There is controversy in the BCS. Again.
Second-ranked USC, the team most assumed would be playing Ohio State in the postseason, lost to UCLA; fourth-ranked Florida beat Arkansas in the SEC conference championship. Third-ranked Michigan, the team that many analysts initially decided was better than Florida even after losing, finished its season two weeks earlier. But despite Michigan’s being idle, and despite Florida’s failure to use its last two games to assert itself as superior to Michigan — particularly in an anemic effort against unranked Florida State — the Gators passed the Wolverines in the final poll.
Many explanations for the position switch held to one of several common themes: Florida won its conference; Florida plays in the top-ranked conference; the nation doesn’t want to see a Michigan/Ohio State rematch. The validity of those explanations within the confines of the BCS is being debated, and that debate is fueling yet another round of suggestions for fixing the BCS. All of those suggestions have one thing in common.
They are destined to fail.
The apparent purpose of the BCS is to match the top two teams in the nation in order to determine a national champion; more often than not in its short but turbulent history, it has succeeded most often in fueling controversy over the exclusion of at least one seemingly deserving team. Be it undefeated Auburn’s exclusion or Texas’ passing an idle Cal after an underwhelming victory, the BCS has created more questions than it has answered. In the process, it has taught important lessons about college football.
Or perhaps more accurately, it has tried to teach important lessons. Sadly, as demonstrated by the growing push for a playoff system, few seem to be learning anything from the failures of a national system in a regional game — failures which show us that to fix college football, we need to rethink our focus and take a few steps backwards to when it wasn’t broken.
After a so-called split national championship between Michigan and Nebraska in 1997 — something that was really a difference of opinion given too much absolute credibility by fans and sportswriters — the crusade to name a champion began. The basic idea of the new system, the BCS, was to match the top two teams in a bowl game to produce a true number one team. But while it was fine on paper, it turned out to be startlingly naive once it was introduced to the unique landscape of college football.
Because the structure of college football did not actually change with the introduction of the BCS, the system often struggled to produce a top two without controversy. Quite often, there were not only two top teams; since college football’s structure provided no reliable method of separating closely-ranked teams, the BCS had no way to relegate a third team that could just as easily be the second team. Its flaws were never clearer than in 2003, when it produced its own split championship.
The constant controversy surrounding the BCS has given strength to the push for a playoff system in college football. The proposed systems vary, but all are built with the idea that they will produce a true national champion, succeeding where the BCS failed. These playoff systems have something in common with the myriad of proposed BCS fixes.
They, too, are destined to fail; college football is not built to produce a national champion.
A system can’t escape the league it presumes to judge; just like the BCS, a playoff system would find itself struggling with the challenge of ranking teams across college football’s regionally compartmentalized structure. To fill its brackets, a playoff system would be forced to rely on a set of criteria no more reliable than that of the BCS; thus, just like the BCS, a playoff system would find itself producing controversy because of the unreliability of the rankings supporting the system.
In that light, the solutions themselves are a problem: they ignore the established structure of the league. They attempt to create an absolute national finality that is not compatible with the regional nature of college football. A system should not seek to shape the league around itself, but instead should shape itself around the league; the recent championship systems make the mistake of considering themselves bigger than college football.
These problems stem from a growing focus on producing an undisputed college football national champion. The constant drone from preseason through the final week centers around the teams that have a chance of earning a berth in the BCS championship game, and those that finish just outside the top two are conditioned to be disappointed. Top teams are supposed to have the BCS championship as a major goal. That goal is now the most-hyped element of the sport; it is also a harmful assault on college football.
This single national emphasis strikes at the strongest underpinnings of college football: the conferences. College football as a whole is marginally unified under the NCAA, but its strength has long been in the individual conferences; the sport is at its best when the primary focus of a team is its own conference, and not the national picture.
Under college football’s old two-poll system, that focus was easier to maintain. Teams worked to win their conferences and to represent those conferences in the bowl games that were the destination for conference champions; there were two sets of national rankings, but no bowl berths were dependent on those rankings. Neither set of rankings proposed to crown an undisputed national champion; each named its own champion. The polls asserted nothing more than opinions.
