The pain of dealing with fellow 'fans' in an NFL town

Donate To GopherHole
alchemy2u said:
You did catch the irony in your post, right? You infer that the college fan is more educated and then you talk about all the college fans in Alabama.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not until you pointed it out - but yes there is a heavy dose of irony in there. To clarify I meant the education level of Minnesota football fans...whether college or pro. I will make no proclamation on the typical college football fan in the deep south...believe me.
 

Over the last 20-odd years, I have gone from a rabid Vikings fan and a casual Gopher fan to a rabid Gopher fan and a more casual Vikings fan. I did not watch the Vikes' season opener - was covering a HS volleyball match, and didn't bother to DVR the game. That never would have happened a few years ago.

I agree that someone can be a fan of both teams. But, I suspect that most people are weighted toward one team or the other. It may be 60% Vikes to 40% Gophers, or some other ratio (not the Randy Ratio), but I suspect that most fans are not a 50/50 split.

If the Vikes have had more attention and more devoted fans, I would think that part of it comes from the NFL's marketing genius. The NFL is a big national story almost year-round. The Draft - OTA's, mini-camps, training camp, pre-season, regular season, post-season, preparing for the Draft......it never ends. No comparison between the NFL and College FB when it comes to marketing and promotion.

And - one of the biggest things going for the NFL - Fantasy Football. I don't get it, personally, but I know people who are just bat-bleep crazy for Fantasy Football. I knew a guy who was in 4 leagues, and commissioner of 2 leagues simultaneously. Let's just say that his work performance suffered a little bit during FB season, especially on Monday.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Over the last 20-odd years, I have gone from a rabid Vikings fan and a casual Gopher fan to a rabid Gopher fan and a more casual Vikings fan. I did not watch the Vikes' season opener - was covering a HS volleyball match, and didn't bother to DVR the game. That never would have happened a few years ago.

I agree that someone can be a fan of both teams. But, I suspect that most people are weighted toward one team or the other. It may be 60% Vikes to 40% Gophers, or some other ratio (not the Randy Ratio), but I suspect that most fans are not a 50/50 split.

If the Vikes have had more attention and more devoted fans, I would think that part of it comes from the NFL's marketing genius. The NFL is a big national story almost year-round. The Draft - OTA's, mini-camps, training camp, pre-season, regular season, post-season, preparing for the Draft......it never ends. No comparison between the NFL and College FB when it comes to marketing and promotion.

And - one of the biggest things going for the NFL - Fantasy Football. I don't get it, personally, but I know people who are just bat-bleep crazy for Fantasy Football. I knew a guy who was in 4 leagues, and commissioner of 2 leagues simultaneously. Let's just say that his work performance suffered a little bit during FB season, especially on Monday.
Click to expand...

Can tell you don't play fantasy football, because Tuesday is the big day of the week, not Monday. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

touchdownvikings said:
I've said it before, and I'm not the only one to have done so: there is no reason you can't be a fan of both the Vikings and the Gophers. I am, and I know many others who are too. This is not soaked in some sort of mutual-exclusivity potion; we all can be fans of both teams.

As for down-playing the Gophers' successes, the reality is that for a significant period the Gophers have been bottom-dwellers/laughing stocks. Their best seasons have are best characterized as a higher form of mediocre (Vikings have been more successful in the time period ranging from the 80's to present). But I'm a fan anyway! And I know the Gophers can become giants.

Gophers have coaches who can lead them to the top in basketball and football. The institution as a whole needs to make hard decisions to become elite - it can do it, but I think it won't, which is frustrating. I won't go into this, because most of you effers will get upset.

In any event, Gophers are on the upswing, so are the Vikes. Cheer for both!
Click to expand...

I haven't posted here for a long time but continue to read. The bolded part above is not reality IMO, at least of recent history, yet many of our most passionate fans continue to say this. Mediocrity, although confining, is not even close to bottom dwelling. The reality is that the Gopher have been to a bowl game 14 of the last 18 seasons (comparing this stat to NFL playoff appearances isn't a fair comparison, although in the same period of time the Vikings have had 7 playoff seasons). This is not bottom dwelling or even remotely close to bottom dwelling for the Gophers. This hits on the OPs take - the perceptions that segments of each fan base have is very different, and I agree.
 

