12-02-2016, 09:51 PM
Love the optimism on the gostanford.com tickets site:
![[Image: FsWv9Ow39Up7eLPl0KzUBHm19tABBQMcl32_6PQC...44-h458-no]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FsWv9Ow39Up7eLPl0KzUBHm19tABBQMcl32_6PQC60xYKcuLUXP4QPecstawEG1wzsiEh8gUNrUyeY4y78ZwzcTiMkCahegvZ5eUMFSrFZ-k0KfMvaVe4m6Vi5gBf90qa_DxpyPTLv779FcuRXykGLGChLnVGROC6YapQIGuaXmaFHYyu5BAl0Jcijp3jmmdQkReXfPrXqNWbqfOjBu2R7w5jxufQ6Yfea-U6kyWj2YsEwmKrhGbtbbtwFUA_fofj1qOPHWPbMgIiCBsZlYzC0N9EMXuuQ5Xo399RvI1yZMZRlN3Lgc8DNa2ZO9O0WamPxowtHCAX4GO91ozXfoWe30Umtn1tWPZlbKMg3wUxBQGi4giSmgmXEx8QMRcbdykUY1KWuWKrf2yFGZPh_kmy7jx5cQj9-XFh8If9PRCUyYBUFhg651gI1zIMFeVYF1yUcODz1Gy6ukQT5G-q7_KRJNhMu3DRxSCQ1v1TNDqiA-awGUkfdYVN2051hd903iRYFM1f7qXwhqc-UZX5_CR3wLnqM-02_SfLmsnU4fBYiFd6h8M_C2clis-FJZAvqHKgvRvCW1WU6LmTmSDAUgIbIIjZN0iF_outaFNF-IKVxAae5J2Ag=w1044-h458-no)
Now which bowl?
12-02-2016, 10:27 PM
Quote:I'm super proud of this team - like I was of the 2014-15 team. They could have folded and given up after a disappointing start of the season - like say a certain school from the Loser State.
I'm pretty naive about nuanced references, so could somebody please explain to me the uppercase "L," uppercase "S" denotation.
Apologies if I misunderstood.
Quote:I'm super proud of this team - like I was of the 2014-15 team. They could have folded and given up after a disappointing start of the season - like say a certain school from the Loser State.
I'm pretty naive about nuanced references, so could somebody please explain to me the uppercase "L," uppercase "S" denotation.
Apologies if I misunderstood.
12-02-2016, 10:57 PM
OK, Washington has done their part. Now we wait....
BTW according to the LA Times, Colorado, not USC, will be heading to the Rose Bowl:
Even if Colorado loses in Pac-12 title game, USC could be out of Rose Bowl, but it shouldn't
"Rose Bowl folks are contractually obligated to give strong preference to the highest-ranked team."
and
"Unless there is a ... blowout in one of those conference championship games, I dont think the committee wants to hurt a team for playing in them, said Scott Jenkins, chairman of the Rose Bowl Management Committee. If Colorado loses, Id be surprised if Colorado drops much, if at all. It would be a surprise to me if USC jumps Colorado."
BTW according to the LA Times, Colorado, not USC, will be heading to the Rose Bowl:
Even if Colorado loses in Pac-12 title game, USC could be out of Rose Bowl, but it shouldn't
"Rose Bowl folks are contractually obligated to give strong preference to the highest-ranked team."
and
"Unless there is a ... blowout in one of those conference championship games, I dont think the committee wants to hurt a team for playing in them, said Scott Jenkins, chairman of the Rose Bowl Management Committee. If Colorado loses, Id be surprised if Colorado drops much, if at all. It would be a surprise to me if USC jumps Colorado."
OK, Washington has done their part. Now we wait....
BTW according to the LA Times, Colorado, not USC, will be heading to the Rose Bowl:
Even if Colorado loses in Pac-12 title game, USC could be out of Rose Bowl, but it shouldn't
"Rose Bowl folks are contractually obligated to give strong preference to the highest-ranked team."
and
"Unless there is a ... blowout in one of those conference championship games, I dont think the committee wants to hurt a team for playing in them, said Scott Jenkins, chairman of the Rose Bowl Management Committee. If Colorado loses, Id be surprised if Colorado drops much, if at all. It would be a surprise to me if USC jumps Colorado."