The establishment of the polls as opinions rather than absolute judgments made the two-poll system far superior to both the BCS and the proposed playoff systems. Opinions are flexible and fallible, so the polls functioned well within the existing framework of college football. The BCS’ struggles with the regionalized nature of the sport were not true struggles for the old system: the two polls did not face the challenge of accurately comparing two schools with two entirely separate schedules, nor did they bear the pressure of choosing any bowl berths. They simply ranked the teams as they saw fit, and, since the poll rankings did not dictate traditional bowl matchups, any controversy caused by the rankings stayed off the field — a crucial distinction from the newer systems.
The old system didn’t discard championships; it just kept them at a regional level. Throughout the old two-poll system, and now through the BCS hullabaloo and playoff proposals, the conferences have maintained their own championship system with a minimum of controversy and with great success. Unlike national championship systems, year in and year out, the conferences provide the environment necessary to produce genuine champions.
While three different conferences — and thus three completely different conference schedules — are represented in this year’s top four BCS teams, only one conference is represented in the top four teams in any conference. While those three BCS teams share very minimal schedule overlap, each team in a conference has substantial overlap with every other team. While none of those three BCS teams faced each other during the season, each team within a conference plays nearly every other team. When a national system such as the BCS seeks to rank similar teams and settle the inevitable disputes, it faces a speculative challenge; when a conference seeks to rank teams, it has an abundance of overlapping data with which to compare teams and more than enough credible tiebreakers to accurately rank teams.
In the current frenzy for a college football champion, we in the sports world seems to have forgotten about conference championships. We seem to have forgotten that college football once knew how to distinguish the difference between genuine championships and crowns of opinion. We seem to have forgotten that college football still knows how to crown credible champions. We also seem oblivious to the problems inherent in forcing national results on a regional sport.
With another BCS controversy threatening yet again to topple the system and with playoff proponents growing louder every year, the old system is quickly fading into oblivion as a national championship becomes the only prize that matters. And with every new system and its requisite controversies, we seem less willing to consider this simple idea: maybe college football wasn’t the problem.
Maybe we lost our focus on its strengths and started pursuing something it can’t give us. Maybe we tried to fix a nonexistent problem — or maybe we were the problem. Maybe we should stop looking forward and start looking back. Maybe we had it right; maybe we can have it right again.
Maybe we broke college football with our solutions; maybe it’s time we solved those solutions. All of them.
Although I agree approximately 100%, ’tis an uphill and ultimately losing battle. College football will have some sort of playoff system in the next 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised, in the next 10 years, to see the number of regular season games lowered by 1, and an 8 team playoff in place. When that happens, college football will just be another fun season to watch; nothing special. It will basically be a mini-NFL. You can’t serve God and money. College football might show you can’t serve tradition and money either.
The problem is the media whips the masses into a frenzy, and any time the masses decide a course of action, it’s going to be prosaic, unthinking, typical. Every other country has a king, why can’t we? Everyone else has a playoff, college football needs one too!
Here’s a quote from some guy on a blog: “These college kids only get a few shots at wining [sic] a NC, let’s quit wrecking their dreams. . .” Some coaches still cling to the idea that the goal every year is to win your conference, go to your conference’s bowl, and represent well your conference at that bowl (that has been Carr’s and Carroll’s response to, “Aren’t you disappointed at being in the Rose Bowl?”). And some of us fans still cling to that idea. But we’re a dying breed, soon irrelevant, eventually extinct.
If a playoff is inevitable, we have to change how the rankings are decided. Gary Danielson has said a lot of stupid things recently, but one thing he said that is very true is that before USC lost to UCLA, no one cared who was #3 and #4. Voters didn’t want a rematch, but they just assumed USC would win, so no one bothered to jump Florida above Michigan. That’s strike one against the current system: people are supposed to rank the top 25, and they can’t even pay attention past #2?
Strike two: gaming the system/voting for random reasons. One guy put Florida #1 because he believes they’re the greatest? That’s voting as a fan, which tells us nothing but who you like. Or Perles, voting for UM because he lives in Michigan?
Strike three: pre-season bias. Some teams are in the top ten only because they started high; and they started high only because of their names. Other teams are better teams, but started unranked, and started unranked because of their names.
Gouda has it right: only conferences can make intelligent choices. If we have to have a playoff, let the conferences tell us who is the best from that conference. Then the conference champions can play each other.
What about ND? What about the small conferences? No doing this half-way. Everyone has to be in a conference, and every conference that wants in should be allowed in (subject to some limits, I guess). So if the MAC, WAC, conf USA, whatever, is in, its winner is entitled to a spot, just like the SEC, etc.