16FeetUnder said:
I haven't posted here for a long time but continue to read. The bolded part above is not reality IMO, at least of recent history, yet many of our most passionate fans continue to say this. Mediocrity, although confining, is not even close to bottom dwelling. The reality is that the Gopher have been to a bowl game 14 of the last 18 seasons (comparing this stat to NFL playoff appearances isn't a fair comparison, although in the same period of time the Vikings have had 7 playoff seasons). This is not bottom dwelling or even remotely close to bottom dwelling for the Gophers. This hits on the OPs take - the perceptions that segments of each fan base have is very different, and I agree.
Click to expand...

I am generally too worn out by my own topic here but you hit the nail on the head. touchdownvikings actually illustrated my point with his "bottom dwellers/laughing stocks" comment. It is exactly what I was talking about!! 14 bowl games in 18 seasons is "laughing stock" material for some and the NFL fog continues to hang over the Gophers, unfortunately.
 


Okie said:
I have the same frustrations as you on a regular basis, especially when talking with my sports-crazed friends (most of which graduated from the U, no less).

I think the biggest difference between the NFL and College Football that make comparisons of success nearly impossible is the fact that the NFL is designed for overall parity, with a draft and salary cap in place that allow for the bottom feeders to recover quickly. If you have a winless season in college football, you end up setting your program back significantly when factoring in the effects on fan interest and recruiting, and then it most likely starts to snowball in the years to come. Meanwhile, if you go winless in the NFL, you get a very valuable set of draft picks to infuse young talent into your team to begin setting the table for a run of sustained success a few years out.
Click to expand...

From my standpoint (Gopher alum but much bigger NFL/Vikings fan) this is a huge reason for the NFL being a better product. The Gophers have so many built in disadvantages that it's hard to see them being a consistent college football power.

This won't be a popular stand but I was a Gopher season ticket holder the first 2 years at TCF and now for the first 2 years at US Bank. I think the fan experience and product on the field is a lot better with the Vikings. Beating the Packers last year at home was a lot more of a memorable game than any I've attended at TCF.
 

Is it unrealistic to expect one season higher in the standings than your biggest rival, or even ONE victory over them or a top 15 team in the last 10+ years?
 

"Making bowl games" should NOT be a measure of a good Big Ten team. There is a reason it isn't looked on by the larger public as a indicator of success, and the multitude of awful bowl games is the reason. Nobody is excited or becomes a fan because the Gophers go to the Music City bowl or its comparable games. Add in the aspect that the games are exhibitions and have no larger meaning, and it's no surprise that people can't get excited by them.
 

Ski U Master said:
the games are exhibitions
Click to expand...

They aren't.

Ski U Master said:
have no larger meaning
Click to expand...

They're no less meaningful than any other game outside of the College Football Playoff. Depending on your definition of "larger meaning," it could be argued that sports in general have no "larger meaning." Isn't that the point, in fact, of following sports to begin with?

Ski U Master said:
it's no surprise that people can't get excited by them
Click to expand...

I get very excited by every bowl game the Gophers play in.
 



dpodoll68 said:
They aren't.



They're no less meaningful than any other game outside of the College Football Playoff. Depending on your definition of "larger meaning," it could be argued that sports in general have no "larger meaning." Isn't that the point, in fact, of following sports to begin with?



I get very excited by every bowl game the Gophers play in.
Click to expand...
1. They are for all purposes aside from an overall record. They do not further progression toward a goal (championship), they do not improve your standings in your conference.
2. Yes larger meaning means an impact to me of progression toward a goal, such as the playoff as you mentioned. I agree with you that sports have no real meaning aside from a distraction from daily life.
3. I'm not talking about YOU as a fan or any fans that are already on the bandwagon. I'm talking about attracting new fans.
 

I think it's just easier to be an NFL fan. You can ignore everything NFL related once the super bowl is over and still know all the best players come week 1 the next season.
 

Ski U Master said:
"Making bowl games" should NOT be a measure of a good Big Ten team. There is a reason it isn't looked on by the larger public as a indicator of success, and the multitude of awful bowl games is the reason. Nobody is excited or becomes a fan because the Gophers go to the Music City bowl or its comparable games. Add in the aspect that the games are exhibitions and have no larger meaning, and it's no surprise that people can't get excited by them.
Click to expand...

Nobody said "making bowl games" is a measure of a good Big Ten team. 16FeetUnder was countering the statement that, "The reality is that for a significant period the Gophers have been bottom-dwellers/laughing stocks." He used the 14 bowl games in 18 years to show that we have not been bottom dwellers. And that statistic proves him right.

The Gophers have not had enough success for most of us on this board, let along the casual Minnesota sports fan. But aside from one awful season per decade -- and that one season per decade definitely adds to the negative perception -- we have not been bottom dwellers. We have been in the mediocre range. That's not where we want to be, but it's not a bottom dweller.

Going 1-11 with Brewster, 2-9 with Wacker and 1-10 with Salem really hurts the perception people have of the Gophers. The Vikings also have been mediocre since 1980. But they've been to the NFC championship game once per decade (Denny went twice) and the Gophers haven't had one of those breakthrough seasons. And the Vikings have largely avoided those awful one-off seasons that the Gophers have had.
 

Ski U Master said:
1. They are for all purposes aside from an overall record. They do not further progression toward a goal (championship), they do not improve your standings in your conference.
2. Yes larger meaning means an impact to me of progression toward a goal, such as the playoff as you mentioned. I agree with you that sports have no real meaning aside from a distraction from daily life.
3. I'm not talking about YOU as a fan or any fans that are already on the bandwagon. I'm talking about attracting new fans.
Click to expand...

You don't get to make up your own definition for the word exhibition. In no way are they exhibition games.
 



Hates Monikers said:
Nobody said "making bowl games" is a measure of a good Big Ten team. 16FeetUnder was countering the statement that, "The reality is that for a significant period the Gophers have been bottom-dwellers/laughing stocks." He used the 14 bowl games in 18 years to show that we have not been bottom dwellers. And that statistic proves him right.

The Gophers have not had enough success for most of us on this board, let along the casual Minnesota sports fan. But aside from one awful season per decade -- and that one season per decade definitely adds to the negative perception -- we have not been bottom dwellers. We have been in the mediocre range. That's not where we want to be, but it's not a bottom dweller.

Going 1-11 with Brewster, 2-9 with Wacker and 1-10 with Salem really hurts the perception people have of the Gophers. The Vikings also have been mediocre since 1980. But they've been to the NFC championship game once per decade (Denny went twice) and the Gophers haven't had one of those breakthrough seasons. And the Vikings have largely avoided those awful one-off seasons that the Gophers have had.
Click to expand...

Except for 1983 (the 3-13 Les Steckel year)
 

Hates Monikers said:
Nobody said "making bowl games" is a measure of a good Big Ten team. 16FeetUnder was countering the statement that, "The reality is that for a significant period the Gophers have been bottom-dwellers/laughing stocks." He used the 14 bowl games in 18 years to show that we have not been bottom dwellers. And that statistic proves him right.

The Gophers have not had enough success for most of us on this board, let along the casual Minnesota sports fan. But aside from one awful season per decade -- and that one season per decade definitely adds to the negative perception -- we have not been bottom dwellers. We have been in the mediocre range. That's not where we want to be, but it's not a bottom dweller.

Going 1-11 with Brewster, 2-9 with Wacker and 1-10 with Salem really hurts the perception people have of the Gophers. The Vikings also have been mediocre since 1980. But they've been to the NFC championship game once per decade (Denny went twice) and the Gophers haven't had one of those breakthrough seasons. And the Vikings have largely avoided those awful one-off seasons that the Gophers have had.
Click to expand...

I agree and you are correct about my take. I'd go further to say that I mentioned that some passionate Gopher fans continue to exagerate things to make it seem like the Gophers are, or have been, worse than reality. This seems awkwardly unique to our local fanbase from my experience in other areas of the country. Some posts following mine are proof that this statement is unfortunately also correct.
 


IMO the sports media also plays a huge role in the "perception" of each team. In the Twin Cities the Vikings are the ratings kings, they garner far more views/clicks/listens than Gophers football. In effect, more Vikings coverage = better ratings = more advertising dollars. And to a degree the media is more apt to put a positive spin or outlook on the Vikings in hopes that fans don't lose interest and tune out. That is their meal ticket.

Don't get me wrong, the Twin Cities media will rip the Vikings when they lose or play poorly but overall and especially in the off season the general spin is to hype up the team's potential to drive interest.

