Fiu, Cirminiello, Mitchell on TV - Campus Insiders | Buy College Football Tickets

Compu-Picks Analysis: Fumble Luck

Mr Pac Ten
Posted Mar 16, 2012


2011 Compu-Picks Analysis Part 3: Why Fumble Luck is a Valuable Part of Pre-season Predictions

Some of you may remember the piece I did last year on the predictive value of turnovers. The following article looks at a particular aspect of turnovers, fumble luck.

While turnovers are partially dependent on luck, they also can depend in part on style of play (more aggressive defenses tend to force more turnovers), and potentially other non-random variables. Fumbles, however, seem to depend much more on luck. Once the ball is on the ground, it's basically a coin-flip who comes up with it. And yet a fumble is just as useful as an interception, arguably even more (since many interceptions are on long passes and are functionally almost punts). So what do the numbers tell us about fumble luck and its impact on a team's fortunes?

Quite a bit, actually. Defining as the net fumbles (recovered minus lost) less the expected number of net fumbles (49.3% times net forced fumbles [forced fumbles less dropped fumbles] ), we can see a material impact of fumble luck on a team's fortunes. As with turnovers in general, fumble luck improvement strongly correlates to record improvement, and a team's fumble luck in one year very weakly correlates with their luck the next year (even less of a correlation than for turnovers in general).

1) Turnover improvement very strongly correlates to record improvement.


As I did with the turnover article, I took at look at the ten teams who improved their turnover margin the most between 2009 and 2010 (I haven't analyzed this data for 2011 yet), and looked at how their W/L records changed in the same time frame. They were as follows:

Mississippi St
2009: 5-7 (-4.5)
2010: 9-4 (+6.5)

Troy
2009: 9-4 (-5.5)
2010: 8-5 (+3.5)

Florida
2009: 13-1 (-9.0)
2010: 8-5 (-0.1)

Tulane
2009: 3-9 (-5.5)
2010: 4-8 (+3.0)

Hawaii
2009: 6-7 (-7.0)
2010: 10-4 (+1.1)

Nebraska
2009: 10-4 (-5.5)
2010: 10-4 (+2.3)

Georgia
2009: 8-5 (-6.5)
2010: 6-7 (+1.0)

NC St
2009: 5-7 (-1.6)
2010: 9-4 (+5.6)

MiamiOH
2009: 1-11 (-6.5)
2010: 10-4 (+0.6)

Toledo
2009: 5-7 (-2.5)
2010: 8-5 (+4.0)

Not as extreme a set as we saw with total turnovers, but nonetheless, six of the ten improved their record, with other holding even. Four of the ten improved by 4+ wins, another by 3.

And on the other side, here at the ten worst drops in fumble luck:

Georgia Tech
2009: 11-3 (+7.9)
2010: 6-7 (-2.6)

MTSU
2009: 10-3 (+7.0)
2010: 6-7 (-3.0)

Wake Forest
2009: 5-7 (+1.5)
2010: 3-9 (-7.4)

Ohio
2009: 9-5 (+4.5)
2010: 8-5 (-3.5)

Texas Tech
2009: 9-4 (+0.5)
2010: 8-5 (-7.5)

Air Force
2009: 8-5 (+5.0)
2010: 9-4 (-2.5)

Texas
2009: 13-1 (-3.9)
2010: 5-7 (-10.9)

Marshall
2009: 7-6 (+4.9)
2010: 5-7 (-2.0)

Cincy
2009: 12-1 (+0.5)
2010: 4-8 (-6.0)

Temple
2009: 8-4 (+2.0)
2010: 9-4 (-4.5)

This is a similar story to the top ten improvers, only in reverse. Eight of the ten worsened their record. Four of the nine got worse by 4+ wins, and another two got 2 wins worse.

Overall, there's a very clear pattern to these results. Teams that get a lot better in turnover margin tend to get a lot better in record. And teams that get a lot worse in turnover margin tend to get a lot worse in record. And this leads us to the second important point.

2) Fumble luck in one year generally has a very small correlation with fumble luck in the next year.