So forget bowl games. Forget stupid polls. If the masses really want this playoff bed, they better lie in it, and not try to keep remnants of the old way. As Gouda put it, “A system should not seek to shape the league around itself.” In essence, people prefer a system (one which spits out one name as “national champion”) to the league. If that’s the case, people who want a playoff better be prepared to destroy the old league, and replace it with one that fits the system they demand.
WHOA! Slow down here Mr. Bond. Forcing ND to join a conference is beyond crazy. It’s just plain wrong. First of course there is the money. Joining a conference would force ND to share it’s NBC money. They will fight that until the bitter end. But the money for other teams is huge too. Forcing ND to join a conference would be a big hit to the Army, Navy, and Air Force programs. Having Notre Dame come to play at your stadium, or a neutral stadium home game for you, is a huge money maker. If ND joined a conference they’d likely have to drop some of these games. Can you imagine them dropping USC or Michigan? And don’t go assuming that they’d join the Big Ten right away. They are a part of the Big East in their other sports. Imagine where ND would be right now if they played Army, Navy, Air Force and the Big East schedule. I bet they’d be undefeated. I’m sure they’d go to whoever gave them the best deal when it came to their TV deal. Shoot if I was them I’d form my own conference. Bring in the other independents… Now I’m rambling. Second there is the beloved tradition. USC, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue. I know it’s hard to imagine them not playing Michigan but State is an old rival as well. There have been some classic games there. (Now I’m getting worked up. I actually got up and walked away from the computer.)
Paul, I have to interject two things here:
First, I think the notion of ND joining a conference is proposed within the context of completely blowing up college football and starting over in order to accomodate a playoff featuring conference champions. (js, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.) So the money would be best in any conference, because NBC couldn’t offer them a playoff berth.
And second, regarding the Big East and the Big Ten: three of the four classic matchups you listed feature Big Ten teams. If any conference makes sense from a traditional standpoint, it’s the Big Ten.
But then again, if ND were forced to join a conference to be eligible for a playoff, it would mean that tradition had become irrelevant anyway. And like you said, the Big East schedule would be very attractive.
I think the money would be different in different conferences. For example the Big Ten, right now, would force ND to share that NBC contract. I bet the Big East would offer ND a deal where they could keep a big portion of that instead of sharing it all (imagine what the MAC might offer). NBC couldn’t give them a playoff berth but would continue to pay them for the home games. ND would find the conference that would let them keep more of the NBC contract than the others.
Yes – you are correct Gouda. I’m not saying ND will join a conference in this generation. And I’m certainly not suggesting it would be
a good thing if it did. I’m with Gouda – the old days weren’t perfect, but at least they were unique and their form protected things
which mean something.
My point is that people try to mix the best of the old (tradition, regionalized conferences, bowl games) with this perceived need
for a national champion (and play-off). And it ends up ruining both. So I’m saying pick one. And it’s fairly obvious: people prefer
a national champion. And if you insist on a national champion, then don’t hold on to any concepts from the past.
Then at least you’re not ruining college football: you’re killing it, and starting over. This mush we have now is just luke-warm. Just
look at the Rose Bowl. Used to be the most respected game in college football. Now it’s a consolation prize? (“Presented by Citi”,
to add insult to injury.) Pretending the traditions continue on as always because there’s still a game called the Rose Bowl is a
charade. And it will only get worse as we go to a 4-team, and then 8-team play-off. All I’m saying is pick one: tradition, conferences,
rivalries (you think there’s any NFL rivalry like UM/OSU, ND/USC, Auburn/Alabama?), or pick national champion.
The fact that Paul got so upset at the idea of ND joining a conference just proves how important tradition is to college football. I think the NFL shuffled teams around in various conferences a year or few ago (I don’t follow NFL that closely). I don’t think anyone really got upset that his team used to be in the NFC western division, but now his team is in the NFC Nor’easter division (I’m obviously making these up – I have no idea what the divisions are). It just doesn’t matter that much. Conferences matter in all of college sports, but especially so in football. I’m not saying people will follow my advice; on the contrary, I expect people both to insist on a national champion and try to keep contradictory traditions around. And as long as that is true, we’ll get the mush we get every year.
