th.  There were a couple of replays that overturned really bad calls.  Lead ref seemed really upset that those got overruled.  Georgia had a starting OL and their top 3 receivers out.  Kirby was just trying to stay healthy.  Play calling was very vanilla.  He wasn't going to show Alabama anything.  It was still a 15 point lead until Tech scored with about 5 minutes left to make it 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bullet said:

Refs called 3 UGA TDs back and overruled a catch that would have lead to a 4th.  There were a couple of replays that overturned really bad calls.  Lead ref seemed really upset that those got overruled.  Georgia had a starting OL and their top 3 receivers out.  Kirby was just trying to stay healthy.  Play calling was very vanilla.  He wasn't going to show Alabama anything.  It was still a 15 point lead until Tech scored with about 5 minutes left to make it 8.

yeah, I know all the excuses.  the score is the score.  They didn't roll a 6-5 Tech team.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason Oregon would make it over Texas is that, IF they beat Washington their best win (Washington) will be better than Texas best win (Bama), and they will have avenged their only loss. Texas could get some help here if Bama ends up beating UGA. A 1 loss Washington team probably drops to 5-6, a 2 loss Bama is probably around 10. 

If Oklahoma would have won out and Texas would have had the same chance and Oklahoma was ranked in the top 5 it would be a closer discussion, but unless Bama wins Saturday Oregon would have the better resume.

Oklahoma state being ranked in the high teens hurts Texas's chances unfortunately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'm not sure how to do it easily but it would be interesting to see how SOS looked for these teams and the 2 or 3 below them.

the committee does value conf championships because coaches value a trophy,  they value losses/wins because each game is like a little trophy.

what they have proven time and time again they don't value is SOS(computers) because coaches love to say you can only play who is on the schedule.  AD's on the committee don't punish cheesy OOC because they want to schedule auto wins.

Their reasoning varies week to week.  You can't justify some of their decisions.  Maybe they just outsource their decisions to 247.  Who has the best recruiting class, tempered by the number of wins and losses.

The #1 team is only 10-6 and that's just because UGA, LSU and Alabama have been so dominant lately.  #1 was 3-5 in the first 5 years.  They've only won 3 of the 9 years.  LSU in 2019 was the first #1 seed to win.

#2 started better, winning 3 of the first 5, but overall they are just 7-6.

#3 is 6-8 with Georgia being the only one who won it all.

#4 has won twice.  They are 4-7 and have lost the last 5 years in the first round.  Of course OU skews the stats.  #4s other than OU are 4-4.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'm not sure how to do it easily but it would be interesting to see how SOS looked for these teams and the 2 or 3 below them.

the committee does value conf championships because coaches value a trophy,  they value losses/wins because each game is like a little trophy.

what they have proven time and time again they don't value is SOS(computers) because coaches love to say you can only play who is on the schedule.  AD's on the committee don't punish cheesy OOC because they want to schedule auto wins.

TCU was almost certainly kept out in 2014 because of SOS. It had by the lowest of the conference champs. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Juicy said:

The reason Oregon would make it over Texas is that, IF they beat Washington their best win (Washington) will be better than Texas best win (Bama), and they will have avenged their only loss. Texas could get some help here if Bama ends up beating UGA. A 1 loss Washington team probably drops to 5-6, a 2 loss Bama is probably around 10. 

If Oklahoma would have won out and Texas would have had the same chance and Oklahoma was ranked in the top 5 it would be a closer discussion, but unless Bama wins Saturday Oregon would have the better resume.

Oklahoma state being ranked in the high teens hurts Texas's chances unfortunately. 

Why is Washington a better win than Alabama? Bama was #3 and we did it at their house. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bullet said:

Their reasoning varies week to week.  You can't justify some of their decisions.  Maybe they just outsource their decisions to 247.  Who has the best recruiting class, tempered by the number of wins and losses.

The #1 team is only 10-6 and that's just because UGA, LSU and Alabama have been so dominant lately.  #1 was 3-5 in the first 5 years.  They've only won 3 of the 9 years.  LSU in 2019 was the first #1 seed to win.

#2 started better, winning 3 of the first 5, but overall they are just 7-6.

#3 is 6-8 with Georgia being the only one who won it all.

#4 has won twice.  They are 4-7 and have lost the last 5 years in the first round.  Of course OU skews the stats.  #4s other than OU are 4-4.

I don't think you're reading your own post. Those records suggest that the seeding has been accurate. The overall winning percentage follows the seeding. 