As a test of this, I decided to run a correlation between one year's turnover margin and the next year's. As shown in the table at the bottom of the article, I had eleven years of turnover margin data (2000-2010) for 120 teams (not all teams had data for all years, but the effect of zeroing out the missing data shouldn't be material). With 10*120=1200 independent data sets, that's plenty to run a simple correlation model.

So running the correlation between one year's fumble luck and the next, I found that the correlation was a mere 7%, even lower than the 12% from the turnover data (and if we use the same 2003-2010 time period as the turnover analysis, it's even lower, just 5%). That's still more than zero, but at less than 10% correlation, it's clear that for almost all teams, the fumble luck they enjoy one year has virtually zero predictive value for the fumble luck they will enjoy the next year. That means that on average, teams with substantially positive margins will see major decline in margin the next year, and teams with substantially negative margins will see major improvement the next year. A team with a -8 turnover margin in 2009, for example, would have an expected turnover margin of -0.56 in 2010, which is basically zero!

Let's see how that played out in practice, looking at teams who had +8 or better, or -8 or worse, and how they did the next year. In 2009, Florida had -9.0 fumble luck, and followed it up with a -0.1 in 2010.
In 2008, Wyoming went -11.5 and followed it up with -0.9, while NC St went +8.9 and followed it up with -1.6.
In 2007, UCLA went -9.0 and followed it up with -1.5, while Texas Tech went -8.4 and followed it up with +2.0.
In 2006, UCLA went +8.5 and followed it up with -9.0.
In 2005, Texas went +10.9 and followed it up with +3.0, Florida went +8.5 and followed it up with an even 0.0, Wyoming went -12.9 and followed it up with +0.5, and LSU went -9.5 and followed it up with -6.5.
In 2004, Buffalo went +11.4 and followed it up with -0.6.
In 2003, Arizona went +10.5 and followed it up with +3.5, Rutgers went +8.4 and followed it up with -3.9, Kent went +8.5 and followed it up with -4.5, and Michigan St went +8.0 and followed it up with +1.0.
In 2002, TCU went +9.0 and followed it up with -5.0.
In 2001, NC St went +10.5 and followed it up with an even 0.0, Rutgers went -8.5 and followed it up with +1.0, BC went -8.4 and followed it up with +2.6, Virginia Tech went +8.4 and followed it up with -7.5, and SMU went -9.5 and followed it up with -1.5.
In 2000, USC went -8.0 and followed it up with -0.9, and Kansas went -8.5 and followed it up with -4.0

Overall, there just isn't much of any pattern other than a general reversion to zero accompanied by a LOT of noise. Looking it a different way, of all the teams who showed up on the lists (8+ good or bad) multiple times, NC St was on the plus side twice, Rutgers, UCLA (in consecutive years!) and Florida were plus once and minus once, and Wyoming was on the negative side once. Once again, there really doesn't seem to be any kind of obvious correlation pattern in either direction.

Looking at long-term numbers tells a similar story. From 2000-2010, only one team has enjoyed at least a +2.0 average, Air Force (at +2.0), and five have suffered a -2.0 or worse (Auburn, SMU, Georgia, UNC, and Nebraska). This is an interesting contrast to overall turnover margin, where a number of teams have enjoyed meaningful margins in either direction (from 2003-2010, Virginia Tech, USC, Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama, Southern Miss and Boise were all better than +6.0 per year, while SMU and New Mexico St were both worse than -5.0 per year).

And for those of you who like to play along at home, below is the fumble luck table (ultimate source was National Championship Issue); you can see the calculations in a bit more detail using this link.