I’m huge on the college traditions. Huge. I was really ticked off when the ACC stole teams from the Big East. Just isn’t right. It hurts college basketball. But anyways. I’m stuck on this one. Some of that may come from the lack of a conference for ND. Here’s my problem. The old system was incredibly lousy at crowning a national champ. For example 1993. I’m still sore about 1993. Still ticks me off. 1993 #2 Notre Dame beats #1 Florida State 31-24. Notre Dame goes on to lose to Boston College 41-39, last second 41-yard field goal. Both teams end with one loss. Pollsters vote Florida State #1. The old way didn’t work. There’s something wrong about voting for a national champ. The new way doesn’t work for the same reason. I hate the changes in tradition, I really do. I hate watching a non Big Ten or Pac Ten team play in the Rose Bowl. But I do not want to go back to a bunch of sports writers voting for a national champ. I don’t want to go forward to a system that could end up cheapening some regular season games or even bowl games. The more that I try to work it out in my head the more I like the and 1 game. The 4 team playoff.
That’s the point of this post: the expectations of crowning a national champion in traditional college football are unrealistic. The old system worked fine if you realize that truth — it was a failure only if you expect college football to produce a national champion. The problem is that too many people — perhaps fueled by media hype — fail to realize that college football tradition and an undisputed national champion (which, one way or another, will be affected by national rankings) are not compatible. Conference championships are the only reliable championships. That doesn’t help you as a Notre Dame fan, but that’s how it has to be.
Besides, the polls are just a matter of opinion, so just like Michigan and Florida this year, you and I could say ND was better than FSU, but that doesn’t make us right and the pollsters wrong; it just means we hold differing opinions. Believe me, I know too well how frustrating the polls can be, but this is ultimately a matter of gaining the proper perspective on the polls — not fixing the system.
Yeah, the old system was sometimes bad at annointing a national champion. To that I say, So what? How many teams get messed over in a year by the BCS? Usually just one. But destroying tradition hurts all of college football. Not worth it. Would I like to have played Neb in 1997 (well, not me, but the team I support)? Yes, because we would have destroyed them (obviously). How about OSU this year? Neutral field, I like our chances. But it’s still not worth it.
There is one way the old system could appease fans better than it did: no weak non-conference games. If UM fans want UM to called #1 at the end of the season, UM cannot play Vanderbilt, CMU, Ball State, whatever. It needs to be ND, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech. And in the old system, winning the conference was the main goal, so going 0-4 non-conference is hardly the end of the world. If the top teams want an “undisputed” #1 ranking, they need to play and beat other top teams. Then you have a basis to compare. Not just teams, but conferences. Again, it’s not exact, and it’s not a playoff. But it gives the polls more credibility while at the same time leaving the best of the old system undisturbed. That’s the real reason neither UM nor Florida could have complained about being behind USC – USC played Nebraska, Arkansas, and ND. When the only time the top teams play each other is at bowls, polls just don’t have enough to base their decisions on. Something like the NCAA basketball Big Ten/ACC challenge would be great.
Again, all this is pointless, since I read even Carr has said a playoff is inevitable. It’s just too bad. I agree with Gouda – the media hype this thing to death. They’ve ruined the Heisman for me (the 2007 hype has already begun!). And I’m quite weary of national championship/BCS. I think most fans will care about whatever ESPN tells them to care about. It’s just too bad tradition doesn’t make as much money as national championships.
This is going to be so choppy it will probably only make sense to me.
I’m not in any way defending the BCS. I’ve been a big BCS hater for years. But I hate the old way as well. The old way stunk. The old way worked if you were in a conference that you loved. Winning your conference is great and all but does nothing for me as a ND fan. There has to be a national champ.
I agree that ESPN has too much control on people. I personally watch a bunch of ESPN. And I’m constantly yelling at them for getting things wrong. ESPN is part of the reason so many losers worship the genius Belickeck and the glorious Patriots. (Sorry the Colts fan in me coming out) But really they get stuck in the moment and whatever is great right now is the best ever.
The piano is starting to play to start Sunday School, I better stop my rant now. My point is that I hate the old way. My point is that I hate the new way. There has to be some way that will work.
http://sportsaficionado.blogspot.com/2006/12/bowl-games-do-we-really-still-need-them.html
Time for me to chime in. The above link captures my sentiments. School presidents and athletic directors are addicted to bowl money; that’s the largest hurdle to a playoff system….but it doesn’t have to be. I won’t pretend I know how many teams should be in a playoff, but for argument’s sake, let’s say it’s 16. That leaves 48 schools available for bowl games outside of a playoff (currently 32 bowl games exist meaning 64 teams play in a bowl game — over 50% of Div 1-A schools). There would be plenty of money available from sponsorship and TV to replace bowl money for schools in the playoff, and you still would have 24 bowl games for those outside the playoff.
I’ll leave the argument for how you determine the playoff teams to another thread, but one idea would be: BCS conference champs are automatically in, and a selection committee picks the remaining teams, and also seeds the teams. I’d much rather endure a debate over who the 16th team is vs the incessant blathering over who should play in a fictional national championship game.
A couple issues:
1)The reasoning on that site has a serious flaw:
“Given the sports fan’s desire to settle matters on the field, as well as the concept of the bowl game no longer filling its original purpose, perhaps a playoff system is a accurate reflection of the fact that we now have full information on the abilities of any team in the country, and thus can accurately select a group of teams to participate in a short championship tournament.”
I cannot disagree more vehemently with the notion that the availability of information means we can accurately select teams. That is one of the points of my post. College football is so extraordinarily regional that even though anyone can watch any team play and can see a wealth of stats for each team, they still don’t give you a truly accurate picture because there’s so little interplay — if any at all. The availability of information does not make the judgments any more accurate.
2)I think money would be a larger hurdle if you started removing regular season games to make room for a playoff.
3)The argument of determining playoff teams is not an ancillary argument — it is the key argument. It is what will seal its fate one way or another. I think only conference champions should be allowed in a playoff, but that’s not a likely scenario. But then there’s the question of seeding the playoff teams…
4)Your comment about preferring one debate over another makes an interesting point: the debate will always be there. And it will be there in playoff seeding, too, no matter what, so it won’t be confined to the 16th team.
I still believe college football does not need a disputed-as-little-as-possible national champion. I think it should emphasize its conferences, and not a national system. I think it is at its best when it does so. Leave national rankings as opinion and consider conference standings the highest reliable standings. As it is constructed, that’s what makes sense for college football.
But, like js, I know a playoff is most likely inevitable. It’s just a matter of when and how. And then a matter of what unforeseen occurrence makes the playoff system look stupid — which I also believe will happen sooner or later.
There will always be debate, about seeding, about who is included, about who gets to wear the dark jerseys. All that stuff. I hear the same stuff every March when the selection committee picks the basketball teams. Someone always feels jilted. But you know what? You don’t hear all that stuff after the first weekend in April. You just have a national champion. And maybe it has weakened some of the tradition of the conference and some of the thrill of winning your conference. But man is it fun to watch. I love March. I’d love to love the end of December/beginning of January the same way.
Paul, — you hit it on the head: no one cares about which “bubble” teams got “snubbed” by the selection committee in basketball once the games start.
I have to put the kibosh on this comparison now: the basketball tournament is not a useful comparison. Bubble teams in the 64-team basketball tournament and bubble teams in an 8-team (which I suspect is the likely scenario) football playoff are not at all the same. An 8-seeded team in a football playoff would have much more of a shot than do low seeds in the basketball tournament.
I’m enjoying this conversation, but the basketball postseason doesn’t provide lessons for the football postseason. They’re far too different.
Also, Paul, I think you understate it a bit when you say the tournament has weakened the conference games and championships.
Basketball comparision is just an example for how the “debate” dies out fairly quickly once the tourney starts. Regardless of how many teams are in a playoff 8, 16, 32, 5,000,000, the debate about who the 9th, 17th, 33rd, or 5,000,001th team was that got snubbed will not be as great as the hubbub around who’s No. 2 in a BCS scenario.
I like 16 teams for a playoff with an 11-game regular season that ends the Saturday before Thanksgiving. This gives you a 4-week playoff, and the maximum number of games a team would play in a season would be 15.
Anyone know how many games D1-AA, DII and DIII seasons run, and how the playoffs work?
As for basketball, the NCAA tournament has weakened conference games and championships??? The NCAA tourney (and the NIT before it) has been around since the 1930’s, nearly as long as colleges have been playing the game.
Budah, I appreciate your passionate and vehement stand against the incoming tide that is a playoff. Buckley signing off on this thread. Go Blue, go Big-10.
Paul — how do you like ND’s chances vs LSU? Them Tigers was really improving at the end, playing as good as anybody at the end of the season.
I’m scared to death of LSU. They are way fast and speed is a problem for ND.
