Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
Author Message
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #21
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-22-2016 04:50 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Just win baby and the rest will take care of itself. 07-coffee3

Yes because Boise State and NIU are rolling in the money aren't they?
02-22-2016 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dasville Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,796
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 246
I Root For: UofL
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
At our local highschool we did a pancake breakfast. We did pretty good. Perhaps we could get Skipper and Magnus to serve with Swofford pouring the syrup!?
02-22-2016 05:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #23
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-22-2016 05:34 PM)nole Wrote:  Lou,
Great points...and maybe I am missing this....but with that extension, it has to be determined if the small bone that ESPN throws to the ACC for an extension is worth it?

I am sure a good portion of the ACC will be happy with anything, but others might have to seriously consider if that just locks them into a severe revenue gap for an even longer period of time.

The ACC can't afford to lock themselves into a contract that keeps them at the bottom financially and aggressively gets attacked by that network while promoting their competition.


Seems issue #1 is the ACC has a vast divide on what is acceptable in these areas....think most schools don't care about the coverage issues (SEC issues) and are good with any revenue, just as long as they seem themselves on the 'inside'. That simply won't be good enough for higher value brands who will be asked to lock in for another 10-20 years.

I'm not sure that it is possible to ever catch the B1G or the SEC in revenue with or without a network. The question then becomes what do we have to do to stay close enough to keep everybody happy.
If the GOR is extended with a contract extension, that just means that ESPN can keep any school from escaping to the B1G or the SEC and more money.
The SEC had to extend their contract with ESPN for a lot of years to get their network, would the ACC be willing to do the same? It could mean another 10 years of having to listen to all of the SEC cheerleaders on the air without any recourse.
02-22-2016 06:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
Agree....don't expect to catch those schools....but if the gap becomes too large (say $10 Million or more).......things start to get interesting.

The issue with ESPN.....IMHO, the ACC first has to decide if it cares or not. I don't think it does....which is my issue #1 with the ACC.

Swofford should be lobbying with ESPN daily at this point. I don't think he is doing squat other than counting his insanely too high paycheck.

(02-22-2016 06:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-22-2016 05:34 PM)nole Wrote:  Lou,
Great points...and maybe I am missing this....but with that extension, it has to be determined if the small bone that ESPN throws to the ACC for an extension is worth it?

I am sure a good portion of the ACC will be happy with anything, but others might have to seriously consider if that just locks them into a severe revenue gap for an even longer period of time.

The ACC can't afford to lock themselves into a contract that keeps them at the bottom financially and aggressively gets attacked by that network while promoting their competition.


Seems issue #1 is the ACC has a vast divide on what is acceptable in these areas....think most schools don't care about the coverage issues (SEC issues) and are good with any revenue, just as long as they seem themselves on the 'inside'. That simply won't be good enough for higher value brands who will be asked to lock in for another 10-20 years.

I'm not sure that it is possible to ever catch the B1G or the SEC in revenue with or without a network. The question then becomes what do we have to do to stay close enough to keep everybody happy.
If the GOR is extended with a contract extension, that just means that ESPN can keep any school from escaping to the B1G or the SEC and more money.
The SEC had to extend their contract with ESPN for a lot of years to get their network, would the ACC be willing to do the same? It could mean another 10 years of having to listen to all of the SEC cheerleaders on the air without any recourse.
02-22-2016 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #25
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-22-2016 06:42 PM)nole Wrote:  Agree....don't expect to catch those schools....but if the gap becomes too large (say $10 Million or more).......things start to get interesting.

The issue with ESPN.....IMHO, the ACC first has to decide if it cares or not. I don't think it does....which is my issue #1 with the ACC.

Swofford should be lobbying with ESPN daily at this point. I don't think he is doing squat other than counting his insanely too high paycheck.

(02-22-2016 06:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-22-2016 05:34 PM)nole Wrote:  Lou,
Great points...and maybe I am missing this....but with that extension, it has to be determined if the small bone that ESPN throws to the ACC for an extension is worth it?



I am sure a good portion of the ACC will be happy with anything, but others might have to seriously consider if that just locks them into a severe revenue gap for an even longer period of time.

The ACC can't afford to lock themselves into a contract that keeps them at the bottom financially and aggressively gets attacked by that network while promoting their competition.


Seems issue #1 is the ACC has a vast divide on what is acceptable in these areas....think most schools don't care about the coverage issues (SEC issues) and are good with any revenue, just as long as they seem themselves on the 'inside'. That simply won't be good enough for higher value brands who will be asked to lock in for another 10-20 years.

I'm not sure that it is possible to ever catch the B1G or the SEC in revenue with or without a network. The question then becomes what do we have to do to stay close enough to keep everybody happy.
If the GOR is extended with a contract extension, that just means that ESPN can keep any school from escaping to the B1G or the SEC and more money.
The SEC had to extend their contract with ESPN for a lot of years to get their network, would the ACC be willing to do the same? It could mean another 10 years of having to listen to all of the SEC cheerleaders on the air without any recourse.

If the gap gets to $10M for the ACC, it will be $10M for the Big 12 and the PAC too , it just won't be as ACC problem.
When ESPN holds all of the cards, the only thing you can do is lobby
I really believe that ESPN is waiting to see where the market is after the Big 10 contract negotiations, before making a plan to satisfy the ACC and Big 12 and to see if they can get a piece of the PAC network.
02-22-2016 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #26
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
I don't think Nole is talking about money from ESPN. I think he wants Swofford to lobby ESPN for better and more positive coverage of ACC teams.
02-23-2016 07:05 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #27
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-23-2016 07:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think Nole is talking about money from ESPN. I think he wants Swofford to lobby ESPN for better and more positive coverage of ACC teams.

It does not matter! Money, coverage....the only thing you can do is ask, that doesn't mean that ESPN will listen..... unless you are prepared to do something drastic like hold your breath until you turn blue or go out on a hunger strike.
02-23-2016 08:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lou_C Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,505
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 201
I Root For: Florida State
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-22-2016 05:34 PM)nole Wrote:  Lou,
Great points...and maybe I am missing this....but with that extension, it has to be determined if the small bone that ESPN throws to the ACC for an extension is worth it?

I am sure a good portion of the ACC will be happy with anything, but others might have to seriously consider if that just locks them into a severe revenue gap for an even longer period of time.

The ACC can't afford to lock themselves into a contract that keeps them at the bottom financially and aggressively gets attacked by that network while promoting their competition.


Seems issue #1 is the ACC has a vast divide on what is acceptable in these areas....think most schools don't care about the coverage issues (SEC issues) and are good with any revenue, just as long as they seem themselves on the 'inside'. That simply won't be good enough for higher value brands who will be asked to lock in for another 10-20 years.

I don't know how that will play out, but that is my exact concern, that "network mania" will walk the ACC right into extending a crappy deal on additionally crappy terms. If you extend out twenty years, and get $4M more a year...that doesn't cut it. In my wildest fantasies, that's why the network is taking time is because the ACC is not willing to settle for just anything ESPN throws out there. My brain tells me that is likely wishful thinking.

The alternative however, is that the ACC sucks it up and rides out the contract. Ten years from now, the ACC can walk away from ESPN if they want, but they can open bidding for anyone. Not only does that give the possibility of leaving ESPN if you want to (although I disagree with you on the wisdom of that a little bit), but you have a contract valued on the open market.

In other words, in 2027, the ACC could be on a brand new contract straight off the open market. I guarantee that they will be making more in 2027 if they wait out the contract than if they get a network and extend through 2035.

But that probably means nearly ten years $10M+ deficits to the SEC and B1G.

Can the ACC hold up to those deficits that long? Can they stay the course?

It's a good question. I have no doubt that getting to 2026 and exploring all options is the best chance to get a game changing deal, especially because the SEC and B1G will still be well in the midst of theirs. But that's a long time to take that deficit. I'm firmly a believer of not doing a network, getting to the end of the contract to explore options, and even I have a hard time with being at that deficit for so long, if ESPN comes along offering a $6-7M increase to extend.

Of course, if the ACC leadership came out and would explain the scenario, why we're waiting, what we'll be looking at by waiting, it might be bearable. But the conferences is so damn tight-lipped that they don't give people ANYTHING encouraging to hold their hats on.
02-23-2016 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff

Posts: 3,585
Joined: Jan 2014
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #29
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
I see the ACC football content getting a lot better in the next few years...

While Clemson lost the NC game, I think they staked their claim as an elite team. Dabo has made Clemson a National Power again.

FSU is uber-elite right now

Louisville and North Carolina have excellent coaching staffs. Richt at Miami is huge, and hopefully he can get the Canes on top again

Pitt, Virginia, and VT also have potential to rise

ACC football is getting better...
02-23-2016 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #30
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-23-2016 09:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...I have no doubt that getting to 2026 and exploring all options is the best chance to get a game changing deal, especially because the SEC and B1G will still be well in the midst of theirs. But that's a long time to take that deficit. I'm firmly a believer of not doing a network, getting to the end of the contract to explore options, and even I have a hard time with being at that deficit for so long, if ESPN comes along offering a $6-7M increase to extend.

Of course, if the ACC leadership came out and would explain the scenario, why we're waiting, what we'll be looking at by waiting, it might be bearable. But the conferences is so damn tight-lipped that they don't give people ANYTHING encouraging to hold their hats on.

Q: would it be a case of tipping your hand too much if the ACC came out with their ESPN negotiating strategy? Perhaps they don't want ESPN to know it...?
(or, maybe they just don't have a strategy -- I'm not sure what to believe)
02-23-2016 10:36 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lou_C Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,505
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 201
I Root For: Florida State
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-23-2016 10:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(02-23-2016 09:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...I have no doubt that getting to 2026 and exploring all options is the best chance to get a game changing deal, especially because the SEC and B1G will still be well in the midst of theirs. But that's a long time to take that deficit. I'm firmly a believer of not doing a network, getting to the end of the contract to explore options, and even I have a hard time with being at that deficit for so long, if ESPN comes along offering a $6-7M increase to extend.

Of course, if the ACC leadership came out and would explain the scenario, why we're waiting, what we'll be looking at by waiting, it might be bearable. But the conferences is so damn tight-lipped that they don't give people ANYTHING encouraging to hold their hats on.

Q: would it be a case of tipping your hand too much if the ACC came out with their ESPN negotiating strategy? Perhaps they don't want ESPN to know it...?
(or, maybe they just don't have a strategy -- I'm not sure what to believe)

I don't know if they need to give away their strategy. But at some point, there will either be a network or there won't. Rather than just never address it, I don't see the harm in them saying:

"After exhaustive review, we have decided it's in our long term interest to keep our options open at the end of our contract in 2026, and have declined to pursue a network further. ESPN has been a good partner and we have interest in continuing to work with ESPN. However, we believe that the offer we have on the table for a network, while it would provide a nice increase in annual revenue, would require too long of a contract extension. We believe that we will be able to greater maximize revenue in the future by honoring the remainder of the contract and then exploring all available avenues, some of which may not even exist today."

We are still interested in the positive benefits of a network, and if things change such that the terms become more attractive to us, we certainly will reconsider that solution. But for now, we will continue to serve out our contract."

I mean, at least it would be letting people know that there's a method to the madness, and it's a bit of a shot across ESPN's bow as well.

But this utter silence just makes the ACC look worse every time. It's like refusing to announce your financials until a year after the other conferences, making the ACC look much worse because they get year-old data compared. I just don't see the point of the utmost secrecy of keeping people in the dark 100%.

A few well-timed leaks to friendly journalists would go a long way, but it's as if there is no need to communicate with your constituents at all in the ACC. And I guess that's probably correct, as they totally get away with it.
02-23-2016 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
Lou,

There are a few reasons.

1) ACC leadership is a group of good ole boys paying off their in state connections and hiring family. For this reason alone, you keep things close to the vest and share little

2) ACC has very small fanbase, few of them are passionate, and few of them feel the burn to compete at national title levels....so it just doesn't matter that much to them. So you can easily get away with keeping things quite and sharing little info.
02-23-2016 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #33
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-23-2016 07:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think Nole is talking about money from ESPN. I think he wants Swofford to lobby ESPN for better and more positive coverage of ACC teams.

I think what he wants is for ESPN employees to shill for the ACC instead of expressing their honest opinions. Do ESPN announcers praise SEC football more than ACC football? Absolutely. Do they criticize the quality of ACC football? To be sure.

So does everybody else! With good reason. ESPN wears two hats here. One of those is a reporting hat. If they are seen as blatantly exaggerating the prowess of a conference just because they have a business relationship with them, they will suffer for it. They don't have that problem with the SEC because they deliver the goods year after year. So far, the ACC hasn't.

If the ACC wants more respect from network talking heads, they have to earn it on the field over a long period. We're starting to get that, but we have to be better for more than just the last few years.
02-23-2016 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-23-2016 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-23-2016 07:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think Nole is talking about money from ESPN. I think he wants Swofford to lobby ESPN for better and more positive coverage of ACC teams.

I think what he wants is for ESPN employees to shill for the ACC instead of expressing their honest opinions. Do ESPN announcers praise SEC football more than ACC football? Absolutely. Do they criticize the quality of ACC football? To be sure.

So does everybody else! With good reason. ESPN wears two hats here. One of those is a reporting hat. If they are seen as blatantly exaggerating the prowess of a conference just because they have a business relationship with them, they will suffer for it. They don't have that problem with the SEC because they deliver the goods year after year. So far, the ACC hasn't.

If the ACC wants more respect from network talking heads, they have to earn it on the field over a long period. We're starting to get that, but we have to be better for more than just the last few years.


Actually, you are way off.

I don't mind that ESPN is realistic re: ACC football (although, remember 2 years ago when the ACC dominated the SEC at the end of the season....ESPN totally ignored it....so the 'just win' folks are not accurate).


It is about ESPN willing to tear down the ACC while ignoring SEC faults. See Tenn scandal, etc.

If you don't want your TV network to be your advocate......well, I don't know what to tell you. Simple put, the ACC sucks at the game and is being lapped by the SEC and B1G
02-23-2016 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #35
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-23-2016 11:53 AM)nole Wrote:  
(02-23-2016 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-23-2016 07:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think Nole is talking about money from ESPN. I think he wants Swofford to lobby ESPN for better and more positive coverage of ACC teams.

I think what he wants is for ESPN employees to shill for the ACC instead of expressing their honest opinions. Do ESPN announcers praise SEC football more than ACC football? Absolutely. Do they criticize the quality of ACC football? To be sure.

So does everybody else! With good reason. ESPN wears two hats here. One of those is a reporting hat. If they are seen as blatantly exaggerating the prowess of a conference just because they have a business relationship with them, they will suffer for it. They don't have that problem with the SEC because they deliver the goods year after year. So far, the ACC hasn't.

If the ACC wants more respect from network talking heads, they have to earn it on the field over a long period. We're starting to get that, but we have to be better for more than just the last few years.


Actually, you are way off.

I don't mind that ESPN is realistic re: ACC football (although, remember 2 years ago when the ACC dominated the SEC at the end of the season....ESPN totally ignored it....so the 'just win' folks are not accurate).


It is about ESPN willing to tear down the ACC while ignoring SEC faults. See Tenn scandal, etc.

If you don't want your TV network to be your advocate......well, I don't know what to tell you. Simple put, the ACC sucks at the game and is being lapped by the SEC and B1G

What I don't want is for ESPN to be our shill. The fact is, if our network were Fox, I would expect them to behave on air the same way ESPN does.

Clearly, we want and expect different things from both the ACC and ESPN. That doesn't make one of us wrong and the other one right. It does, however, make one of us more frustrated than the other.
02-23-2016 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
33laszlo99 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 262
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Bama
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
(02-22-2016 01:06 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I don't disagree with any of those, but there are quite a few on there that come down to winning certain games, and that's not something that can be institutionalized.

It would be nice if the championship game could continue to grow in demand. Ideally, you would want cities to bid against each other for the rights to host it because it will be a big event that will be a guaranteed draw of people. I don't know if that's ever realistic though.

At some point, I'm afraid the only real game-changer financially that is at our disposal is extending the rights deal. Presumably, that would be part of a deal for a network, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Remember, along with the SEC network deal, the SEC extended their deal to 2035. That can not be ignored...a big part of that chunk they are now getting is based on extending their deal...it simply has to be.

Remember what the 2010 ACC TV deal was providing before Syracuse and Pitt were added? $13M per school per year average. The addition of Syracuse and Pitt pushed the payment up to like $17M, and the partial addition of ND (and the GOR) have pushed it to $20M average.

No disrespect to anyone, but does anyone even remotely think that Syracuse+Pitt raised the value of the ACC 30%, or throwing in ND basketball, increased the value by 50%? So that they not only paid for their own shares, but that much of an increase for everyone else? That simply defies credulity.

No, the biggest reason for the increase is that the ACC extended their deal by FOUR YEARS. That's what ESPN was mostly paying for...locking up additional years. It's always, always in the best interest of the networks to lock of properties for as long as possible to keep them off the open market. How much of the ACC's $7m increase was based off that extension? My guess is that realistically, probably $4-5M per school. It's really hard to imagine that SU+Pitt would have done a lot more than just hold onto the average per team value.

So if the ACC picked up $4M per school for extending four years, how much of the SEC's contract is sweetened by extending their contract a full TEN YEARS? The SEC contract is great, and their payouts are great, but let's not forget there is a lot more behind it than a bunch of crazy SEC fans demanding their network. They got paid big time for extending their contract big time, it's now the longest current rights deal in sports.

The B1G contract will come up soon, and will probably run to somewhere in the early 30s I'm guessing. The SEC contract runs through 2035. Soon, the ACC will know what it's up against. I expect then that we'll see a new ACC-ESPN deal, probably including a network, extended out to 2036 or so. I don't think it would be totally crazy to see it be closer to the SEC TV payments than people might expect (although definitely behind). Because locking yourself up for an additional ten years is worth a lot. It just is.

Now...from now until that happens, everything the ACC does well on the field/court, works strongly to it's advantage, because it will be eventually be getting paid based on it's perceived value a decade+ from now. There's no question that the value of the ACC is better today, with FSU back and Clemson ascendant, than it was in say, 2010. If the ACC can keep building on that, particularly in football, it's certainly going to be easier to justify more money for that extension.

I really think the whole network thing is a bit of a red herring...it's more about the total new deal, including the extension, than the network itself. It's one of the reasons I've not been really anxious to get the network...I think each year that passes with ACC football being a better product probably makes that 10-year extension worth significantly more.

But eventually, that new deal will come, with a network or not. I'm not even sure that the BEST long term play isn't to hold tight another 8-9 years until the current deal is expiring. What they could get from all bidders on the open market will likely be much more than what this extension will eventually be for.

But I am not sure the conference or the member schools has the testicular fortitude to hold tight that long while the gap grows like crazy, and I'm not sure I blame anyone.

Great explanation of the true reason for the revenue increase around Pitt/Cuse. Long extended contracts are clearly what ESPN values. But they handcuff the conference.
In their impending media negitiations I believe the B1G is going to conduct a clinic on how to play competing networks aginst each other. I think the new format (leaked by the Michigan AD) has even shut down the possibility for Fox & ESPN to collude on price. This makes me wish that the ACC would ride-out the current contract and take our goods to market then. Swofford would need to be replaced with some real media-savvy talent (IMG?)
In the interim, your point about improving the overall football chops is right-on. It's an absolute necessity.
One big concern that make me wonder if the ACC should extend the deal soon is unavoidable changes in the basketball ACC: Boeheim, 71 yrs old; Coach K, 69 yrs old; Williams, 65 yrs old; Pitino, a really rough 63 yrs old. Another concern is the looming outcome of NCAA investigation of UNC, and to a lesser degree the issue at Louisville. These could be dominoes.
02-25-2016 09:46 AM
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: #37
RE: Chasing SEC/B1G Revenue
I want to inject sanity into this thread. Assume $100 at year 0. Increase that by 3% to account for ~2% inflation, ~1% population increase, and a shave for more disposable income due to improved technology. Keep that compounding growth for 10 years. Take the average. Repeat the exercise, only extend the timeline to 20 years and take the average. Compare those averages. The longer one is going to have a contract that's way higher than the shorter one, even though both deals are effectively the same. They both pay the year 1 equivalent of $100 per year.
02-25-2016 12:12 PM
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.