Fumble Luck - by team by year

Team Avg 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Air Force 2.0 -2.5 5.0 7.5 -2.0 0.5 0.4 4.9 1.5 1.0 3.0 2.6
Rice 1.8 -1.5 5.0 7.0 2.0 6.1 0.3 -0.1 -4.0 -0.5 3.0 2.9
Notre Dame 1.8 1.0 -0.5 3.0 0.5 0.5 3.5 0.1 4.1 2.4 4.4 0.6
Louisiana-Monroe 1.6 0.9 2.5 2.0 -3.5 7.0 -1.1 1.5 -1.1 1.4 6.5 1.9
TCU 1.6 1.0 -2.0 2.5 -3.1 -3.0 5.5 4.0 -5.0 9.0 7.0 2.0
North Carolina State 1.5 5.6 -1.6 8.9 -4.5 -1.0 2.0 -5.6 -2.0 0.0 10.5 4.5
Arizona 1.5 -1.5 0.0 -3.5 -0.1 6.0 -4.5 3.5 10.5 -2.5 1.9 6.5
New Mexico 1.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 -3.0 2.4 0.9 5.0 2.5 -1.5 0.5 2.5
Buffalo 1.4 -1.0 1.5 6.1 -4.0 2.9 -0.6 11.4 2.0 4.5 0.0 -7.1
Virginia 1.3 2.0 -2.0 2.5 1.0 -1.4 2.0 1.0 2.5 5.5 0.5 1.0
Florida State 1.3 2.5 2.5 6.5 -5.0 -0.5 0.0 3.0 6.5 1.1 -1.5 -0.9
Georgia Tech 1.3 -2.6 7.9 -2.6 -0.5 4.0 1.5 -6.0 1.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Bowling Green 1.2 1.0 2.5 -1.6 -2.5 2.0 2.0 1.1 -0.5 3.6 4.1 1.5
Utah 1.1 -4.5 1.4 4.0 1.1 -1.4 -2.1 5.5 6.5 3.0 -0.5 -1.1
Rutgers 1.1 5.1 6.1 1.6 -7.0 2.6 4.1 -3.9 8.4 1.0 -8.5 2.5
Colorado 1.1 1.5 2.5 6.4 -0.5 7.9 -2.5 1.5 -5.0 2.5 -4.0 1.5
South Carolina 1.0 3.1 3.5 3.0 -3.5 -1.0 4.0 -3.5 3.1 2.5 0.0 0.5
UAB 1.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.5 8.0 -3.4 2.5 -0.1 0.9 -1.0 1.0
Minnesota 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 -0.5 3.1 -0.5 0.5 -3.0 0.1 4.0 2.0
Mississippi 1.0 1.5 -0.5 -3.5 0.5 4.0 5.5 0.5 2.5 3.5 -1.0 -2.4
Syracuse 1.0 -1.1 2.0 -1.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 3.0 -0.5 1.6 2.6 1.1
Louisiana Tech 0.9 1.0 4.4 3.5 -0.6 0.5 5.5 0.5 0.9 -2.0 -2.4 -1.5
Toledo 0.9 4.0 -2.5 0.0 4.0 -3.5 2.0 0.4 1.5 3.4 -1.0 1.1
Duke 0.7 -0.5 0.1 3.5 1.4 2.5 -1.5 -3.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 3.0
Baylor 0.7 2.4 1.5 3.5 2.5 -2.5 -5.4 -4.1 0.5 -2.0 7.0 4.5
Northern Illinois 0.7 2.0 0.6 3.6 -1.5 4.1 0.5 1.1 -4.9 -1.6 0.0 4.0
San Jose State 0.7 1.5 3.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.1 -3.0 -3.5 5.5 5.5
Kansas State 0.6 1.0 5.5 -2.6 2.0 1.6 -2.5 -3.5 0.4 1.9 0.5 2.9
Oklahoma 0.6 4.5 2.5 2.1 -6.5 -3.1 0.9 6.0 1.6 1.6 0.1 -2.9
UCLA 0.6 1.9 4.4 -1.5 -9.0 8.5 2.5 -5.0 -0.1 0.4 2.4 2.1
Miami (Florida) 0.6 2.5 3.6 -3.4 2.5 0.5 -2.4 1.1 0.0 2.0 1.1 -1.1
Arkansas State 0.5 1.5 0.0 2.0 -2.5 -4.5 5.5 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 -0.5
Eastern Michigan 0.4 2.5 0.5 1.1 -1.4 0.5 2.0 -4.5 3.0 -3.0 3.5 0.5
Boise State 0.4 -3.0 2.0 -0.5 0.0 3.0 -1.0 0.5 0.0 -2.0 -1.5 7.0
Miami (Ohio) 0.4 0.6 -6.5 -1.6 5.0 -1.0 0.6 -1.0 4.1 3.1 4.0 -3.1
Middle Tennessee State 0.4 -3.0 7.0 0.0 0.5 -0.5 -2.5 2.5 3.4 1.0 -5.5 1.0
Pittsburgh 0.4 -1.0 1.5 -2.5 -2.5 0.1 -2.1 3.0 5.0 3.1 2.5 -3.1
Houston 0.3 -1.0 2.6 -3.6 1.4 1.5 2.9 3.9 -3.1 -0.1 -4.0 2.9
Michigan 0.3 1.4 -0.6 -0.1 1.5 7.0 -0.5 -2.9 1.5 -2.0 -1.5 -0.5
Kent 0.3 -1.0 -4.5 0.5 0.4 5.9 -2.0 -4.5 8.5 1.4 -3.5 2.0
Iowa State 0.3 0.0 -0.4 -1.9 -2.5 1.0 -1.5 -2.0 5.0 1.6 6.5 -2.9
Florida Atlantic 0.3 -1.6 3.5 -3.1 5.0 1.5 -2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
UNLV 0.2 2.5 1.6 -1.0 0.0 -6.9 -1.9 -7.0 7.0 1.9 3.0 3.4
Penn State 0.2 1.0 5.5 -0.5 -4.0 -1.5 0.5 1.5 -2.1 4.0 -1.5 -0.5
Tulsa 0.2 3.5 -1.5 1.6 -3.0 -0.5 0.1 -0.5 -2.0 2.0 2.5 0.0
Indiana 0.2 -2.5 2.5 2.5 0.9 0.9 -0.5 1.0 4.5 -1.5 -0.9 -5.0
Mississippi State 0.2 6.5 -4.5 -0.5 -1.5 0.0 -1.0 0.5 0.0 -2.1 2.0 2.5
Vanderbilt 0.2 3.4 6.4 -1.0 -3.1 -2.0 0.5 0.5 1.9 -4.5 -0.5 0.0
Wisconsin 0.1 3.5 2.0 -5.1 -1.5 -2.1 6.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 -3.4 -2.5
Stanford 0.1 -1.9 3.4 1.5 -0.5 -7.0 -1.0 6.0 0.6 1.5 0.5 -2.1
Troy 0.1 3.5 -5.5 -3.5 -2.0 -5.5 3.9 0.5 2.5 4.9 2.0 0.0
Oregon 0.0 1.0 -2.0 3.5 1.4 1.4 0.0 -0.1 -1.5 -2.5 -3.9 3.0
North Texas 0.0 1.9 -4.0 -4.6 3.5 1.9 2.0 -1.4 1.5 -1.0 3.0 -2.9
South Florida 0.0 3.9 1.5 -1.5 1.5 -5.0 1.6 -0.5 -2.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Missouri -0.1 1.0 4.0 -3.0 0.1 -1.5 -3.5 -2.5 5.6 2.1 -1.5 -1.5
Idaho -0.1 3.1 -3.0 -1.5 -0.5 -2.5 1.5 -1.0 2.5 0.9 -2.5 2.5
Purdue -0.1 -2.5 -4.0 -3.9 1.0 0.1 2.5 -1.5 4.0 -6.1 6.5 2.5
Nevada -0.1 3.5 -2.0 -8.0 -3.0 2.0 -0.5 1.0 2.1 5.5 1.0 -2.9
California -0.1 3.5 2.5 -4.9 -0.5 2.0 0.9 -4.9 0.9 6.6 -4.5 -3.0
Texas -0.1 -10.9 -3.9 -0.4 -1.5 3.0 10.9 4.0 -3.5 0.1 0.6 0.1
Alabama -0.2 -4.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.0 -0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 -1.4 1.0 -2.0
Northwestern -0.2 0.4 -3.9 0.5 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 3.0 2.4 -3.0 -2.5 6.0
Oklahoma State -0.2 6.5 0.4 1.0 -4.0 4.5 -0.5 4.1 -5.1 -3.9 -5.1 0.0
Florida -0.2 -0.1 -9.0 2.5 -4.5 0.0 8.5 3.4 -2.0 -1.5 -0.5 1.1
Temple -0.2 -4.5 2.0 0.5 2.9 -1.5 -2.5 1.5 1.1 -3.5 -1.5 3.1
Arkansas -0.2 3.0 7.5 -4.0 1.4 -6.4 0.5 1.5 1.0 2.6 -3.5 -6.5
Hawaii -0.3 1.1 -7.0 0.0 -1.5 -1.0 0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -3.5 6.6 3.0
Clemson -0.3 -2.0 -5.5 -2.0 1.5 -0.5 0.6 -1.0 3.0 5.8 -2.5 -0.5
Wyoming -0.3 -1.5 -0.9 -11.5 -0.5 0.5 -12.9 3.1 5.5 4.0 4.0 6.9
Maryland -0.3 1.6 -3.0 -6.0 -2.4 0.0 2.0 5.4 3.4 -3.5 -2.9 2.0
Akron -0.3 2.0 -7.0 4.1 -2.0 1.5 -3.0 -2.9 -1.9 -1.0 1.5 5.0
Central Michigan -0.4 3.5 -0.5 1.5 -3.9 2.5 4.0 -1.0 -0.5 -3.5 -0.5 -5.6
USC -0.4 0.5 -2.4 3.5 -3.4 2.5 1.1 1.0 -0.4 2.6 -0.9 -8.0
Michigan State -0.4 -2.5 0.5 0.0 -3.5 0.1 1.0 1.0 8.0 -2.5 -4.1 -2.0
Connecticut -0.4 0.5 4.5 -4.5 -4.5 -2.5 -3.5 -1.0 0.1 0.5 2.0 3.4
Texas Tech -0.5 -7.5 0.5 2.0 -8.4 -3.5 6.5 4.0 -3.0 -4.6 2.5 6.1
Western Kentucky -0.5 -1.5 -3.5 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cincinnati -0.5 -6.0 0.5 -4.6 4.0 2.4 1.5 -1.5 -4.6 0.1 0.1 2.6
Illinois -0.5 4.6 4.5 3.0 -0.1 -4.6 0.5 -5.0 -6.0 3.5 -1.0 -5.0
Brigham Young -0.5 -3.0 -1.0 3.1 -3.6 1.5 0.6 -4.1 -2.1 0.9 4.4 -2.5
Colorado State -0.6 1.5 1.0 4.1 -1.4 -2.5 5.5 -2.0 -7.6 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0
Arizona State -0.6 3.4 -3.0 2.0 -5.0 -5.0 2.1 -0.5 -6.0 0.5 -0.5 5.5
Boston College -0.6 5.5 2.0 -1.6 -4.0 1.1 -2.5 -3.5 0.5 2.6 -8.4 1.6
Ohio -0.7 -3.5 4.5 -3.1 0.5 -1.0 2.5 0.0 -3.0 -5.0 -4.0 4.4
Memphis -0.7 -3.1 -1.5 2.1 5.1 0.5 0.5 2.0 -2.5 -7.5 0.0 -3.5
Virginia Tech -0.7 -1.0 1.0 -0.4 -1.5 -1.5 5.4 -0.5 -5.9 -7.5 8.4 -4.6
Washington -0.7 -5.4 -1.9 -5.1 -0.5 -2.5 -2.5 0.9 1.9 2.9 7.0 -2.9
Louisiana-Lafayette -0.8 1.0 -3.0 1.5 0.0 2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.9 -4.9 -2.0 3.0
Wake Forest -0.8 -7.4 1.5 5.0 -0.5 -5.0 -3.0 0.0 1.0 2.6 0.0 -2.6
Iowa -0.8 0.5 -3.4 -2.5 -2.0 -4.0 -2.5 7.5 0.0 -2.5 1.0 -0.5
Southern Miss -0.8 -1.0 -0.4 5.5 -6.0 -3.0 7.6 -2.5 1.0 -2.1 -0.9 -7.0
Texas A&M -0.8 -6.0 -4.0 -1.1 7.0 0.0 2.5 -1.0 -6.5 4.0 -1.0 -3.0
UTEP -0.8 -1.0 2.9 6.0 -0.5 2.5 -5.0 -3.4 1.9 -7.0 -2.5 -3.0
Washington State -0.8 -1.0 1.0 -3.6 -2.9 3.5 -3.5 0.5 -1.9 -2.1 2.0 -1.0
Ball State -0.8 -3.0 -6.0 -3.0 6.0 0.5 1.0 1.6 -1.0 -1.0 0.5 -5.0
Tennessee -0.9 -1.0 1.1 -4.5 -1.5 -0.1 -3.0 -0.9 -4.0 -3.5 2.0 5.0
New Mexico State -0.9 3.4 2.0 1.5 0.0 -5.1 -4.1 1.0 -4.0 3.4 -7.6 -1.0
Oregon State -1.0 0.6 0.5 -0.9 -3.5 -3.0 -0.5 0.5 -3.0 -1.0 -3.5 3.0
Kentucky -1.1 -4.0 -3.5 2.1 -3.0 0.6 -1.5 0.0 -1.5 0.0 -3.9 3.0
West Virginia -1.2 -6.5 -3.6 2.5 1.5 -1.5 -4.4 -3.5 -4.4 6.5 2.0 -2.0
Army -1.2 3.5 2.9 -7.1 1.0 3.0 -2.9 -1.9 -6.0 -6.4 -2.0 2.5
Marshall -1.2 -2.0 4.9 -2.5 -1.0 -0.6 0.5 -1.5 -7.0 -0.6 -1.0 -3.0
Ohio State -1.3 0.6 1.0 2.6 1.0 -6.0 -2.6 -5.6 -6.9 0.5 1.5 0.0
Fresno State -1.3 -9.0 -7.5 -5.5 -4.1 0.1 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.1 -3.5
Central Florida -1.3 -1.0 1.1 -0.6 -5.1 -3.5 2.0 2.0 -3.1 -4.5 -1.4 -0.5
Tulane -1.4 3.0 -5.5 2.0 -1.0 -5.0 -4.0 -5.9 -2.9 4.6 0.1 -0.5
Navy -1.4 2.1 -1.0 0.5 -7.5 0.4 -4.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.1 0.5 -1.1
LSU -1.4 -3.5 -4.5 4.1 5.1 -6.5 -9.5 -5.5 0.5 -0.6 -0.5 5.5
Utah State -1.5 0.4 1.0 2.5 -8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.5 -4.5 -3.5 -0.5
East Carolina -1.5 -3.5 1.6 -7.5 0.6 -1.0 -7.0 -2.4 0.5 -0.5 -2.6 4.9
Louisville -1.5 0.5 -3.0 -2.0 -2.4 -5.0 0.6 1.5 -0.5 -3.6 -3.0 0.0
Florida International -1.5 -2.9 0.5 -2.5 -4.0 -4.0 -4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Western Michigan -1.6 -0.5 0.0 -7.5 -2.9 -0.5 -0.5 -0.1 2.0 -4.0 0.0 -3.5
Kansas -1.6 -1.5 -1.0 0.5 3.0 1.0 -1.5 -4.5 -1.5 0.4 -4.0 -8.5
San Diego State -1.6 -3.5 -2.5 -3.0 -5.0 5.9 0.0 2.0 3.0 -7.5 -6.0 -1.5
Auburn -2.0 -0.5 -0.1 -4.5 -2.9 1.5 -5.5 -1.5 -4.5 -5.5 2.9 -2.0
SMU -2.1 -1.6 -1.5 2.5 -2.5 0.5 -2.0 -2.1 -3.1 -1.5 -9.5 -2.0
Georgia -2.3 1.0 -6.5 -2.5 -0.5 -4.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.4 -4.9 -2.0 -3.0
North Carolina -2.3 -9.5 -3.9 -3.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 -0.5 -3.0 -4.5 -0.5 -3.5
Nebraska -2.5 2.3 -5.5 -5.1 -6.0 -7.5 -4.0 0.0 3.5 -0.1 -6.0 1.4

There are a few important notes and caveats I need to make about the Compu-Picks model:

1) Compu-Picks does not endorse implicitly or explicitly any form of illegal gambling. Compu-Picks is intended to be used for entertainment purposes only.

2) No guarantee or warranty is offered or implied by Compu-Picks for any information provided and/or predictions made.

2011 Compu-Picks Blog

Questions, comments or suggestions? Email me at cfn_ms@hotmail.com

Follow cfn_ms on Twitter