Recent content by ChampBailey24

Yeah, 160 might be the average when they're in their 40s and don't exercize.

They're both muscular and huge.

4.22 was hand timed and the other 2 (4.27 and 4.32) were unofficial.

Btw, official time is 4.34.

Al Davis reacts

So she's got huge shoulders and thighs. Cool.

They're not ready yet.

:hifive: But hey, I rated her a 6-6.5 so I'd hit it. Just wouldn't brag about it if she wasn't an olympian. And lol @ the bolded part.

I'm heavier than 160 by a comfortable margin. But anything over 140 is too much. 5'10 or not.

About a 6.5. She's large. And 160 pounds on a woman is just too much.

The top 10 in winning percentage, not success. Are you saying that because a Pee-Wee team won more games than say the Tigers last year that they're better? Because that's exactly what you're doing when including TCU and Boise State in your top 10. And I don't know why you said OSU wasn't...

Boise State and TCU are in there because they don't play in a BCS conference. They wouldn't be in the Top 25 if they were, unless it was in the Big East. As for VT, I think Rivals' evulations of the Midwest (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) and Virgnia sucks. VT has been getting a lot of 5.7...

I'm talking about this. 9th best winning % in the 2000s. And yes, that = 2 conference titles and 2 BCS Bowl Wins. Considering that LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and Auburn have all recruited at a similar level and that Georgia has won 2 conference titles in 10 years under Mark Richt, it looks...

The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s.

Suh was a very highly rated recruit out of HS. Just because the Star-Telegram National (lol) poorly evaluated a DT in Oregon doesn't mean he was a sleeper. And lol @ The Commish using the USC example. They've had stellar recruiting classes for 10 years and have been a force year in, and year...