BTW according to the LA Times, Colorado, not USC, will be heading to the Rose Bowl:
Even if Colorado loses in Pac-12 title game, USC could be out of Rose Bowl, but it shouldn't
"Rose Bowl folks are contractually obligated to give strong preference to the highest-ranked team."
and
"Unless there is a ... blowout in one of those conference championship games, I dont think the committee wants to hurt a team for playing in them, said Scott Jenkins, chairman of the Rose Bowl Management Committee. If Colorado loses, Id be surprised if Colorado drops much, if at all. It would be a surprise to me if USC jumps Colorado."
12-03-2016, 05:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2016, 05:56 AM by BigEasyCard.)
(12-03-2016, 01:03 AM)JJJ link Wrote:I didn't watch the CCG but 41-10 isn't a blowout?
I'd say so. Competitive 14-7 game in first half and 27-3 blowout in the second.
Colorado can easily drop below USC in the final rankings. They are separated from USC by OK State and Oklahoma. One will move up and one down after Bedlam today. USC's 13-point victory over the Huskies in Seattle compared to Colorado's performance on a neutral field last night is a strong factor favoring them over Colorado in the final rankings.
FWIW, Here are Kyle Bonagura's latest bowl projections:
Playoff: Washington
Rose: USC
Alamo: Colorado
Holiday: Washington St
Foster Farms: Utah
Sun: Stanford
Geaux Cardinal!
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2016, 05:56 AM by BigEasyCard.)
(12-03-2016, 01:03 AM)JJJ link Wrote:I didn't watch the CCG but 41-10 isn't a blowout?
I'd say so. Competitive 14-7 game in first half and 27-3 blowout in the second.
Colorado can easily drop below USC in the final rankings. They are separated from USC by OK State and Oklahoma. One will move up and one down after Bedlam today. USC's 13-point victory over the Huskies in Seattle compared to Colorado's performance on a neutral field last night is a strong factor favoring them over Colorado in the final rankings.
FWIW, Here are Kyle Bonagura's latest bowl projections:
Playoff: Washington
Rose: USC
Alamo: Colorado
Holiday: Washington St
Foster Farms: Utah
Sun: Stanford
Geaux Cardinal!
12-03-2016, 07:27 AM
Pretty hard to imagine Colorado not falling behind USC in the final CFP poll.Â
Pretty hard to imagine Colorado not falling behind USC in the final CFP poll.Â
12-03-2016, 07:43 AM
(12-03-2016, 07:27 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Pretty hard to imagine Colorado not falling behind Under Stanford Control (again) in the final CFP poll.Â
I mean, I can imagine it. The CFP can do whatever they want and looking at overall resume there's a case for Colorado above USC. USC's whole case is that they're a different team now than they were before the QB change, but most of those games came against the really bad parts of the Pac-12. They did beat UW in a game where Browning played like crap and Colorado in another game where Liufau was out, but I'm not really sold on their resurgence. I just can't square why replacing a QB turns them from the team we blew out into a completely different one.
Anyway we'll see, USC will probably be ranked above Colorado but I hope they're not.
(12-03-2016, 07:27 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Pretty hard to imagine Colorado not falling behind Under Stanford Control (again) in the final CFP poll.Â
I mean, I can imagine it. The CFP can do whatever they want and looking at overall resume there's a case for Colorado above USC. USC's whole case is that they're a different team now than they were before the QB change, but most of those games came against the really bad parts of the Pac-12. They did beat UW in a game where Browning played like crap and Colorado in another game where Liufau was out, but I'm not really sold on their resurgence. I just can't square why replacing a QB turns them from the team we blew out into a completely different one.
Anyway we'll see, USC will probably be ranked above Colorado but I hope they're not.
12-03-2016, 08:16 AM
I'm more interested on where MY TEAM ends up :) Keeping fingers crossed for the Holiday Bowl, but I have a sneaking suspicion WSU offers a bigger paycheck for the economy. This is not a knock on the gross misperception that we don't travel well (which is blatantly, demonstrably false) but rather an acknowledgment that so does WSU and they simply have more volume and therefore it's more $$$ for the bowl.
Reality is that outside of the NY6, bowl selection is all about money. Bowls will pick whichever team it can to maximize $$$.
Reality is that outside of the NY6, bowl selection is all about money. Bowls will pick whichever team it can to maximize $$$.
I'm more interested on where MY TEAM ends up :) Keeping fingers crossed for the Holiday Bowl, but I have a sneaking suspicion WSU offers a bigger paycheck for the economy. This is not a knock on the gross misperception that we don't travel well (which is blatantly, demonstrably false) but rather an acknowledgment that so does WSU and they simply have more volume and therefore it's more $$$ for the bowl.
Reality is that outside of the NY6, bowl selection is all about money. Bowls will pick whichever team it can to maximize $$$.
Reality is that outside of the NY6, bowl selection is all about money. Bowls will pick whichever team it can to maximize $$$.
(12-03-2016, 07:43 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16187.msg181431#msg181431 date=1480775238]
Pretty hard to imagine Colorado not falling behind Under Stanford Control (again) in the final CFP poll.Â
I mean, I can imagine it. The CFP can do whatever they want and looking at overall resume there's a case for Colorado above Under Stanford Control (again). Under Stanford Control (again)'s whole case is that they're a different team now than they were before the QB change, but most of those games came against the really bad parts of the Pac-12. They did beat UW in a game where Browning played like crap and Colorado in another game where Liufau was out, but I'm not really sold on their resurgence. I just can't square why replacing a QB turns them from the team we blew out into a completely different one.
Anyway we'll see, Under Stanford Control (again) will probably be ranked above Colorado but I hope they're not.
[/quote]
I would rank SC above Colorado if I was on the committee:
1. The QB change is real and significant, Darnold ranks second in all of FBS in QBR. Both statistically and in terms of "eye test" they are a completely different team with him in place of Browne.
2. USC beat Colorado head-to-head. True that Liifau only played briefly but it was Montez's third straight start. SC outgained Colorado by 177 yards but were thwarted by three lost fumbles which kept Colorado in the game.
3. USC beat the conference champion by 13 points on the road, about as strong of a "good win" as there is. Browning played "like crap" as you said, but doesn't SC deserve some credit for that? Browning didn't play very well last night but UW still beat Colorado by 31 points on a neutral field.
4. And while their five games after beating Colorado were games they supposed to win they won them decisively (closest margin was 18 vs Notre Dame, and ND scored a garbage TD with no time left on the clock).
If we had somehow made it to the championship game last night, would we rather have played SC or Colorado?
(12-03-2016, 07:43 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16187.msg181431#msg181431 date=1480775238]
Pretty hard to imagine Colorado not falling behind Under Stanford Control (again) in the final CFP poll.Â
I mean, I can imagine it. The CFP can do whatever they want and looking at overall resume there's a case for Colorado above Under Stanford Control (again). Under Stanford Control (again)'s whole case is that they're a different team now than they were before the QB change, but most of those games came against the really bad parts of the Pac-12. They did beat UW in a game where Browning played like crap and Colorado in another game where Liufau was out, but I'm not really sold on their resurgence. I just can't square why replacing a QB turns them from the team we blew out into a completely different one.
Anyway we'll see, Under Stanford Control (again) will probably be ranked above Colorado but I hope they're not.
[/quote]
I would rank SC above Colorado if I was on the committee:
1. The QB change is real and significant, Darnold ranks second in all of FBS in QBR. Both statistically and in terms of "eye test" they are a completely different team with him in place of Browne.
2. USC beat Colorado head-to-head. True that Liifau only played briefly but it was Montez's third straight start. SC outgained Colorado by 177 yards but were thwarted by three lost fumbles which kept Colorado in the game.
3. USC beat the conference champion by 13 points on the road, about as strong of a "good win" as there is. Browning played "like crap" as you said, but doesn't SC deserve some credit for that? Browning didn't play very well last night but UW still beat Colorado by 31 points on a neutral field.
4. And while their five games after beating Colorado were games they supposed to win they won them decisively (closest margin was 18 vs Notre Dame, and ND scored a garbage TD with no time left on the clock).
If we had somehow made it to the championship game last night, would we rather have played SC or Colorado?
12-03-2016, 10:04 AM
Is QBR opponent-adjusted?
I admitted haven't really watched USC at all, I just find it hard to believe they've turned around that completely. It's similar to us, I don't think we're as bad as we were during that 1-3 stretch, but we're also not as good as we looked during the run at the end of the year. The Pac-12 is such a weird conference this year I have a hard time really understanding anything about anyone.
I admitted haven't really watched USC at all, I just find it hard to believe they've turned around that completely. It's similar to us, I don't think we're as bad as we were during that 1-3 stretch, but we're also not as good as we looked during the run at the end of the year. The Pac-12 is such a weird conference this year I have a hard time really understanding anything about anyone.
Is QBR opponent-adjusted?
I admitted haven't really watched USC at all, I just find it hard to believe they've turned around that completely. It's similar to us, I don't think we're as bad as we were during that 1-3 stretch, but we're also not as good as we looked during the run at the end of the year. The Pac-12 is such a weird conference this year I have a hard time really understanding anything about anyone.
I admitted haven't really watched USC at all, I just find it hard to believe they've turned around that completely. It's similar to us, I don't think we're as bad as we were during that 1-3 stretch, but we're also not as good as we looked during the run at the end of the year. The Pac-12 is such a weird conference this year I have a hard time really understanding anything about anyone.
12-03-2016, 11:10 AM
(12-03-2016, 10:04 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Is QBR opponent-adjusted?
I admitted haven't really watched Under Stanford Control (again) at all, I just find it hard to believe they've turned around that completely. It's similar to us, I don't think we're as bad as we were during that 1-3 stretch, but we're also not as good as we looked during the run at the end of the year. The Pac-12 is such a weird conference this year I have a hard time really understanding anything about anyone.
Yes, QBR normalizes for each opponent's defensive strength/weakness, for home/away field, and also discounts garbage time statistics among other adjustments.
Setting aside QBR, Darnold performed well (in terms of traditional statistics) against the three best defenses that he played against: Utah (18-26, 253, 0/0), Colorado (25-37, 358, 3/1), Washington (23-33, 287, 2/2).
(12-03-2016, 10:04 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Is QBR opponent-adjusted?
I admitted haven't really watched Under Stanford Control (again) at all, I just find it hard to believe they've turned around that completely. It's similar to us, I don't think we're as bad as we were during that 1-3 stretch, but we're also not as good as we looked during the run at the end of the year. The Pac-12 is such a weird conference this year I have a hard time really understanding anything about anyone.
Yes, QBR normalizes for each opponent's defensive strength/weakness, for home/away field, and also discounts garbage time statistics among other adjustments.
Setting aside QBR, Darnold performed well (in terms of traditional statistics) against the three best defenses that he played against: Utah (18-26, 253, 0/0), Colorado (25-37, 358, 3/1), Washington (23-33, 287, 2/2).
12-03-2016, 08:53 PM
(12-03-2016, 05:53 AM)BigEasyCard link Wrote:[quote author=JJJ link=topic=16187.msg181427#msg181427 date=1480752222]
I didn't watch the CCG but 41-10 isn't a blowout?
I'd say so. Competitive 14-7 game in first half and 27-3 blowout in the second.
Colorado can easily drop below Under Stanford Control (again) in the final rankings. They are separated from Under Stanford Control (again) by OK State and Oklahoma. One will move up and one down after Bedlam today. Under Stanford Control (again)'s 13-point victory over the Huskies in Seattle compared to Colorado's performance on a neutral field last night is a strong factor favoring them over Colorado in the final rankings.
FWIW, Here are Kyle Bonagura's latest bowl projections:
Playoff: Washington
Rose: Under Stanford Control (again)
Alamo: Colorado
Holiday: Washington St
Foster Farms: Utah
Sun: Stanford
Geaux Cardinal!
[/quote]
Good point. Denver Post thinks USC will pass Colorado in the rankings, making USC an easy pick for the Rose Bowl.
I'm still hoping for Colorado in the Rose Bowl and USC getting an at-large NY6. 3 Pac-12 teams playing "on New Years" (which this year is between 12/30 and 1/2), pulling Stanford up to the Holiday Bowl.
(12-03-2016, 05:53 AM)BigEasyCard link Wrote:[quote author=JJJ link=topic=16187.msg181427#msg181427 date=1480752222]
I didn't watch the CCG but 41-10 isn't a blowout?
I'd say so. Competitive 14-7 game in first half and 27-3 blowout in the second.
Colorado can easily drop below Under Stanford Control (again) in the final rankings. They are separated from Under Stanford Control (again) by OK State and Oklahoma. One will move up and one down after Bedlam today. Under Stanford Control (again)'s 13-point victory over the Huskies in Seattle compared to Colorado's performance on a neutral field last night is a strong factor favoring them over Colorado in the final rankings.
FWIW, Here are Kyle Bonagura's latest bowl projections:
Playoff: Washington
Rose: Under Stanford Control (again)
Alamo: Colorado
Holiday: Washington St
Foster Farms: Utah
Sun: Stanford
Geaux Cardinal!
[/quote]
Good point. Denver Post thinks USC will pass Colorado in the rankings, making USC an easy pick for the Rose Bowl.
I'm still hoping for Colorado in the Rose Bowl and USC getting an at-large NY6. 3 Pac-12 teams playing "on New Years" (which this year is between 12/30 and 1/2), pulling Stanford up to the Holiday Bowl.
12-03-2016, 08:54 PM
Well, we can officially rule out Las Vegas on 12/17. Wouldn't have worked well given Finals, so this is good.
https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/805254845498175492
https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/805254845498175492
Well, we can officially rule out Las Vegas on 12/17. Wouldn't have worked well given Finals, so this is good.
https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/805254845498175492
https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/805254845498175492
12-03-2016, 09:03 PM
(12-03-2016, 08:54 PM)JJJ link Wrote:Well, we can officially rule out Las Vegas on 12/17. Wouldn't have worked well given Finals, so this is good.
https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/805254845498175492
They're saying Houston vs SDState/Wyoming? So they're assuming at least one Pac-12 team will play beyond the Rose Bowl (either CFP or NY6 at-large). Sounds like a safe bet.
(12-03-2016, 08:54 PM)JJJ link Wrote:Well, we can officially rule out Las Vegas on 12/17. Wouldn't have worked well given Finals, so this is good.
https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/805254845498175492
They're saying Houston vs SDState/Wyoming? So they're assuming at least one Pac-12 team will play beyond the Rose Bowl (either CFP or NY6 at-large). Sounds like a safe bet.
12-03-2016, 09:27 PM
(11-30-2016, 11:32 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16187.msg181150#msg181150 date=1480475526]
Juarez is dangerous, and there's not too much to do in El Paso except conduct death marches...right? /cue someone with more Cardboard institutional knowledge
Wait a minute! Juarez has really calmed down in the last 5-6 years, although I'm not sure why. Maybe the cartel has killed everyone that needed killing but you don't hear anything like that these days. El Paso, meanwhile, is one of the safest cities in the country and has arguably the best Mexican food north of Mexico City. The surrounding Franklin Mountains are worth a visit and I have nothing but good memories from my trips there to visit one of my Stanford roommates. And, as mentioned, folks there really go out of their way for the Sun Bowl. Plus, the stadium itself is an attraction in itself, right in a natural bowl in the mountains. I like El Paso.