I know the 9th team has a better chance of winning than the 66th team. (There are now 65 teams in the bball tourney.) But who, besides their fans, thinks Boise State has a chance to win it all? They are #9 in the AP and the coaches poll, #8 in the BCS.
I looked at Grand Valley State and they have an 11 week season that starts September 2nd. The playoffs start after a 2 week break on November 25th and they end, after 4 weeks of games, December 16th.
“The fact that Paul got so upset at the idea of ND joining a conference just proves how important tradition is to college football.”
This is the profit and loss statement of Notre Dame athletics.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp?CRITERIA=3
If the link doesn’t work, search “Equity in Athletics” and look for the Office of Post Secondary Education. You’ll finr that the ND football program made a $43 million profit. However, the overall profit for the Athletic Department was less than $23 million. This, of course, means that all of the other athletics programs dombined for more than $20 million dollars in losses.
Split the $16 million ND earned in its BCS game 12 ways, and you’ll find that profit for the entire athletic department is reduced by more than 50%.
“Tradition” has absolutely nothing to do with Notre Dame football not wanting to join a conference. As a private enterprsie, they will sue the pants off of anyone who tries to make them join a conference.
And they will win easily in court.
While I generally agree that decisions in Div-IA football come down to the almighty dollar, it’s not completely accurate here.
1) I was talking about fans here, not the ND administration. ND fans probably do not get upset about the idea of joining a conference because doing so would affect revenue.
2) Most schools fund their athletic programs with either football or basketball; ND isn’t special in this regard.
3) ND benefits more than other schools when it goes to a BCS game. But it also hurts more when it doesn’t. MSU did not go to a bowl game, but it benefits from OSU, UM, etc. If ND falls on hard times, it has no conference support. So saying that ND has lots to lose by splitting its BCS take is only half the picture (although I guess the new contract softens both sides).
4) “Suing the pants” off of someone is usually used when a litigant is seeking lots of money. In the unlikely event this did reach court, ND would probably be seeking some sort of injunction, not damages: ND would want a court to say ND does not have to join a conference, not that the NCAA must pay ND what it loses by joining a conference.
finally found someplace with some useful particulars. thanks alot and preserve it coming 🙂
Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.
I and also my buddies appeared to be checking out the good guides located on your web blog and so then I got an awful suspicion I had not expressed respect to the website owner for them. My boys had been stimulated to read through them and already have unquestionably been taking pleasure in those things. I appreciate you for getting indeed considerate and for considering this form of very good subject areas millions of individuals are really desperate to know about. Our own honest regret for not expressing gratitude to earlier.
Some truly rattling work on behalf of the owner of this web site , utterly great written content .
Thanks related to having spins which excellent subject material inside your web-site. My spouse and i revealed this around the search engines like yahoo. I’ll appear once more in case you publish far more aricles.|
You should preserve this down simply because the internet demands yet another particular person could be spreading the word.|
If perhaps I really could publish as if you. I’d share equivalent views. I’m not an author. I’m a reader who loves your unique report.|
i enjoy this post a lot. ill be coming laterfor future poststhanks.
I second-hand to recite parallel articles, the blog is no longer working. Possibly will this, as a result valuable did not trip over as brief as that one.
You made some first rate points there. I looked on the web for the difficulty and located most people will go along with along with your website.
I am really thankful to the holder of this web site who has shared
this wonderful paragraph at here.
Just desire to say your article is as astounding.
The clearness for your post is just spectacular and that i can suppose you are
a professional on this subject. Well with your permission allow me
to clutch your RSS feed to keep updated with impending post.
Thank you a million and please keep up the gratifying work.
Hello, yeah this article is actually fastidious and I have learned lot of things from it about blogging.
thanks.
Looking forward to reading more. Great blog article.Much thanks again. Want more.
I precisely needed to thank you very much once again. I’m not certain the things I would’ve undertaken without the entire information shown by you on such area. It seemed to be a very alarming condition for me personally, but observing a well-written strategy you processed it forced me to cry over contentment. Now i’m happier for the work and in addition hope you find out what a powerful job your are carrying out training men and women through the use of your blog post. Most probably you haven’t encountered all of us.
Unquestionably imagine that which you stated.
Your favorite justification appeared to be on the web the simplest factor
to bear in mind of. I say to you, I certainly get irked at the same time as other folks think about concerns that they just don’t understand about.
You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and outlined out the whole thing without having
side-effects , folks could take a signal. Will probably be back to get
more. Thank you