College Football: Final Report of Baby's Losers Series for Bowls
Congratulations to Michael and Dan, who led the way through the entire 34 Bowl games with equal 21-13 records. Baby Tate went 20-14, 10-7 for each stage. Timothy rolled in with 20-14 as well.
12, Brad, and Red Raider rode in with 18-16. Mitch went 10-7 in Stage One but finished 16-18. Robert often avoided picking his Georgia Bulldogs early in the season and passed on the Brigham Young-Arizona Bowl game to finish 16-17.
Isaac posted 14-20, going down with his beloved Nittany Lions. Can't blame him—we all have our favorites.
Several folks only participated in Stage One, but David, an Ole Miss supporter, posted Stage Two only and tied Timothy for the best record of that section, 11-6.
Kent, Cody, and Gator Michael all went 10-7 in Stage One, but we didn't hear from them for the second stanza. Mitch at 10-7, 12 with 11-6, Michael at 12-5, and Dan at 13-4 were the fearsome foursome in that section.
J.C., Cliff, and Brandon all went 9-8 in Stage One but sat out the New Year's Eve and beyond era. Trey finished 8-9 in the early round as well.
There were several great comments along the way. Isaac hit a home run with his description of the Independence Bowl, "the worst bowl ever," and it was so bad that it was exciting from start to finish—something we can't say for many of the better bowls.
Isaac also predicted Ole Miss to beat Texas Tech, and there were a couple of other folks that saw that coming. We even had folks take Florida Atlantic over Central Michigan.
Thanks to Lisa for the kind thoughts about Carolina's loss to Iowa. I recognize the Gamecocks were never in it. The game brought back memories of the article I wrote months ago about Steve Spurrier being retired on the job.
Notre Dame was able to break the long Bowl-losing streak, and that was a plus for all Irish fans.
We had a great time reading the projections each week in the series and hope that others enjoyed it as well. Thanks to all who participated.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?