[/quote]
Sun Bowl, 2 p.m. kickoff, televised by CBS (second longest running program on CBS after The Masters), Stanford has appeared three times, one more would tie them with Oregon and UCLA among pac 12 teams (ASU has been there five times). Halftime performers will be two young ladies who sung in "The Voice" reality show. There's a golf event for fans. Attendance around 45,000, I'm guessing. Usually the best attended bowl on that day.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(11-30-2016, 11:32 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16187.msg181150#msg181150 date=1480475526]
Juarez is dangerous, and there's not too much to do in El Paso except conduct death marches...right? /cue someone with more Cardboard institutional knowledge
Wait a minute! Juarez has really calmed down in the last 5-6 years, although I'm not sure why. Maybe the cartel has killed everyone that needed killing but you don't hear anything like that these days. El Paso, meanwhile, is one of the safest cities in the country and has arguably the best Mexican food north of Mexico City. The surrounding Franklin Mountains are worth a visit and I have nothing but good memories from my trips there to visit one of my Stanford roommates. And, as mentioned, folks there really go out of their way for the Sun Bowl. Plus, the stadium itself is an attraction in itself, right in a natural bowl in the mountains. I like El Paso.
[/quote]
Sun Bowl, 2 p.m. kickoff, televised by CBS (second longest running program on CBS after The Masters), Stanford has appeared three times, one more would tie them with Oregon and UCLA among pac 12 teams (ASU has been there five times). Halftime performers will be two young ladies who sung in "The Voice" reality show. There's a golf event for fans. Attendance around 45,000, I'm guessing. Usually the best attended bowl on that day.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
12-04-2016, 08:34 AM
Looks like if we're lucky the Holiday Bowl jumps up to take us over the Cougs and if not then we slip down to the Sun. No way the Amazing Chicken Bowl takes us again, but TBH if there had been a better quality opponent in 2014 the attendance might have been higher. I think that's as much of the problem year in and year out with that bowl.
Looks like if we're lucky the Holiday Bowl jumps up to take us over the Cougs and if not then we slip down to the Sun. No way the Amazing Chicken Bowl takes us again, but TBH if there had been a better quality opponent in 2014 the attendance might have been higher. I think that's as much of the problem year in and year out with that bowl.
12-04-2016, 11:39 AM
Indiana vs. Stanford, 8:30, Dec 28, Levi's Stadium. We'll see if they get it right.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
12-04-2016, 11:50 AM
I hope we somehow get to play a better team. Indiana has beaten no one this year.
I hope we somehow get to play a better team. Indiana has beaten no one this year.
12-04-2016, 11:54 AM
CBS has us in the Sun bowl vs. North Carolina and has Utah taking on Indiana in the Foster Farms bowl
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...redictions
Stewart mandel has us in the Sun Bowl vs. Pittsburg
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...mes-120416
USA Today agrees--Sun Bowl vs. Pitt
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../94936156/
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...redictions
Stewart mandel has us in the Sun Bowl vs. Pittsburg
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...mes-120416
USA Today agrees--Sun Bowl vs. Pitt
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../94936156/
CBS has us in the Sun bowl vs. North Carolina and has Utah taking on Indiana in the Foster Farms bowl
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...redictions
Stewart mandel has us in the Sun Bowl vs. Pittsburg
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...mes-120416
USA Today agrees--Sun Bowl vs. Pitt
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../94936156/
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...redictions
Stewart mandel has us in the Sun Bowl vs. Pittsburg
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...mes-120416
USA Today agrees--Sun Bowl vs. Pitt
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../94936156/
12-04-2016, 12:19 PM
(12-04-2016, 11:39 AM)Mick link Wrote:Indiana vs. Stanford, 8:30, Dec 28, Levi's Stadium. We'll see if they get it right.
I would love to watch us beat the crap out of Indiana. I hate the Hoosier State even more than I hate the Skunkbear State. Just kidding, I have a grudging respect for Michigan. Detroit used to be my hometown's daddy. Not kidding about hating Indiana and their reversible jacket fans.
(12-04-2016, 11:39 AM)Mick link Wrote:Indiana vs. Stanford, 8:30, Dec 28, Levi's Stadium. We'll see if they get it right.
I would love to watch us beat the crap out of Indiana. I hate the Hoosier State even more than I hate the Skunkbear State. Just kidding, I have a grudging respect for Michigan. Detroit used to be my hometown's daddy. Not kidding about hating Indiana and their reversible jacket fans.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »