Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
Author Message
Monarchist13 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,845
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 480
I Root For: ODU
Location: 757
Post: #41
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-28-2015 04:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 02:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You can just about rank-order the conferences in terms of overall strength by looking at the percentage of student/academic subsidies the athletic side is getting.

Number of schools with less than a 5% subsidy percentage:

SEC:...... 10
B1G:....... 8 (B1G has most schools with less than 2% subsidy rate)
Big 12:..... 5
PAC:....... 3
ACC: ...... 0 (most ACC schools have less than a 15% subsidy rate)

In contrast, the G5 are loaded with subsidies, robbing students and academics to Keep The Dream Alive. The best G5 school on the list is Boise, with a 26% subsidy rate. There are 50 schools, all P5, that have lower subsidy rates than them.

The best AAC school is UConn, which has a whopping 39% subsidy rate. My USF has an embarrassing 44% subsidy rate.

G5 subsidies are high however,

"I think it's worth it," said Drew Harmon of White Oak, Ohio, a fifth-year finance and entrepreneurship major at UC and chairman of a group that allocates the student fees.

UC students pay $168.02 per semester on their student fee specifically for athletics; the university pays about $15 million more in general funds.

"I've been here for five years, and the more athletics is succeeding, the more the UC community seems like a family," Harmon said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2814455/

That is not robbery.

That's one person's opinion. Also, my "robbery" claim is on principle, more than whether a particular student thinks the fun of athletics is worth paying $125 a semester for: It is just plain wrong for academics to subsidize athletics. The only valid relationship between them is for athletics to subsidize academics.

Otherwise, college athletics should be a club-level activity.

College sports are a marketing tool and an recreational/entertainment option for students. So, do you think all schools should drop their marketing efforts and any recreational activities? Are you also an opponent of student clubs, school gyms, intramurals, etc.? They all go hand-in-hand for the American college experience in my opinion.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2015 09:14 AM by Monarchist13.)
05-28-2015 09:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #42
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-28-2015 04:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 02:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You can just about rank-order the conferences in terms of overall strength by looking at the percentage of student/academic subsidies the athletic side is getting.

Number of schools with less than a 5% subsidy percentage:

SEC:...... 10
B1G:....... 8 (B1G has most schools with less than 2% subsidy rate)
Big 12:..... 5
PAC:....... 3
ACC: ...... 0 (most ACC schools have less than a 15% subsidy rate)

In contrast, the G5 are loaded with subsidies, robbing students and academics to Keep The Dream Alive. The best G5 school on the list is Boise, with a 26% subsidy rate. There are 50 schools, all P5, that have lower subsidy rates than them.

The best AAC school is UConn, which has a whopping 39% subsidy rate. My USF has an embarrassing 44% subsidy rate.

G5 subsidies are high however,

"I think it's worth it," said Drew Harmon of White Oak, Ohio, a fifth-year finance and entrepreneurship major at UC and chairman of a group that allocates the student fees.

UC students pay $168.02 per semester on their student fee specifically for athletics; the university pays about $15 million more in general funds.

"I've been here for five years, and the more athletics is succeeding, the more the UC community seems like a family," Harmon said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2814455/

That is not robbery.

That's one person's opinion. Also, my "robbery" claim is on principle, more than whether a particular student thinks the fun of athletics is worth paying $125 a semester for: It is just plain wrong for academics to subsidize athletics. The only valid relationship between them is for athletics to subsidize academics.

Otherwise, college athletics should be a club-level activity.

This, x1000.

It is getting ridiculous. The numbers are gaudy.

But, then again, even the academic side of most schools today is not really about educating children.
05-28-2015 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #43
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-28-2015 09:14 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  College sports are a marketing tool and an recreational/entertainment option for students.


If they are a marketing tool, then they need to be subjected to an annual cost-benefit analysis like any other marketing tool. I don't think you want that. If a university spent $50 million/year marketing itself through TV, internet advertising, print brochures, etc., and then, after a year or two, realized they could get the same positive impact by spending only $5 million, then they'd spend the other $45 million someplace else.

(05-28-2015 09:14 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  Are you also an opponent of student clubs, school gyms, intramurals, etc.?

That question matters only if you can point to a university that spends $20 million/year to subsidize student clubs, student recreational facilities, and intramurals, because that's what a lot of schools are spending to subsidize Division I athletics.
05-28-2015 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearcats#1 Offline
Ad nauseam King
*

Posts: 45,310
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 1224
I Root For: Pony94
Location: In your head.
Post: #44
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
Quo if a school charges students for an annual athletic fee or if a school kicks in additional subsidy money for athletcs, whats it to you?
05-28-2015 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #45
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-28-2015 12:53 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Quo if a school charges students for an annual athletic fee or if a school kicks in additional subsidy money for athletcs, whats it to you?

Exactly, if a student is spending $6,000 a semester on school, the $168 athletic fee looks like a rounding error. It's basically 3% of the cost of attendance; much ado about nothing if you ask me.
05-28-2015 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #46
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
Nobody is forced to attend a university with athletics.

If a person is utterly opposed to paying athletics fees there are schools where they don't have to.
05-28-2015 03:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,263
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 189
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #47
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-28-2015 09:14 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 04:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 02:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You can just about rank-order the conferences in terms of overall strength by looking at the percentage of student/academic subsidies the athletic side is getting.

Number of schools with less than a 5% subsidy percentage:

SEC:...... 10
B1G:....... 8 (B1G has most schools with less than 2% subsidy rate)
Big 12:..... 5
PAC:....... 3
ACC: ...... 0 (most ACC schools have less than a 15% subsidy rate)

In contrast, the G5 are loaded with subsidies, robbing students and academics to Keep The Dream Alive. The best G5 school on the list is Boise, with a 26% subsidy rate. There are 50 schools, all P5, that have lower subsidy rates than them.

The best AAC school is UConn, which has a whopping 39% subsidy rate. My USF has an embarrassing 44% subsidy rate.

G5 subsidies are high however,

"I think it's worth it," said Drew Harmon of White Oak, Ohio, a fifth-year finance and entrepreneurship major at UC and chairman of a group that allocates the student fees.

UC students pay $168.02 per semester on their student fee specifically for athletics; the university pays about $15 million more in general funds.

"I've been here for five years, and the more athletics is succeeding, the more the UC community seems like a family," Harmon said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2814455/

That is not robbery.

That's one person's opinion. Also, my "robbery" claim is on principle, more than whether a particular student thinks the fun of athletics is worth paying $125 a semester for: It is just plain wrong for academics to subsidize athletics. The only valid relationship between them is for athletics to subsidize academics.

Otherwise, college athletics should be a club-level activity.

College sports are a marketing tool and an recreational/entertainment option for students. So, do you think all schools should drop their marketing efforts and any recreational activities? Are you also an opponent of student clubs, school gyms, intramurals, etc.? They all go hand-in-hand for the American college experience in my opinion.

Thank goodness someone sees this.

If you are in favor of cutting students paying for athletics, I also assume you must be in favor of cutting things from the university such as Rec Centers. A lot of students don't use those. Knock those bad boys down. Club sports? Gone. Drama Clubs? See ya. Other school-sponsored clubs? They gone.

If you are cutting things that don't directly benefit the universities' mission to educate, then that list is QUITE long. Intercollegiate athletics is merely the head of a very long line.

If you want a school that simply educates without the frills of the student experience, you have that option. There are many schools that do just that.
05-28-2015 05:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #48
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-28-2015 09:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 04:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 02:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You can just about rank-order the conferences in terms of overall strength by looking at the percentage of student/academic subsidies the athletic side is getting.

Number of schools with less than a 5% subsidy percentage:

SEC:...... 10
B1G:....... 8 (B1G has most schools with less than 2% subsidy rate)
Big 12:..... 5
PAC:....... 3
ACC: ...... 0 (most ACC schools have less than a 15% subsidy rate)

In contrast, the G5 are loaded with subsidies, robbing students and academics to Keep The Dream Alive. The best G5 school on the list is Boise, with a 26% subsidy rate. There are 50 schools, all P5, that have lower subsidy rates than them.

The best AAC school is UConn, which has a whopping 39% subsidy rate. My USF has an embarrassing 44% subsidy rate.

G5 subsidies are high however,

"I think it's worth it," said Drew Harmon of White Oak, Ohio, a fifth-year finance and entrepreneurship major at UC and chairman of a group that allocates the student fees.

UC students pay $168.02 per semester on their student fee specifically for athletics; the university pays about $15 million more in general funds.

"I've been here for five years, and the more athletics is succeeding, the more the UC community seems like a family," Harmon said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2814455/

That is not robbery.

That's one person's opinion. Also, my "robbery" claim is on principle, more than whether a particular student thinks the fun of athletics is worth paying $125 a semester for: It is just plain wrong for academics to subsidize athletics. The only valid relationship between them is for athletics to subsidize academics.

Otherwise, college athletics should be a club-level activity.

This, x1000.

It is getting ridiculous. The numbers are gaudy.

But, then again, even the academic side of most schools today is not really about educating children.

I have no problem with the way the University system is set up currently but I also have no problem with individuals starting to understand the truth about it. The system hasn't changed, just the amount of money available through athletics. That is what has drawn all the attention.
05-28-2015 09:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #49
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
Checking in to see how the moneyed G5s are did for 2014 year.....

Memphis: 8.5 million/11.3 million
Boise State: 8.4 million/11.0 million
New Mexico: 6.7 million/9.8 million
San Diego St: 6.7 million/9.5 million
East Carolina: 6.7 million/6.3 million
UConn: 10.6 million/6.2 million
UNLV: 5.6 million/7.9 million
Cincinnati: 7.2 million/5.2 million
UCF: 5.0 million/5.4 million

-San Diego State is the school up the most from last year.

-UConn's contributions are way down from 2013.

-UCF cracks the 5 mil ticket sales/5 mil contributions level in 2015.

-Memphis and Boise State are neck in neck despite one a basketball school and the other a football school.
05-29-2015 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #50
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-26-2015 07:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(05-26-2015 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-26-2015 05:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  No private schools are on here, correct?

Right, from the article:

Quote:DATABASE: A look at every Division I public school's finances
Quote:By the NCAA's benchmark for self-sufficiency, just 24 of 230 public schools in Division I stand on their own, up from 20 a year earlier, according to an analysis of the 2013-14 school year by USA TODAY Sports, based on data gathered in conjunction with Indiana University's National Sports Journalism Center.


The question would be what if the conferences do not look like they are and are more geographical fitting like having some MAC schools in the Big 10, some Big 10, C-USA, MWC, SEC, AAC, PAC 12, MVFC schools in the Big 12. Some ACC schools, Sun Belt, AAC and C-USA schools in the SEC? Some C-USA, AAC, Sun Belt, Southern, Big South in the ACC? Some Big 10, CAA, MAC, ACC, C-USA, Big South, Patriot schools in the AAC? You might see more schools than 24 because the cost of travel is actually eating up the money. Going from Rutgers and Maryland to Nebraska is not really cheap.

The goal of these schools isn't to balance (for several reasons). That's why few do. Reducing traveling would reduce costs - sure, but those cost savings inevitably would be offset by increases in coach salaries, facilities, and/or additional sponsored sports.
05-29-2015 06:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #51
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-26-2015 03:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Just published today: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Top 5:
Oregon $196 million
Texas $161 million
Michigan $158 million
Alabama $153 million
Ohio State $145 million

According to the accompanying news article, here, Oregon had a big bump up from last year due to a $95 million donation for training facilities from the Knight family.

There is also an interesting discussion about Old Dominion in the article, and quotes from their AD.

I really wish they would keep recurring income separate from one-time donations; it just muddies the water when they do it like this!
05-30-2015 06:32 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #52
Re: RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-28-2015 09:14 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 04:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 02:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You can just about rank-order the conferences in terms of overall strength by looking at the percentage of student/academic subsidies the athletic side is getting.

Number of schools with less than a 5% subsidy percentage:

SEC:...... 10
B1G:....... 8 (B1G has most schools with less than 2% subsidy rate)
Big 12:..... 5
PAC:....... 3
ACC: ...... 0 (most ACC schools have less than a 15% subsidy rate)

In contrast, the G5 are loaded with subsidies, robbing students and academics to Keep The Dream Alive. The best G5 school on the list is Boise, with a 26% subsidy rate. There are 50 schools, all P5, that have lower subsidy rates than them.

The best AAC school is UConn, which has a whopping 39% subsidy rate. My USF has an embarrassing 44% subsidy rate.

G5 subsidies are high however,

"I think it's worth it," said Drew Harmon of White Oak, Ohio, a fifth-year finance and entrepreneurship major at UC and chairman of a group that allocates the student fees.

UC students pay $168.02 per semester on their student fee specifically for athletics; the university pays about $15 million more in general funds.

"I've been here for five years, and the more athletics is succeeding, the more the UC community seems like a family," Harmon said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2814455/

That is not robbery.

That's one person's opinion. Also, my "robbery" claim is on principle, more than whether a particular student thinks the fun of athletics is worth paying $125 a semester for: It is just plain wrong for academics to subsidize athletics. The only valid relationship between them is for athletics to subsidize academics.

Otherwise, college athletics should be a club-level activity.

College sports are a marketing tool and an recreational/entertainment option for students. So, do you think all schools should drop their marketing efforts and any recreational activities? Are you also an opponent of student clubs, school gyms, intramurals, etc.? They all go hand-in-hand for the American college experience in my opinion.

Student clubs and intramurals cost a pittance and allow direct student participation.

Marketing efforts, including intercollegiate athletics, should be subject to ROI evaluation. At almost all G5 schools, they would fail such evaluations.

It is wrong to hit a regular student up for $200 to provide free books and travel for a soccer or football player student. No group of students should subsidize another.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2015 07:24 AM by quo vadis.)
05-30-2015 07:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gray Avenger Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,451
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 744
I Root For: MEMPHIS
Location: Memphis
Post: #53
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-30-2015 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is wrong to hit a regular student up for $200 to provide free books and travel for a soccer or football player student. No group of students should subsidize another.

I disagree.

(1) Scholarship athletes give personal time and effort which result in added value to the degree of all graduates (via increased name recognition) and increased financial support of the institution from alumni - the very reasons that college presidents favor athletic programs in the first place.

(2) No one twists the students arms making them attend the school. They are free to choose other schools with lesser fees.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2015 10:23 AM by Gray Avenger.)
05-30-2015 10:22 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearcats#1 Offline
Ad nauseam King
*

Posts: 45,310
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 1224
I Root For: Pony94
Location: In your head.
Post: #54
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-30-2015 10:22 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  
(05-30-2015 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is wrong to hit a regular student up for $200 to provide free books and travel for a soccer or football player student. No group of students should subsidize another.

I disagree.

(1) Scholarship athletes give personal time and effort which result in added value to the degree of all graduates (via increased name recognition) and increased financial support of the institution from alumni - the very reasons that college presidents favor athletic programs in the first place.

(2) No one twists the students arms making them attend the school. They are free to choose other schools with lesser fees.

agree
05-30-2015 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #55
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-30-2015 10:22 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  
(05-30-2015 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is wrong to hit a regular student up for $200 to provide free books and travel for a soccer or football player student. No group of students should subsidize another.

I disagree.

(1) Scholarship athletes give personal time and effort which result in added value to the degree of all graduates (via increased name recognition) and increased financial support of the institution from alumni - the very reasons that college presidents favor athletic programs in the first place.

(2) No one twists the students arms making them attend the school. They are free to choose other schools with lesser fees.

What kind of kid chooses a school based on the athletic fee?

Most kids go to the school of their choice, the smart ones to the school that will give them the best shot at their future. The key word here is school, not athletic program.
05-30-2015 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #56
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
(05-28-2015 08:17 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 04:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 02:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 07:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You can just about rank-order the conferences in terms of overall strength by looking at the percentage of student/academic subsidies the athletic side is getting.

Number of schools with less than a 5% subsidy percentage:

SEC:...... 10
B1G:....... 8 (B1G has most schools with less than 2% subsidy rate)
Big 12:..... 5
PAC:....... 3
ACC: ...... 0 (most ACC schools have less than a 15% subsidy rate)

In contrast, the G5 are loaded with subsidies, robbing students and academics to Keep The Dream Alive. The best G5 school on the list is Boise, with a 26% subsidy rate. There are 50 schools, all P5, that have lower subsidy rates than them.

The best AAC school is UConn, which has a whopping 39% subsidy rate. My USF has an embarrassing 44% subsidy rate.

G5 subsidies are high however,

"I think it's worth it," said Drew Harmon of White Oak, Ohio, a fifth-year finance and entrepreneurship major at UC and chairman of a group that allocates the student fees.

UC students pay $168.02 per semester on their student fee specifically for athletics; the university pays about $15 million more in general funds.

"I've been here for five years, and the more athletics is succeeding, the more the UC community seems like a family," Harmon said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...s/2814455/

That is not robbery.

That's one person's opinion. Also, my "robbery" claim is on principle, more than whether a particular student thinks the fun of athletics is worth paying $125 a semester for: It is just plain wrong for academics to subsidize athletics. The only valid relationship between them is for athletics to subsidize academics.

Otherwise, college athletics should be a club-level activity.

Academics has subsidized athletics since the start of intercollegiate athletics and most schools subsidize their club sports as well.

Subsidizing club sports is OK, because the dollar amount is small, and because actual, real, rank and file students are the ones participating. That's no different from a school running a gym and recreation center, and a student union. As Aristotle noted, one has to develop one's body as well as one's mind.

But subsidizing 'professional' athletics, where the student comes to your school to play athletics first and study second, and is paid for by the regular students, is just wrong. That should be a self-sustaining enterprise or not done at all.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2015 10:50 AM by quo vadis.)
06-03-2015 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #57
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
One sort of interesting thing to consider is that at some, if not most, schools that don't charge an athletic fee do charge students to attend events. Those schools still get money from students, but that's totally voluntary and they count it as part of ticket sales.

Some schools that charge an athletic fee still charge students to attend events. That is wrong.
06-03-2015 10:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jgkojak Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 938
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Kansas
Location:
Post: #58
RE: This year's USA Today report on college athletic revenue
I think they should put a "salary cap" on college athletics - allow a max amount to be spent on facilities, etc. across the board - and the remainder of the revenue should go to the schools.
06-03-2015 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.