Again, what decisions from the committee can't be justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

TCU was almost certainly kept out in 2014 because of SOS. It had by the lowest of the conference champs. 

They were kept out because Ohio St. had name brand and Wisconsin forgot to show up for the Big 10 ccg.  TCU was sitting in 3rd, won 55-3 over Iowa St. and got jumped by both FSU and Ohio St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you're reading your own post. Those records suggest that the seeding has been accurate. The overall winning percentage follows the seeding. 

Again, what decisions from the committee can't be justified?

I guess you don't do math.  The #1 has only won 3 out of 9 years and those were overwhelming teams.  The #4 has won 2 out of 9.  Seeding has been pretty poor.  When Alvarez and Osborne were on the committee, #1 seed never won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bullet said:

They were kept out because Ohio St. had name brand and Wisconsin forgot to show up for the Big 10 ccg.  TCU was sitting in 3rd, won 55-3 over Iowa St. and got jumped by both FSU and Ohio St.

Again, if you look at the SOS, TCU's was in the 50s (Sagarin). The other champs that made it in were all in the 20s or higher. That's a pretty justifiable reason when comparing teams with the same record and each conference champs. Who cares what the polls had? Who cares what the playoff ratings were the week before? Why should those things matter?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Texasborn91 said:

Injuries are part of it. Nobody gives 2 Fucks about that. 

Except of course the committee talks about how it is a factor, whether you do or not.

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Again, if you look at the SOS, TCU's was in the 50s (Sagarin). The other champs that made it in were all in the 20s or higher. That's a pretty justifiable reason when comparing teams with the same record and each conference champs. Who cares what the polls had? Who cares what the playoff ratings were the week before? Why should those things matter?  

So the playoff ratings should be random from week to week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bullet said:

I guess you don't do math.  The #1 has only won 3 out of 9 years and those were overwhelming teams.  The #4 has won 2 out of 9.  Seeding has been pretty poor.  When Alvarez and Osborne were on the committee, #1 seed never won.

I'm pretty sure you don't do statistics. 

#1 = 62.5% winning percentage

#2 = 53.8%

#3 = 42.8%

#4 = 36.3%

That's exactly what you'd expect to see if the seeding were fairly accurate. Measuring the results only by the overall champs over such a small sample is pointless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Juicy said:

The reason Oregon would make it over Texas is that, IF they beat Washington their best win (Washington) will be better than Texas best win (Bama), and they will have avenged their only loss.

Why would a win over Washington at a neutral site be bigger than a win over Bama on the road? (Assuming they both have 12-1 records)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bullet said:

So the playoff ratings should be random from week to week?

Random, no. But there is no reason the ratings from one week should have an affect on the next. You're thinking like a pollster where there has to be "stickiness" to rankings. There shouldn't be.  And that's exactly why people worrying about the rankings from last week or this week are worried about something that doesn't matter. And something we have evidence doesn't matter. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bullet said:

Take the top 3 receivers off any other team and see what happens.

sure that'd be fair if anyone would say take your QB1 off your team or your Heisman finalist RB and see what happens, but they don't.  so I'm not.

and it is should be way easier to replace WR's than QB's or Heisman level RB's

Edited by dcar00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hornbri said:

Why would a win over Washington at a neutral site be bigger than a win over Bama on the road? (Assuming they both have 12-1 records)

In my post I said if Bama Wins it is a different discussion. But  currently Washington is ranked higher than Bama which is why it would be a better win. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Juicy said:

The reason Oregon would make it over Texas is that, IF they beat Washington their best win (Washington) will be better than Texas best win (Bama), and they will have avenged their only loss. Texas could get some help here if Bama ends up beating UGA. A 1 loss Washington team probably drops to 5-6, a 2 loss Bama is probably around 10. 

If Oklahoma would have won out and Texas would have had the same chance and Oklahoma was ranked in the top 5 it would be a closer discussion, but unless Bama wins Saturday Oregon would have the better resume.

Oklahoma state being ranked in the high teens hurts Texas's chances unfortunately. 

steve-buscemi-fuck-all-that.gif

Oregon and Texas, both at 12-1 have similar resumes. The only thing that puts the Ducks ahead of Texas in this scenario is because they've been inaccurately ahead of Texas in the CFP, probably because we squeaked by a couple opponents with QB1 injured.

 

11 minutes ago, Texasborn91 said:

Why is Washington a better win than Alabama? Bama was #3 and we did it at their house. 

It's not. And shouldn't be thought of that way. Washington could easily have two or three losses.

 

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you're reading your own post. Those records suggest that the seeding has been accurate. The overall winning percentage follows the seeding. 

Again, what decisions from the committee can't be justified?

I would expect things to be pretty close since we're talking about the four best teams in the country (allegedly) meeting in neutral site venues. And you backed it up with the actual winning percentages and it's probably what you'd expect.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, we have two pairs of teams bootstrapping each other's SOS:

1. Michigan and Ohio State

2. Washington and Oregon

"Michigan must be great, after all, they beat the great Ohio State!" meanwhile "Ohio State must be great, they almost beat the great Michigan!"

"Washington must be great, after all, they beat the great Oregon!" meanwhile "Oregon must be great, they almost beat the great Washington!"

I agree sometimes it's not fair to drag them because of their respective conferences, but their resumes outside those "quality wins/losses" are not particularly good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

why EYE TEST! of course.

For those that aren't familiar, the eye test of of the most importance when it doesn't favor Texas. If it does, then the resume on paper is what matters. If that also favors Texas, well then we move to "what have you done for me lately". 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Texasborn91 said:

If ranking when played isn’t under consideration then Oregon’s best win is an unranked Utah and should have never been behind them. 

You can't seriously want to take ranking when played into consideration. Colorado, USC and A&M were all ranked based on preseason expectations. The current rankings have the most data, why would you make a decision off incomplete data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

 

 

It's not. And shouldn't be thought of that way. Washington could easily have two or three losses.

 

So could Texas. KSU went for it in OT instead of kicking the FG. So Texas could have 2 losses as easily as Washington could. The difference is that Washington currently has no losses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Juicy said:

You can't seriously want to take ranking when played into consideration. Colorado, USC and A&M were all ranked based on preseason expectations. The current rankings have the most data, why would you make a decision off incomplete data?

uh, what? you might want to reread his post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ZB'Tejas said:

Does the committee adhere to any specific SOS method? The most recent ESPN article states that Texas has the lowest SOS of any other Power 5 predicted champions but that's probably because they are using the ESPN FPI versus Saragin or any others for that matter

I think they said we have the lowest SOR which is different from SOS. They are cherrypicking stats to build their case against us. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

uh, what? you might want to reread his post.

I am not saying that Oregon CURRENTLY should be ranked higher than Texas, they probably shouldn't. I AM saying Oregon beating Washington this weekend is not going to make them drop behind Texas. Beating a top 20 team isn't going to jump a team over another team that would be beating a top 3 team.

Washington being number 3 right now is more impressive than a team being number 3 in week 2 of the season. 

Edited by Juicy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

This.  A washington neutral site win is still not better than our Bama win on the road.

Yup.  The things I think about are

1) All other things being equal, a road win is better than a neutral site win

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

3) Texas beat Alabama in one try and has a 100% win rate against the Tide, whereas Oregon required a mulligan game to get their win and has a 50% win rate against Washington
 

Therefore if Texas, Alabama, and Oregon all win, Texas should be ranked ahead of Oregon.  Very simple. :)

Obviously, it's possible the committee won't see it my way.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Juicy said:

I am not saying that Oregon CURRENTLY should be ranked higher than Texas, they probably shouldn't. I AM saying Oregon beating Washington this weekend is not going to make them drop behind Texas. Beating a top 20 team isn't going to jump a team over another team that would be beating a top 3 team.

Washington being number 3 right now is more impressive than a team being number 3 in week 2 of the season. 

You just said you can’t consider rankings at the time you play the game. 
 

Assuming Bama beats Georgia, and Oregon beats Washington, who will be ranked higher after both games, Washington or Bama?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

I think they said we have the lowest SOR which is different from SOS. They are cherrypicking stats to build their case against us. 

Correct:

image.thumb.png.584716c90ee3898aa2a56e52e8f0c1f1.png

 

Notably, we actually have a stronger SOR than Oregon, and a stronger SOS (based upon ESPN) of everyone other than Ohio State. Per ESPN, Strength of record - "Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yup.  The things I think about are

1) All other things being equal, a road win is better than a neutral site win

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

3) Texas beat Alabama in one try and has a 100% win rate against the Tide, whereas Oregon required a mulligan game to get their win and has a 50% win rate against Washington
 

Therefore if Texas, Alabama, and Oregon all win, Texas should be ranked ahead of Oregon.  Very simple. :)

Obviously, it's possible the committee won't see it my way.

Yeah, I think if the Louisville or Iowa (LOL) do not win for us, this is our next best path into the playoff. Piggyback off Bama and Oregon gets shut out. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yup.  The things I think about are

1) All other things being equal, a road win is better than a neutral site win

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

3) Texas beat Alabama in one try and has a 100% win rate against the Tide, whereas Oregon required a mulligan game to get their win and has a 50% win rate against Washington
 

Therefore if Texas, Alabama, and Oregon all win, Texas should be ranked ahead of Oregon.  Very simple. :)

Obviously, it's possible the committee won't see it my way.

I agree with this. I just don't see Bama beating UGA. 

If Bama wins it makes things a lot more messy. 

As a Michigan Fan I want Oregon, UGA and Florida State to win (sorry Texas) because I think Michigan would crush FSU, especially with no Travis, and I think the only way Michigan gets that Matchup is if UGA/UM/FSU and Oregon all win. 

I think Louisville has a good shot of beating FSU, probably a toss up. If they do, Texas wins and they are in. Without FSU losing I really don't see a way Texas jumps in. *unless Michigan loses. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dark Horse said:

You just said you can’t consider rankings at the time you play the game. 

Assuming Bama beats Georgia, and Oregon beats Washington, who will be ranked higher after both games, Washington or Bama?

See below, you're talking about a different scenario:

23 minutes ago, Juicy said:

In my post I said if Bama Wins it is a different discussion. But  currently Washington is ranked higher than Bama which is why it would be a better win. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yup.  The things I think about are

1) All other things being equal, a road win is better than a neutral site win

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

3) Texas beat Alabama in one try and has a 100% win rate against the Tide, whereas Oregon required a mulligan game to get their win and has a 50% win rate against Washington
 

Therefore if Texas, Alabama, and Oregon all win, Texas should be ranked ahead of Oregon.  Very simple. :)

Obviously, it's possible the committee won't see it my way.

if Ore wins then the only way the justify it is the "loss" beauty pageant, and they ignore SOS, which is easy for them to do due to the "you can only play who is on the schedule" theory as well as "computers, pfft" attitude.  they can throw in some eye test with our close wins with QB2, which they won't mention.

We need FSU to lose and I really thin Louisville can do it if they can run the ball at all.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dark Horse said:

You just said you can’t consider rankings at the time you play the game. 
 

Assuming Bama beats Georgia, and Oregon beats Washington, who will be ranked higher after both games, Washington or Bama?

 

 

Bama. I explained that 5 posts ago. My assumption is that Bama is NOT going to beat UGA. Which is why I said a win over 12-1 Washington is better than a win over 11-2 Bama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Correct:

image.thumb.png.584716c90ee3898aa2a56e52e8f0c1f1.png

 

Notably, we actually have a stronger SOR than Oregon, and a stronger SOS (based upon ESPN) of everyone other than Ohio State. Per ESPN, Strength of record - "Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule." 

What a stupid fucking measurement and clearly it is achieving the desired effect because it tricked one of our board members. Fuck ESPN. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, utee94 said:

 

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

 

This cannot be overstated. A 3 way knot favors Bama and Texas over UO.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The way I see it, we have two pairs of teams bootstrapping each other's SOS:

1. Michigan and Ohio State

2. Washington and Oregon

"Michigan must be great, after all, they beat the great Ohio State!" meanwhile "Ohio State must be great, they almost beat the great Michigan!"

"Washington must be great, after all, they beat the great Oregon!" meanwhile "Oregon must be great, they almost beat the great Washington!"

I agree sometimes it's not fair to drag them because of their respective conferences, but their resumes outside those "quality wins/losses" are not particularly good.

The computers love Penn State for some reason and both Ohio State and Michigan have wins over Penn State, which blasted Iowa 31-0.

 

18 minutes ago, Juicy said:

You can't seriously want to take ranking when played into consideration. Colorado, USC and A&M were all ranked based on preseason expectations. The current rankings have the most data, why would you make a decision off incomplete data?

And if Oregon beats Washington on Friday, the Huskies will no longer be the #3 team. IF Bama beats Georgia, the Tide will 100% be ranked higher than Washington thereby mitigating Oregon's best win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac changed the title to THE College Football Playoff Rankings Thread [MICH,WASH,TEX,ALA]

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...