On the flip side, Gophers football is not in the same league ratings-wise and therefore is somewhat the ugly stepchild for the media.

All of this helps shape public perception. And the unspoken perception is, "the gophers are terrible" and "the Vikings are perennial contenders."

Pop Quiz:

Over the past 4 seasons, which team has the highest winning percentage: Vikings, Twins, Timberwolves, or Gophers football?

Over the past 4 seasons, which team has beaten more teams who have finished with a record >.500: the Vikings or the Gophers? (And keep in mind the Vikings play 4 more regular season games every season.)

Would you say that public perception of those two answers matches reality?
 

some facts

16FeetUnder said:
I agree and you are correct about my take. I'd go further to say that I mentioned that some passionate Gopher fans continue to exagerate things to make it seem like the Gophers are, or have been, worse than reality. This seems awkwardly unique to our local fanbase from my experience in other areas of the country. Some posts following mine are proof that this statement is unfortunately also correct.
Click to expand...

I should actually reply to several posts here - sorry to reply only to you.

My main thrust is that the Gophers have been bottom dwellers/laughing stocks a significant amount of the time since 1980. This is different than the Vikings. Consider: number of losing B1G seasons for the Gophers since 1980: 25. Number of 2-win-or-fewer B1G seasons for the Gophers since 1980: 16. That's 16 times we basically beat Northwestern and one other crappy team. 16 times in 36 years. That 44% of the time. 2 wins. Ouch. We've only had 6 winning B1G seasons since 1980 - all of them 5-win seasons; never 6.

Now consider the Vikings. Number of losing seasons since 1980: 10. Number of 4-win-or-fewer seasons (comparable to a 2-win-or-fewer B1G seasons, given twice as many games) since 1980: 2. That's 2 for the Vikings vs 16 for the Gophers. I think you see the point. The basic problem is not that the Gophers have never had high-end versions of a mediocre product, the problem is that they've had 69% of their B1G seasons be losing seasons since 1980, and 44% abysmally so. That's a bottom feeder a significant amount of the time. That's not the media. That's fact.
 

touchdownvikings said:
Now consider the Vikings. Number of losing seasons since 1980: 10. Number of 4-win-or-fewer seasons (comparable to a 2-win-or-fewer B1G seasons, given twice as many games) since 1980: 2. That's 2 for the Vikings vs 16 for the Gophers. I think you see the point. The basic problem is not that the Gophers have never had high-end versions of a mediocre product, the problem is that they've had 69% of their B1G seasons be losing seasons since 1980, and 44% abysmally so. That's a bottom feeder a significant amount of the time. That's not the media. That's fact.
Click to expand...

You've brought up another common misconception among the Twin Cities media, and that is: B1G conference wins = any NFL win. The hidden inferences here are that non-conf wins are garbage and no NFL wins are garbage. Both false. Since the 1980's the gap between Power 5 and non-power 5 teams has shrunk significantly. A win over a solid MAC team in today's college football is not a given, and is a well earned win. Yes, i will concede that wins over Division 2 (i refuse to call them FCS) teams are hollow, but so are the countless wins the Vikings have had vs horrific Detroit and Tampa Bay teams from back in the day.
 

touchdownvikings said:
I should actually reply to several posts here - sorry to reply only to you.

My main thrust is that the Gophers have been bottom dwellers/laughing stocks a significant amount of the time since 1980..
Click to expand...

Lots of reasons for the disparity. Lots of reasons for positive Vikings coverage and negative Gopher coverage all noted in this thread but record?

Why you have a decent point your timeline kind of skews it. 1980!

How about this century?

Year------Vikings-----Gophers

2000-----11-5-----6-6

2001-----5-11-----4-7

2002-----6-10-----8-5

2003-----9-7------10-3

2004-----8-8------7-5

2005-----9-7 (Love Boat) 7-5

2006-----6-10------6-7

2007-----8-8------1-11 BREWSTER!!!!!!!!

2008-----10-6-----7-6

2009-----12-4-----6-7

2010-----6-10-----3-6

2011-----3-13-----3-6

2012-----10-6-----6-7

2013-----5-10-----8-5

2014-----7-9-----8-5

2015-----11-5----6-7

2016-----8-8-----9-4 Gopher Scandal

Pretty surprising unless you knew it already and that's why you started where you did. 7 of those 10 losing Vikings seasons are in this century.

Yeah, the difference in record is wildly over stated, but the public, much like your post, believes it's even worse.
 

Iceland12 said:
Lots of reasons for the disparity. Lots of reasons for positive Vikings coverage and negative Gopher coverage all noted in this thread but record?

Why you have a decent point your timeline kind of skews it. 1980!

How about this century?

Year------Vikings-----Gophers

2000-----11-5-----6-6

2001-----5-11-----4-7

2002-----6-10-----8-5

2003-----9-7------10-3

2004-----8-8------7-5

2005-----9-7 (Love Boat) 7-5

2006-----6-10------6-7

2007-----8-8------1-11 BREWSTER!!!!!!!!

2008-----10-6-----7-6

2009-----12-4-----6-7

2010-----6-10-----3-6

2011-----3-13-----3-6

2012-----10-6-----6-7

2013-----5-10-----8-5

2014-----7-9-----8-5

2015-----11-5----6-7

2016-----8-8-----9-4 Gopher Scandal

Pretty surprising unless you knew it already and that's why you started where you did. 7 of those 10 losing Vikings seasons are in this century.

Yeah, the difference in record is wildly over stated, but the public, much like your post, believes it's even worse.
Click to expand...

Why 1980? My original post said that the Gophers have spent significant time since 1980 being bottom-feeders, so I was backing that statement up. My original post referred to 1980 because I am in my mid-40's and began watching football - both Gophers and Vikings - in 1980. So that timeframe is relevant to me. Nothing more, nothing less. I've never seen a Gophers team win 6 B1G games in a season. Ever. Not one time in my entire life. This can change, and it will! But the Gophers' woes are not fabricated; they're real and the stats paint the picture.
 

You really enjoy the cheap indoor stadium the Vikings have.

FishingMN said:
From my standpoint (Gopher alum but much bigger NFL/Vikings fan) this is a huge reason for the NFL being a better product. The Gophers have so many built in disadvantages that it's hard to see them being a consistent college football power.

This won't be a popular stand but I was a Gopher season ticket holder the first 2 years at TCF and now for the first 2 years at US Bank. I think the fan experience and product on the field is a lot better with the Vikings. Beating the Packers last year at home was a lot more of a memorable game than any I've attended at TCF.
Click to expand...

You must have never experienced women puking in your row as I have the last two seasons at a Vikings game. Went to the Opener against Green Bay and the lady sitting next to me was so drunk a Packer puked on another packer fan sitting right in front of them. This year against the Saints, with my Brother and his friend Nick. We had the girl two seats down puke in the first quarter, took until second quarter for the usher to get someone to clean up the noxious puke fumes we had to smell. Witnessed EMT's and police take a girl so drunk out of the bathroom she could not stand on her own two feet. Paying that kind of money and having to smell puke for that long really ruined the game experience.

People drink at Gopher games but I have never once had a college fan puke near by, or saw so many drunk people and all of the swearing like at the Vikings game Monday night.

I must be getting older fast, because I used to enjoy the rowdiness at Vikings games and now I absolutely hate the drunken stupidest behavior that goes on at Vikings games at US bank stadium.
The prices at US bank stadium are obnoxiously high for a beer $10.50 don't even mention food prices, and the concourses suck are small and jammed full of crap for sale clogging them up and making everything aholes and elbows. The plastic seats are incredibly cheap, really thinly made, and uncomfortable and you still get all of that blaring music. Plus parking was $25 to $30 everywhere. I really like the Skol chant but that is about it.
I left with a splitting headache and don't think I'm going back to a Vikings game. I hate the NFL a lot now and I used to go to at least 3 games a year during the Moss years. To each is own, I enjoy Gopher games a lot more in person than I can the Vikings these days.
Sure would be nice to have the Gophers win a few rivalry games at home so we can put this argument to bead. Will take that to change the officals minds about the Gophers and turn some Vikings fans and media in our favor.
 

touchdownvikings said:
Why 1980? My original post said that the Gophers have spent significant time since 1980 being bottom-feeders, so I was backing that statement up. My original post referred to 1980 because I am in my mid-40's and began watching football - both Gophers and Vikings - in 1980. So that timeframe is relevant to me. Nothing more, nothing less. I've never seen a Gophers team win 6 B1G games in a season. Ever. Not one time in my entire life. This can change, and it will! But the Gophers' woes are not fabricated; they're real and the stats paint the picture.
Click to expand...

You and I are similar ages. I used to love the Vikings, but now have a hard time wanting to spend any money or time to invest going to games. If you have ever traveled in the Big 10 you get a feel for what college football is like in places like Columbus or Madison(I hate them but they have a great game day atmosphere). I was never a college football fan until attending the U and getting hooked by Chris Darkins and air Wacker. I guess taste in football change over time. My current perception of the Vikings is they never win the Big game and have not played in a Super Bowl since 1977 so prior to Randy Moss Rookie year, they could not even sell out many home games. I guess I just don't see the Gophers success and the Vikings being all that much different these days.
 

gopherdudepart2 said:
You and I are similar ages. I used to love the Vikings, but now have a hard time wanting to spend any money or time to invest going to games. If you have ever traveled in the Big 10 you get a feel for what college football is like in places like Columbus or Madison(I hate them but they have a great game day atmosphere). I was never a college football fan until attending the U and getting hooked by Chris Darkins and air Wacker. I guess taste in football change over time. My current perception of the Vikings is they never win the Big game and have not played in a Super Bowl since 1977 so prior to Randy Moss Rookie year, they could not even sell out many home games. I guess I just don't see the Gophers success and the Vikings being all that much different these days.
Click to expand...

Right now, I think I mainly agree with you. Offensive line is the major issue for both teams. I think BOTH can contend (be affirmative good and maybe better) if their offensive lines pan out. The Gophers are showing the promise of a receiving corps and passing game that we haven't seen in a while, the talent in the running game speaks for itself (but is contingent on reasonable line play), the defense is stout with a little doubt at corner. This offense can develop as the year goes along - a lot of potential for growth in the system and play calling, given the abilities at receiving positions. This could be a surprising year. Bottom line: both teams need their O-line to step up.
 

touchdownvikings said:
Why 1980? My original post said that the Gophers have spent significant time since 1980 being bottom-feeders, so I was backing that statement up. My original post referred to 1980 because I am in my mid-40's and began watching football - both Gophers and Vikings - in 1980. So that timeframe is relevant to me. Nothing more, nothing less. I've never seen a Gophers team win 6 B1G games in a season. Ever. Not one time in my entire life. This can change, and it will! But the Gophers' woes are not fabricated; they're real and the stats paint the picture.
Click to expand...

Records show, if you would have looked, that in this century the Vikings have had three .500 seasons and 7 losing seasons. Your "bottom feeder" Gophers had a single .500 season and 8 losing ones.

Over the 17 seasons the Vikings have finished with winning record 7 times and the Gophers have done it 8 times.

Like I said originally, plenty of legit reasons for the public's preference for the Vikings.

Records, at least in this century, aren't one of them.

Year------Vikings-----Gophers

2000-----11-5-----6-6

2001-----5-11-----4-7

2002-----6-10-----8-5

2003-----9-7------10-3

2004-----8-8------7-5

2005-----9-7 (Love Boat) 7-5

2006-----6-10------6-7

2007-----8-8------1-11 :mad: BREWSTER!!!!!!!!

2008-----10-6-----7-6

2009-----12-4-----6-7

2010-----6-10-----3-6

2011-----3-13 :mad:-----3-6

2012-----10-6-----6-7

2013-----5-10-----8-5

2014-----7-9-----8-5

2015-----11-5----6-7

2016-----8-8-----9-4 Gopher Scandal

Pretty surprising unless you knew it already and that's why you started where you did. 7 of those 10 losing Vikings seasons are in this century.
 

stevedave23 said:
You've brought up another common misconception among the Twin Cities media, and that is: B1G conference wins = any NFL win. The hidden inferences here are that non-conf wins are garbage and no NFL wins are garbage. Both false. Since the 1980's the gap between Power 5 and non-power 5 teams has shrunk significantly. A win over a solid MAC team in today's college football is not a given, and is a well earned win. Yes, i will concede that wins over Division 2 (i refuse to call them FCS) teams are hollow, but so are the countless wins the Vikings have had vs horrific Detroit and Tampa Bay teams from back in the day.
Click to expand...

Division 2 is not FCS.
 





You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom