ADVERTISEMENT

Long past time for an 8-team cfb playoff

No. I'm saying, you invoking the "gatekeepers" is wrong. It's completely related to what you claimed.

Nobody is excluded, "perfect" season or not.

A "flawed system" is irrelevant. Every system will be flawed, and will always be so, as I've so patiently explained to you over the past few posts.

The issues will not be fixed with one, two or any other "magical" solution. As I've offered before, the NCAA MBB tournament is a prime example. You can argue against that all you like, we have an abundance of history as evidence.
You have misstated my argument. Never once did I deny that a subset of teams will be in the playoff. Gatekeepers opposing playoff expansion maintain a system where half of the college football teams have zero chance to make it to the playoff before their season begins.

Team are absolutely excluded. This is an objective fact. If a team can win every game in their season and not have a chance to compete for a championship then the results of their season were irrelevant to their selection into the playoff. That's an undeniable fact. Teams are excluded.

Do deny that college football is one of the only competive sports that can have a champion while other teams are undefeated?

The "issue" is not simply the selection but the fact the results of half the team's seasons are excluded from consideration before their season begins.

No one has advanced "magical" solutions, a word that you yourself used. Improvements to the current system have been advanced by coaches, players and fans.

You are comparing possible alternatives to the current system with perfection but you do not compare the current system to alternatives.

College basketball MBB is definitely a better playoff system that the current one in college football.

Now, instead of of comparing alternatives to some abstract idea of perfection why don't explain why proposed alternatives are worse than the current system?
 
Last edited:
You have misstated my argument. Never once did I deny that a subset of teams will be in the playoff. Gatekeepers opposing playoff expansion maintain a system where half of the college football teams have zero chance to make it to the playoff before their season begins.

Team are absolutely excluded. This is an objective fact. If a team can win every game in their season and not have a chance to compete for a championship then the results of their season were irrelevant to their selection into the playoff. That's an undeniable fact. Teams are excluded.

Do deny that college football is one of the only competive sports that can have a champion while other teams are undefeated?

The "issue" is not simply the selection but the fact the results of half the team's seasons are excluded from consideration before their season begins.

No one has advanced "magical" solutions, a word that you yourself used. Improvements to the current system have been advanced by coaches, players and fans.

You are comparing possible alternatives to the current system with perfection but you do not compare the current system to alternatives.

College basketball MBB is definitely a better playoff system that the current one in college football.

Now, instead of of comparing alternatives to some abstract idea of perfection why don't explain why proposed alternatives are worse than the current system?
I'll just state the obvious: They don't make it because they aren't good enough, "gatekeepers" or not.

If they were, they would play in a P5 league. That's what "excludes" them.

Not to be rude or mean, but your argument really is quite weak.

The expansion of CFB playoffs has solely been about the money. Money to the networks.

It's not that alternatives are ... "worse than the current system" ... it's simply that they're pointless. The essence of your argument would remain (might change slightly), even if G5 schools were given a seat in a playoff system.
 
...especially since the 4-team system has the same boring teams and coaches year after year, and seems to completely exclude deserving teams outside the P5 from serious consideration.

An 8-team playoff would only require one more week and two more games.

I tend to agree with this. I unfortunately think any number short of 8 will just have more SEC teams in it. I personally would like to see the 5 power 5 champions get automatic bids and then have the committee chose the next 3. Its impossible to overcome the initial bias of 6-8 SEC teams being ranked every year.
 
I'll just state the obvious: They don't make it because they aren't good enough, "gatekeepers" or not.

If they were, they would play in a P5 league. That's what "excludes" them.

Not to be rude or mean, but your argument really is quite weak.

The expansion of CFB playoffs has solely been about the money. Money to the networks.

It's not that alternatives are ... "worse than the current system" ... it's simply that they're pointless. The essence of your argument would remain (might change slightly), even if G5 schools were given a seat in a playoff system.
You say my argument is weak but in this post you admit that that G5 schools are excluded.

Blocking playoff expansion has been about money. The networks worry that playoffs will decrease the viewership and economic viability of the bowls. As we've seen players, coaches and fans don't want meaningless post season exhibition games. There's a reason players opt of bowl games in droves.

You say alternatives are "pointless."

Why?

The essence of my argument would clearly be rectified, there would no longer be undefeated teams other than the the champion at the end of the season. Every conference would have representation though a no decision auto bid.
 
You say my argument is weak but in this post you admit that that G5 schools are excluded.

Blocking playoff expansion has been about money. The networks worry that playoffs will decrease the viewership and economic viability of the bowls. As we've seen players, coaches and fans don't want meaningless post season exhibition games. There's a reason players opt of bowl games in droves.

You say alternatives are "pointless."

Why?

The essence of my argument would clearly be rectified, there would no longer be undefeated teams other than the the champion at the end of the season. Every conference would have representation though a no decision auto bid.
You're really reaching. (That's this entire thread.)

You're also choosing to play word games ("gatekeeper", being one). First, it was about the horrible "gatekeepers". Then, when that blew up, I "misstated your argument" (I didn't).

WTH... blocking expansion is about ... "money"? On what planet are you living? Playoff expansion is all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$. Dude... really??? Your argument is @ss-backwards. If it put another dollar in their pockets, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

"...players, coaches and fans don't want meaningless post season exhibition games." Uh... which "meaningless post season exhibition games"? The bowl games? The ones fans love to watch? The ones for which they hope their teams qualify? The ones for which the sponsors continue to line up? If the fans didn't want them, they'd go away in a heartbeat. The sponsors wouldn't return phone calls.

Your posts have become bizarre.

I've explained to you (repeatedly) why the alternatives are pointless. I think I get it now. No amount of conversation with you will matter. It's all about your narrative.

It's extraordinarily rare for a G5 team to even warrant consideration, let alone an invitation. It's not about undefeated teams. I laid that out for you, and you completely ignored it.

You want to waste all your righteous indignation and outrage on this. That's just ... bizarre.
 
You're really reaching. (That's this entire thread.)

You're also choosing to play word games ("gatekeeper", being one). First, it was about the horrible "gatekeepers". Then, when that blew up, I "misstated your argument" (I didn't).

WTH... blocking expansion is about ... "money"? On what planet are you living? Playoff expansion is all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$. Dude... really??? Your argument is @ss-backwards. If it put another dollar in their pockets, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

"...players, coaches and fans don't want meaningless post season exhibition games." Uh... which "meaningless post season exhibition games"? The bowl games? The ones fans love to watch? The ones for which they hope their teams qualify? The ones for which the sponsors continue to line up? If the fans didn't want them, they'd go away in a heartbeat. The sponsors wouldn't return phone calls.

Your posts have become bizarre.

I've explained to you (repeatedly) why the alternatives are pointless. I think I get it now. No amount of conversation with you will matter. It's all about your narrative.

It's extraordinarily rare for a G5 team to even warrant consideration, let alone an invitation. It's not about undefeated teams. I laid that out for you, and you completely ignored it.

You want to waste all your righteous indignation and outrage on this. That's just ... bizarre.
"Righteous indignation... magical solution....outrage....bizarre."

It seems as though you struggling to articulate yourself and simply describing what I'm saying in negative terms without ever actually addressing it.

As I've explained many times, obviously the teams in a playoff will be a subset of the teams overall.

It certainly is gatekeeping to not allow automatic no decision qualification for conference winners and to restrict the number of playoff teams to four which means one of power 5 conferences will be excluded every year. It also means that it's likely that there will undefeated teams at the end of the season other than the national champion, an undesirable phenomenon that doesn't occur in any other serious sports league.

"If it put another dollar in their pockets, they'd do it in a heartbeat."

Then why has there not been an expansion?


If the bowls are so important then why do players opt out in non Covid years?
There are teams in bowls with losing records. In fact, in 2016 25% of bowl participants had a losing record and 65% of teams make it to a bowl game.


You accepted the fact that half of college football is excluded from competing for the championship in your previous post which was part of my argument.

"It's extraordinarily rare for a G5 team to even warrant consideration"

As I've explained the playoffs should be expanded. Having undefeated teams other than the champion, having the results of the team's season be irrelevant to their consideration to the playoff is undesirable.

Why are alternatives "pointless" ?

You have never explained this, in fact you really never explicitly explained your viewpoint at all.

It's fine that you have an alternative viewpoint but it seems unnecessary to describe another viewpoint as bizarre, especially when it the same viewpoint is echoed by coaches, players and fans.

I think there might also be a generational gap at play here as well.

Good day. I think further discussion is pointless. We can agree to disagree.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you.
 
Last edited:
"Righteous indignation... magical solution....outrage....bizarre."

It seems as though you struggling to articulate yourself and simply describing what I'm saying in negative terms without ever actually addressing it.

As I've explained many times, obviously the teams in a playoff will be a subset of the teams overall.

It certainly is gatekeeping to not allow automatic no decision qualification for conference winners and to restrict the number of playoff teams to four which means one of power 5 conferences will be excluded every year. It also means that it's likely that there will undefeated teams at the end of the season other than the national champion, an undesirable phenomenon that doesn't occur in any other serious sports league.

"If it put another dollar in their pockets, they'd do it in a heartbeat."

Then why has there not been an expansion?


If the bowls are so important then why do players opt out in non Covid years?
There are teams in bowls with losing records. In fact, in 2016 25% of bowl participants had a losing record and 65% of teams make it to a bowl game.


You accepted the fact that half of college football is excluded from competing for the championship in your previous post which was part of my argument.

"It's extraordinarily rare for a G5 team to even warrant consideration"

As I've explained the playoffs should be expanded. Having undefeated teams other than the champion, having the results of the team's season be irrelevant to their consideration to the playoff is undesirable.

Why are alternatives "pointless" ?

You have never explained this, in fact you really never explicitly explained your viewpoint at all.

It's fine that you have an alternative viewpoint but it seems unnecessary to describe another viewpoint as bizarre, especially when it the same viewpoint is echoed by coaches, players and fans.

I think there might also be a generational gap at play here as well.

Good day. I think further discussion is pointless. We can agree to disagree.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you.
I've never struggle to "articulate (myself)". To suggest only reinforces the weakness of your position.

I do not accept any of your "facts".

If there was a reason to expand the CFB playoffs, it would have been done. You cannot cite a reason to do so, other than the hypothetical.

Face facts: your argument doesn't resonate. Period.

There's no consensus, and no overwhelming reason to include the G5 conferences.

None.

No one is clamoring for it, there's no compelling reason to do so... other than whatever it is that's stuck in your craw.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...! .... the ... "generational gap". LOL! Your argument cannot stand on it's own, so it now becomes ... "generational".

Expanding is pointless, other than to temporarily mollify those who are righteously indignant. And, let's face it... that's all that would be accomplished ... mollifying.

There's no compelling reason to include G5 teams... other than the angry voices of those who decry "gatekeepers".

I think your heart is in the right place, but there has to be something more than just a "feel good" reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SKYDOG
I've never struggle to "articulate (myself)". To suggest only reinforces the weakness of your position.

I do not accept any of your "facts".

If there was a reason to expand the CFB playoffs, it would have been done. You cannot cite a reason to do so, other than the hypothetical.

Face facts: your argument doesn't resonate. Period.

There's no consensus, and no overwhelming reason to include the G5 conferences.

None.

No one is clamoring for it, there's no compelling reason to do so... other than whatever it is that's stuck in your craw.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...! .... the ... "generational gap". LOL! Your argument cannot stand on it's own, so it now becomes ... "generational".

Expanding is pointless, other than to temporarily mollify those who are righteously indignant. And, let's face it... that's all that would be accomplished ... mollifying.

There's no compelling reason to include G5 teams... other than the angry voices of those who decry "gatekeepers".

I think your heart is in the right place, but there has to be something more than just a "feel good" reason.
And with Cincinnati losing today to the 3rd or 4th best team in the SEC makes this pointless to expand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purdue85
There is already a huge playoff with the conference divisions and conference championship games, the problem would be fixed by requiring a conference championship to get in the playoff.

That would have put Oklahoma vs Alabama instead of ND which would have been a good game
 
And with Cincinnati losing today to the 3rd or 4th best team in the SEC makes this pointless to expand.
Two points in favor of going to 8 teams are first, the players would like it, and second, the fans would like it.

Aren't those reasons taken together more than sufficient, especially since it would require only one extra week and two extra games?
 
Two points in favor of going to 8 teams are first, the players would like it, and second, the fans would like it.

Aren't those reasons taken together more than sufficient, especially since it would require only one extra week and two extra games?
I'm not sure where you getting this "two extra games". It would be FOUR extra games, for a total of SEVEN (we currently have three games). The total games would be the total number of teams (8, in your example) minus one (7). That's the calculation for any single elimination tournament. If you have a 64 team field for basketball, there have to be 63 games.

Also not sure where you're getting that the fans would like it. I won't speak for anyone else, but I couldn't care less to see the MAC champion play ClemPson. Or, the CUSA champion play OSU.

Quite the opposite... although I didn't watch the game, it was phenomenal to find out Ball State had won their first bowl game. I'm not a BSU fan in the least, but I'm quite happy for those fans and that program. For too long the only solace they had was following Notre Dame football and IU basketball. (At least, that's been my anecdotal experience.)
 
For me I am fine with four teams right now however, they need a better way to determine who those four teams are. This year I think they got two right but the other two were blown out and had no business being in the play off.......... in my opinion of course.

Adding more games adds more revenue, but also adds more chance of a career ending injury. Football can be a brutal sport and it only takes one unfortunate situation for someone's dream of the NFL to be taken away.
 
Go to 6 teams. Let the 5 conference champions in and one group of 5. That gives the top two seeds a bye.

IF there were to be expansion, I've thought along the lines of Nat - six with the top two getting byes.....that would also provide some additional tangible and meaningful incentive to finish in one of those positions. I'd think about maybe four automatic qualifiers from the P5 and two at-large with the caveat that no conference has more than one participant....in an ideal world, Notre Dame would be forced to join a conference (for football), likely the ACC....but that's an argument for another day. I'd prefer making the regular season mean more than diluting it with 8 or more teams. I don't think there are enough parallels to really try and compare this to the NCAA tournament model. But wait....

The bigger issue from my perspective has not been the number of teams but rather the selection criteria itself. This is and has been a "cartel" of the more powerful conferences.....divvying up the $$$$$.....all in the guise of a competitive playoff system.....sure there is competition, but if you're looking for "fairness" and "giving everyone an equal shot," you've come to the wrong place.....no vacancy, you'll need to try further down the road, my friend.

The BCS had plenty of flaws, but at least there was some objectivity.....you could still have a ranking committee as part of the criteria, but when that's the whole selection process....too much subjectivity to me, especially with just four teams. If you want a different committee other than the Harris Committee for that portion of the ranking points....fine....but have a more objective formula. Then, just go down the rankings list based on the other qualifying conditions. I'm not saying it's perfect or without arguable flaws - like what goes into the computer rankings, etc. and etc. However, it's infinitely better to me based upon something tangible and measurable by GASP.....results on the playing field. So....Why not use that model for criteria? The cynic/skeptic answers it's too objective.....we need some discretion to make sure there aren't any injustices. ;)

But wait....we do measure head-to-head....if needed for a tie-breaker. And we do take into account a conference champion....if needed for a tie-breaker.....yada yada yada.....when do you need a tie-breaker? Well, we can't tell you exactly.....we'll know it based on the circumstances for a given year, and let you know. Ok. And then there's the all-important and objective "eye test." :rolleyes:

Here's some of that eye test:
E
FP
TOZ
****
****
***
IF ITS SEC OR OHIO STATE


Just trying to get the four "best" teams? Whatever that means....four most "deserving?" What, are you crazy?

Ironically, I think the PAC-12 and the BIG XII have ceded a chunk of power to the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC....I think you won't see meaningful change unless some group can assert meaningful leverage. The Group of Five/non P5....they gave it up when they settled for the New Year Six Bowl shell game instead of continuing to fight over the BCS. Now, they've got their little snack at the kids table and can shut up.

And last night's result with Ohio State defeating Clemson was exactly what the Big Ten was counting on and hoping for in its retroactive mid-season changing of the rules about its division championships - Ohio State was the best and only realistic shot at the p(l)ayoff.....and......Alakazam .....Voilà .....more paydays! No one in the conference is complaining except for Indiana.

Way back in my youthful and younger days, I thought fairness was important. I still do, but I realize it's a fading concept of days gone by to many.....justice, fairness, the right thing.....noble pursuits, but you may never truly find it due to its scarcity these days.

And let's not kid ourselves..........it's ALL about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

JMHO.

END of rant.

tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBG
I'm not sure where you getting this "two extra games". It would be FOUR extra games, for a total of SEVEN (we currently have three games). The total games would be the total number of teams (8, in your example) minus one (7). That's the calculation for any single elimination tournament. If you have a 64 team field for basketball, there have to be 63 games.

Also not sure where you're getting that the fans would like it. I won't speak for anyone else, but I couldn't care less to see the MAC champion play ClemPson. Or, the CUSA champion play OSU.

Quite the opposite... although I didn't watch the game, it was phenomenal to find out Ball State had won their first bowl game. I'm not a BSU fan in the least, but I'm quite happy for those fans and that program. For too long the only solace they had was following Notre Dame football and IU basketball. (At least, that's been my anecdotal experience.)
The four extra teams are already playing in NYD bowl games as it is, such that we would come out of NYD with four teams left, not two, but without teams playing extra games to get to final four.
 
I'm not sure where you getting this "two extra games". It would be FOUR extra games, for a total of SEVEN (we currently have three games). The total games would be the total number of teams (8, in your example) minus one (7). That's the calculation for any single elimination tournament. If you have a 64 team field for basketball, there have to be 63 games.

Also not sure where you're getting that the fans would like it. I won't speak for anyone else, but I couldn't care less to see the MAC champion play ClemPson. Or, the CUSA champion play OSU.

Quite the opposite... although I didn't watch the game, it was phenomenal to find out Ball State had won their first bowl game. I'm not a BSU fan in the least, but I'm quite happy for those fans and that program. For too long the only solace they had was following Notre Dame football and IU basketball. (At least, that's been my anecdotal experience.)
Also, it would be easy to survey players and fans to see if they like it. I bet they would by overwhelming margins - but of course, those who don't like can choose not to play or not to watch. Freedom.

I am advocating choosing the top 8 teams regardless of conference, in the same way the top four are chosen now.
 
Two points in favor of going to 8 teams are first, the players would like it, and second, the fans would like it.

Aren't those reasons taken together more than sufficient, especially since it would require only one extra week and two extra games?
I’m more in favor of crowning a National champion than having a participation tournament. We saw yesterday that four teams is plenty with two of them getting blown out. Adding more teams and games will give more reason for players to opt out. I would like the best team to win and by adding more games not sure that would be the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purdue85
I’m more in favor of crowning a National champion than having a participation tournament. We saw yesterday that four teams is plenty with two of them getting blown out. Adding more teams and games will give more reason for players to opt out. I would like the best team to win and by adding more games not sure that would be the case.
We used to have blowouts when it was just two teams.

Adding four more teams (and thus only two more games) will likely give players on those teams less reason to opt out then if they were playing in just another mayo bowl game or whatever.
 
I’m more in favor of crowning a National champion than having a participation tournament. We saw yesterday that four teams is plenty with two of them getting blown out. Adding more teams and games will give more reason for players to opt out. I would like the best team to win and by adding more games not sure that would be the case.
PS, the best team should win even if it has to play just one more game, which is all that would be required.
 
We used to have blowouts when it was just two teams.

Adding four more teams (and thus only two more games) will likely give players on those teams less reason to opt out then if they were playing in just another mayo bowl game or whatever.
More games more chances to get hurt so we will just have to disagree. Elite players will put themselves ahead of playing for a championship. We’ve already seen this.
 
More games more chances to get hurt so we will just have to disagree. Elite players will put themselves ahead of playing for a championship. We’ve already seen this.
Maybe, but so far it seems players tend to opt out of meaningless bowl games, but not out of the championship series. I am not aware of anyone opting out of the two games yesterday.

It would be only two extra games. That's it.
 
they do.

No offense, but this is the same recycled discussion from a week or two ago. It's pointless, really.
No offense to you, but you didn't understand the math from a week ago, thinking it would require four extra games (or FOUR, as you stated above in explaining how you thought it would work).

Now that you do understand the math, it must surely seem like a better idea to you, right? Adding four teams with only TWO extra games would be a good deal for players (who can always opt out if they want) and fans (who can also opt out).
 
No offense to you, but you didn't understand the math from a week ago, thinking it would require four extra games (or FOUR, as you stated above in explaining how you thought it would work).

Now that you do understand the math, it must surely seem like a better idea to you, right? Adding four teams with only TWO extra games would be a good deal for players (who can always opt out if they want) and fans (who can also opt out).

Well, I do understand the math (I explained the math in detail), and it does require expanding the number of games for the tournament (but not the number of bowl games).

I understand your post in which you explained it.

And no, it does not sound like a better idea to me (the reasons for which I covered in a prior post).

(Since you asked.)
 
meh ......

It's like the junky, with a "just gimme one more hit and I'll be done". It won't solve anything. This was foreseeable when they went to the playoff.

Consider the NCAA basketball tournament. Every year there's at least one team's fans clamoring on about being "left out".

In CFB 8 teams won't do it. Nor will 16 or any other number.

Look at the silliness surrounding UCF's undefeated season. They weren't the first. I also remember a Marshall team that thoroughly dominated, going undefeated.

There wasn't a d@mn thing wrong with the "mythical" (as the detractors called it) National Championship. There was controversy, you say? Yes, there was. There always will be. Two... four... eight... sixteen... no number will stop it.

"Yes, but....!", you say? Yeah... yes, but. There's always one of those.
I have to disagree here. There were years that I would have liked to see the next 4, because they included USF, TCU, Boise State, Cincinnati, Fresno State, etc. There is always that chance for the big upset, which is what makes the NCAAB field more interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riveting
If you really want to even the playing field, no matter how many teams are involved, do a random draw for original opponents and not seed them. and then play through the predetermined random brackets. Why make it simple for a team that is perceived to be best, and almost impossible for a perceived long shot?
 
If you really want to even the playing field, no matter how many teams are involved, do a random draw for original opponents and not seed them. and then play through the predetermined random brackets. Why make it simple for a team that is perceived to be best, and almost impossible for a perceived long shot?
How does random draw make it less impossible to win the NC for a long shot?
 
How does random draw make it less impossible to win the NC for a long shot?
Seeding, where if you're not perceived as one of the better teams, you'll definitely play one of them to begin, and probably every game thereafter if they advance. If you're considered the 8th team in an 8 team playoff, you'll never get an easier opening opponent such as #7, you'll be forced to play seed #1. And after your team is beat up from that, good luck in winning your next game. If teams that are seeded 1-4 had a random draw pitting them against each other, at least 2 of them couldn't possibly advance. And since it's random with random brackets, those 2 teams may have to play each other the next round. And coming out of that game, the winner would have then played two hard games with possible injuries. Seeding is a way to preserve preconceived notions of who are the best teams by giving them the easiest route to a championship.
 
Seeding, where if you're not perceived as one of the better teams, you'll definitely play one of them to begin, and probably every game thereafter if they advance. If you're considered the 8th team in an 8 team playoff, you'll never get an easier opening opponent such as #7, you'll be forced to play seed #1. And after your team is beat up from that, good luck in winning your next game. If teams that are seeded 1-4 had a random draw pitting them against each other, at least 2 of them couldn't possibly advance. And since it's random with random brackets, those 2 teams may have to play each other the next round. And coming out of that game, the winner would have then played two hard games with possible injuries. Seeding is a way to preserve preconceived notions of who are the best teams by giving them the easiest route to a championship.
Interesting, but we really can't avoid preconceived notions in the selection process.
 
Just dont see how adding teams does much good. An eighth seeded team likely wouldn't have anything for the top seeded team. More money...sure. Dont see how it helps student athletes.
Then there will be those teams left out harking that they should have been the eighth seed.
I would rather see it go back to the best two teams. Make bowl games mean something again.
Well, OSU did not have anything for the top team either. UC deserved to be there this year. Expand to 8 already.
 
That's not a compelling argument. Playing a non-P5 conference (and OOC) schedule doesn't put a program in a position to play for a NC.
Power 5 schools scheduling cupcakes so those schools can get a paycheck and the Power 5 school gets a scrimmage is no different. Let me know when Power 5 schools schedule difficult OOC games every week. Until then, nah on your argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riveting
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT