Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How about this PAC-16??
Author Message
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,127
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 152
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #21
RE: How about this PAC-16??
Without a Big XII break up their best options for expansion are Hawaii, UNLV, Houston, SMU, Boise St and San Diego St. I know all have some road blocks but if they can't raid the Big XII or the Big XII doesn't implode these are their best options. UNLV is looking a lot better with the possibility of the brand new Raider stadium looking more and more likely.

If that stadium does get approved i'd move the FB CCG to Vegas. Make it your post season city.
10-12-2016 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,815
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 219
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicago Metro
Post: #22
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 05:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In an ideal world the Pac 12 would be able to add Oklahoma, Okla St, Texas, and Texas Tech and in the process gain 2 college football blue bloods, valuable Texas households for the Pac 16 network, and the ability to schedule 11 am central time games which would lead to greater flexibility and more time slots that they could offer their media partners.

If the Pac 12 is willing to gamble and potentially end up with less they would go ahead and accept Oklahoma as its 13th member and send out invitations to the three schools I mentioned above. If Texas isn't being cooperative and doesnt seem to want to play ball then you invite TCU and Baylor. Perhaps the threat of having all of your instate conference mates leave would change their mind or maybe they'd be more comfortable if the league size was 18 and they got to keep their instate rivals. If that doesn't seem to work then you go nuclear--that's when you start threatening to add programs like Rice, Houston, SMU, and Kansas. The possibility of having the state of Texas saturated with all of those Power 5 schools and diluting the recruiting pool ought to be enough to make Texas and their cohort come around to the idea of Pac 12 membership.

Yes, I realize there is a thing about the California schools and the other AAUs not wanting private schools and ones without sparking academic reputations but college athletics is big business and if they want their athletic department profits to keep pace with the other big boys then they might just have to associate with an Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Baylor, or a TCU.

Houston, Texas, Texas Tech, and SMU.
10-13-2016 03:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
exowlswimmer Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 380
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #23
RE: How about this PAC-16??
Academics (AAU) and big potential upside. Rice reunites with former conference schools. Add Rice, UH (Hawaii not Houston) New Mexico and Oklahoma. PAC 16 gains a toehold in Texas, an extra game occasionally (Hawaii 13th game exemption), two additional state flagship schools all while UT holds the rest of the big12 hostage.
10-13-2016 04:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BamaScorpio69 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,602
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Non-AQs
Location:
Post: #24
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 09:39 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  PAC-16 NORTH
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Utah
Colorado
Stanford
California


PAC-16 SOUTH
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
SMU
Rice
Arizona
Arizona State
USC
UCLA


Additions: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Rice, SMU

Why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?
I tend to think that the PAC 12 is the only conference that would let Oklahoma State tag along. While Oklahoma doesn't mind pushing either Texas OR Oklahoma State to a future OOC schedule, they can't do both. I see the PAC 12 saying yes to adding both Oklahoma schools.

Why Rice and SMU?

Academics and markets, and an entry into Texas. Rice is attractive in terms of academics and location, and SMU is in Dallas. I don't see TCU, Baylor or Texas Tech being accepted without Texas, and in this scenario, Texas is sticking with their LHN, and whatever conference they've created for themselves. Would the PAC 12 try and go for Houston instead of Rice? I thought Oklahoma wasn't ok with Houston

So there you have it...the PAC 16

OU and OSU for sure but if you go into Texas you go with Houston and TCU. Basically the same markets, better football, and still good academics.
10-13-2016 07:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #25
RE: How about this PAC-16??
here is why this is not going to work with 4 Big 12 schools at least for 8 more years

the Big 12 and PAC 12 are set to make pretty much exactly the same money over the next 8 years of the PAC 12 contract (that ends a year before the Big 12 contract) exclusive of any 3rd tier or "conference network" money

so there is ZERO financial incentive for ANY of the Big 12 teams to leave and go to the PAC 12 for the next 8 years and in the case of Texas and OU even exclusive of any money they would have to pay to leave the conference under the conference contract for membership and exclusive of any legal cost and potential financial losses for breaking the GOR both Texas and OU make better money in the Big 12 and they will continue to barring some dramatic increase in PAC 12 network payouts that do not seem to be forthcoming

so it would be a cost to OU of about $25+ million dollars plus exit fees (two years of conference earnings) plus legal cost plus potential GOR cost and for Texas it would be a loss of about $100+ million plus exit fees plus legal cost and potential GOR settlement cost and then if ESPN is not happy with the LHN going away (as it starts to actually show a profit) there are more legal cost

and ESPN and Fox are not going to step up and cover those cost to exit the conference nor are they going to cover the cost of bumping up 16 programs to come close to what Texas was making in the Big 12 or even what IOU is in addition to all the realignment/exit fee/legal cost and then there is the fact that if they got 16 teams in the PAC 12 close to what OU was making in the Big 12 those teams would still be $5 or so million behind the Big 10 in revenue which is right where OU will be for the foreseeable future and that would come at a cost to ESPN and Fox of about $5 million per team per year or a total cost over 8 years of $640 million

so there is no chance in hell that OU is going to leave to go to the PAC 12 to make the same money they would in the Big 12 and still be just as behind the Big 10 as before much less the cost of exit and legal fees and for Texas that would still be a massive net LOSS if they agreed to that because "well all the good teams are wanting to lose money to go to the PAC 12 so we better give up tens of millions to follow them and go from making more than the Big 10 to less than the Big 10"

ESPN and Fox are not going to write the checks to make this nonsense happen and even at those massive amounts of money just in paying a bit more ESPN and Fox would be flushing money down the toilet and it would not be worth it to Texas and OU
10-13-2016 07:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,186
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 71
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #26
RE: How about this PAC-16??
Good points Todge, however I think it is assumed all of these scenarios will not take effect for another 5 or so years, because of things you mention. But the plans could be made sooner. Of course unless there is an orchestrated breakup of the Big12.
(This post was last modified: 10-13-2016 01:38 PM by SMUmustangs.)
10-13-2016 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shox Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 883
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
Post: #27
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 09:39 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  PAC-16 NORTH
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Utah
Colorado
Stanford
California


PAC-16 SOUTH
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
SMU
Rice
Arizona
Arizona State
USC
UCLA


Additions: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Rice, SMU

Why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?
I tend to think that the PAC 12 is the only conference that would let Oklahoma State tag along. While Oklahoma doesn't mind pushing either Texas OR Oklahoma State to a future OOC schedule, they can't do both. I see the PAC 12 saying yes to adding both Oklahoma schools.

Why Rice and SMU?

Academics and markets, and an entry into Texas. Rice is attractive in terms of academics and location, and SMU is in Dallas. I don't see TCU, Baylor or Texas Tech being accepted without Texas, and in this scenario, Texas is sticking with their LHN, and whatever conference they've created for themselves. Would the PAC 12 try and go for Houston instead of Rice? I thought Oklahoma wasn't ok with Houston

So there you have it...the PAC 16

The only way expansion happens in the PAC is if the PAC 8 stay together and ASU, UA get their cross division California games locked in.

WSU
UW
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Cal
USC
UCLA

UA
ASU
Utah
Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Rice*

*Would have to be with major stipulation in athletic facilities and budgets. It gives the PAC 2 of the finest and most well respected Universities in the World, balances out the divisions, and "shows" expansion isn't always about Athletics.

KU and MU to B1G
WVU to SEC East
UCONN to ACC

Leftovers create a new quasi Big XII that is truly best of the rest.

TCU
New Mexico
Colorado State
BYU
Boise
*Air Force

K-State
Iowa State
Cinci
Houston
Memphis
Baylor
*Navy

*Football Only
10-13-2016 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GiveEmTheAxe Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 376
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Stanford
Location:
Post: #28
RE: How about this PAC-16??
Here are the games that need to be locked in yearly:

All natural intra-state or crosstown rivalries (UW-Wazzu, UO-OSU, etc.)
All the intra-CA games.
UW-UO

The Arizona schools may want to lock in CA games, but who doesn't? They wouldn't get those locked cross-overs. If that means that the AZ schools would block expansion, so be it.

You can't add schools while preserving all of the above games if you keep the NorCal schools in one division and the SoCal schools in another. You either have to group them back into the Pac-8 as a division, make them a pod of 4, or not expand at all.

As for my personal wish list, I'd want Texas, Texas A&M, OU and Rice. But obviously that's not happening. So I'd like Texas Tech to take A&M's place. Not that that's happening either.
10-13-2016 08:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
99beers Offline
Banned

Posts: 695
Joined: Aug 2016
I Root For: So Miss
Location: Stuck in CrapUSA
Post: #29
RE: How about this PAC-16??
Rice and smu??? 03-lmfao03-lmfao03-drunk03-drunk03-lmfao03-lmfao
10-13-2016 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,182
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 302
I Root For: UW
Location:
Post: #30
RE: How about this PAC-16??
A few thoughts... as todge already pointed out this wouldn't be happening in the near future. This possibility is 6-8 years away. So unless there is some kind of BIGXII Armageddon it will be sometime before anything happens.

As far as who would and would not be considered we need to consider research money, AAU status, new markets, and on the field success or potential.

All religiously based schools are out, so no BYU, Baylor, SMU etc.

Every school that isn't getting big time money for research is also out Boise state, UNLV ...

Finally the PAC is not going to go after schools that are in small markets and far away. I'm looking at you Hawaii, it's not happening.

So if it were to happen in a few years from now the schools they will consider IMO are
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, TTU, KSU, ISU from the BIGXII and in that order.
Houston, Colorado St, New Mexico from the G5 also in order.
I do believe they would consider Oklahoma state and TCU if they were in some kind of package with some of the above BIGXII schools.

Should be highly entertaining to watch over the next decade, and have fun guessing 04-cheers
10-13-2016 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,678
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 249
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #31
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-13-2016 10:46 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  Every school that isn't getting big time money for research is also out Boise state, UNLV ...

Every arrangement in this thread that doesn't start here is ridiculous.

This research criteria excludes way more schools than Boise and UNLV. TCU has the lowest research budget of P5 schools. You can quickly and easily X out TCU, Baylor, BYU, KSU, SMU, and OKSU unless they can deliver UT. TTU is marginal at best here.

Even AAU members (for now?) KU and ISU have lower research budgets than most of the PAC. UT and Rice are the only two targets that wouldn't lower the academic profile of the conference. KU, ISU, OU, UNM, Hawaii, Houston would come in on the low end but would fall in line with WSU, OreSt, and Oregon.

After that you have to consider California access. There is no expansion model outside pods that doesn't have a hugely detrimental effect here.

Bottom line, PAC isn't expanding without UT and an approval for pod scheduling unless there is huge money.
10-13-2016 11:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,182
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 302
I Root For: UW
Location:
Post: #32
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-13-2016 11:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(10-13-2016 10:46 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  Every school that isn't getting big time money for research is also out Boise state, UNLV ...

Every arrangement in this thread that doesn't start here is ridiculous.

This research criteria excludes way more schools than Boise and UNLV. TCU has the lowest research budget of P5 schools. You can quickly and easily X out TCU, Baylor, BYU, KSU, SMU, and OKSU unless they can deliver UT. TTU is marginal at best here.

Even AAU members (for now?) KU and ISU have lower research budgets than most of the PAC. UT and Rice are the only two targets that wouldn't lower the academic profile of the conference. KU, ISU, OU, UNM, Hawaii, Houston would come in on the low end but would fall in line with WSU, OreSt, and Oregon.

After that you have to consider California access. There is no expansion model outside pods that doesn't have a hugely detrimental effect here.

Bottom line, PAC isn't expanding without UT and an approval for pod scheduling unless there is huge money.
Absolutely agree, people take for granted the PAC12's academic snobbery. 04-cheers
10-14-2016 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,668
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #33
RE: How about this PAC-16??
If Texas isn't available or doesn't want the PAC, I think it is more likely that the PAC formally affiliates somehow with the Big Ten, rather than expand. The PAC and B1G nearly had a formal scheduling plan at one point and they obviously share the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2016 10:46 AM by YNot.)
10-14-2016 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaredf29 Offline
Smiter of Trolls
*

Posts: 7,336
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 301
I Root For: UCF
Location: Nor Cal
Post: #34
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 09:39 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  PAC-16 NORTH
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Utah
Colorado
Stanford
California


PAC-16 SOUTH
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
SMU
Rice
Arizona
Arizona State
USC
UCLA


Additions: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Rice, SMU

Why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?
I tend to think that the PAC 12 is the only conference that would let Oklahoma State tag along. While Oklahoma doesn't mind pushing either Texas OR Oklahoma State to a future OOC schedule, they can't do both. I see the PAC 12 saying yes to adding both Oklahoma schools.

Why Rice and SMU?

Academics and markets, and an entry into Texas. Rice is attractive in terms of academics and location, and SMU is in Dallas. I don't see TCU, Baylor or Texas Tech being accepted without Texas, and in this scenario, Texas is sticking with their LHN, and whatever conference they've created for themselves. Would the PAC 12 try and go for Houston instead of Rice? I thought Oklahoma wasn't ok with Houston

So there you have it...the PAC 16

No.
10-14-2016 12:43 PM
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: #35
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-13-2016 11:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  After that you have to consider California access. There is no expansion model outside pods that doesn't have a hugely detrimental effect here.

This is the #1 consideration. The four mountain time zone schools (who currently enjoy a football division with USC and UCLA) can block any and all expansion invitations because there have to be at least 9 of 12 Pac schools voting yes to issue an invitation. And any conceivable expansion would lower the mountain teams' number of USC/UCLA games.

Also, the northwest schools are still unhappy about the fact that the current alignment gives them only half as many USC/UCLA football games as the conference newbies get. Any expansion scheme that takes even more USC/UCLA games away from the NW teams would be opposed by those four schools.

(10-13-2016 11:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Bottom line, PAC isn't expanding without UT and an approval for pod scheduling unless there is huge money.

Yup, that's the bottom line. The Horns are part of the deal, or the conference is offered a mind-blowing amount of TV money, or both.
10-14-2016 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,678
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 249
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #36
RE: How about this PAC-16??
Basically, you have to come up with a PAC East that is as attractive to Utah, AZ, ASU, and Colorado as the current PAC South with UCLA and USC. And for that to happen, the division has to include a SoCal school.

We all know the UC schools want no part of SDSU in the PAC for academic reasons. As crazy as it sounds, I would say that a UCSD invitation to the Big West this year would do no less than double the probability of PAC expansion in the next 20 years. A PAC East of UCSD, Utah, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Texas, X, and Y would be feasible (with X and Y coming from some combo of UNM, TTU, OU, KU, Rice). That has about a 0.01% chance of happening, but it's far more likely than TCU and/or Baylor joining the PAC.
10-14-2016 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
C00G Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 89
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 6
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #37
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-13-2016 10:38 AM)Shox Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 09:39 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  PAC-16 NORTH
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Utah
Colorado
Stanford
California


PAC-16 SOUTH
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
SMU
Rice
Arizona
Arizona State
USC
UCLA


Additions: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Rice, SMU

Why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?
I tend to think that the PAC 12 is the only conference that would let Oklahoma State tag along. While Oklahoma doesn't mind pushing either Texas OR Oklahoma State to a future OOC schedule, they can't do both. I see the PAC 12 saying yes to adding both Oklahoma schools.

Why Rice and SMU?

Academics and markets, and an entry into Texas. Rice is attractive in terms of academics and location, and SMU is in Dallas. I don't see TCU, Baylor or Texas Tech being accepted without Texas, and in this scenario, Texas is sticking with their LHN, and whatever conference they've created for themselves. Would the PAC 12 try and go for Houston instead of Rice? I thought Oklahoma wasn't ok with Houston

So there you have it...the PAC 16

The only way expansion happens in the PAC is if the PAC 8 stay together and ASU, UA get their cross division California games locked in.

WSU
UW
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Cal
USC
UCLA

UA
ASU
Utah
Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Rice*

*Would have to be with major stipulation in athletic facilities and budgets. It gives the PAC 2 of the finest and most well respected Universities in the World, balances out the divisions, and "shows" expansion isn't always about Athletics.

KU and MU to B1G
WVU to SEC East
UCONN to ACC

Leftovers create a new quasi Big XII that is truly best of the rest.

TCU
New Mexico
Colorado State
BYU
Boise
*Air Force

K-State
Iowa State
Cinci
Houston
Memphis
Baylor
*Navy

*Football Only

This. But I think Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Houston. Big XII is down to West (TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St) and East (West Virginia and add Cincinnati, UConn, East Carolina, UCF, and USF). Idk - maybe switch Texas Tech and Kansas.
10-14-2016 04:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,701
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1763
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #38
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 09:39 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?
I tend to think that the PAC 12 is the only conference that would let Oklahoma State tag along. While Oklahoma doesn't mind pushing either Texas OR Oklahoma State to a future OOC schedule, they can't do both. I see the PAC 12 saying yes to adding both Oklahoma schools.

But we have empirical evidence that the Pac-12 rejected the Oklahoma/Oklahoma State combo back in 2011 (in the wake of the defections of Texas A&M and Mizzou to the SEC where lots of Big 12 schools were looking for lifeboats). So, I really don't believe that they want Oklahoma State. They might hold their noses for them if both Texas AND Oklahoma come along in a package deal, but not just Oklahoma alone.

Quote:Why Rice and SMU?
Academics and markets, and an entry into Texas. Rice is attractive in terms of academics and location, and SMU is in Dallas. I don't see TCU, Baylor or Texas Tech being accepted without Texas, and in this scenario, Texas is sticking with their LHN, and whatever conference they've created for themselves. Would the PAC 12 try and go for Houston instead of Rice? I thought Oklahoma wasn't ok with Houston

Not seeing that at all. The other P5 conferences aren't looking to add just any Texas-based schools to get into the Texas market. There are/were two schools that meet the academic, brand name and TV market parameters for the non-Big 12 P5 leagues: Texas and Texas A&M. Without either of those schools involved, there isn't any viable Texas market entry by another P5 league. Now, once again, if you're adding Texas AND Rice, SMU or some other Texas-based school, then sure, P5 leagues will hold their noses more.
10-14-2016 04:42 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GiveEmTheAxe Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 376
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Stanford
Location:
Post: #39
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-14-2016 03:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Basically, you have to come up with a PAC East that is as attractive to Utah, AZ, ASU, and Colorado as the current PAC South with UCLA and USC. And for that to happen, the division has to include a SoCal school.

We all know the UC schools want no part of SDSU in the PAC for academic reasons. As crazy as it sounds, I would say that a UCSD invitation to the Big West this year would do no less than double the probability of PAC expansion in the next 20 years. A PAC East of UCSD, Utah, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Texas, X, and Y would be feasible (with X and Y coming from some combo of UNM, TTU, OU, KU, Rice). That has about a 0.01% chance of happening, but it's far more likely than TCU and/or Baylor joining the PAC.

At the risk of sounding greedy, if UCSD is joining the league, the four CA schools are going to want to be in the same division as them. Maybe we should go to three divisions of 5 or even four divisions of 5 to make it happen. But seeing as UCSD is already the only UC that can claim to attract some students away from Berkeley and UCLA, it makes sense that they be kept with their UC brethren.
10-14-2016 05:32 PM
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: #40
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-14-2016 03:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Basically, you have to come up with a PAC East that is as attractive to Utah, AZ, ASU, and Colorado as the current PAC South with UCLA and USC. And for that to happen, the division has to include a SoCal school.

Or the division has to include UT, which is what the CU chancellor was essentially arguing when the OU/OSU application was being discussed in 2011.

When the Pac-12 divisions were first being discussed, one idea that was proposed was to put one NorCal and one SoCal school in each division, e.g., Stanford and USC in the "south" and Cal and UCLA in the "north". Might have satisfied the non-California schools, but obviously not the California schools.
10-14-2016 06:17 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.