Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How about this PAC-16??
Author Message
EvilVodka Offline
stuff

Posts: 3,585
Joined: Jan 2014
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #1
How about this PAC-16??
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
10-12-2016 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bluesox Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,295
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 84
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
RE: How about this PAC-16??
If the are adding ou and ok state, they should add Texas tech for team 15 to bait Texas. If no Texas, bring in Kansas.
10-12-2016 09:42 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: #3
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

Oklahoma is against Houston in the Big 12 because there would be too many Texas schools. However, I believe that Oklahoma would be pro-Houston for the PAC, if Texas isn't interested. You're much more likely to see Houston and TCU rather than Rice and SMU.

Regarding the divisional structure, I don't see how they can make it work unless they rotate the divisions or get full deregulation of the conference championship game. The California schools must play each other each year and the legacy PAC schools want games in California.
10-12-2016 10:02 AM
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: #4
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

SMU doesn't have academics in terms of what matters to the PAC. New Mexico would be more attractive to the PAC.
10-12-2016 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,275
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 148
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #5
RE: How about this PAC-16??
Pac-16 North
Wash, WashSt, Ore, OrSt

Pac-16 South
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stan

Pac-16 Mountain
Ariz, ArizSt, Utah, Col

Pac-16 central
Ok, OkSt, SMU, Rice
10-12-2016 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AntiG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,394
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #6
RE: How about this PAC-16??
The PAC has had problems accepting religious institutions and have an overwhelmingly progressive-liberal mentality (probably the #1 reason why BYU has never been part of the conference), so I doubt SMU would even get consideration at all.

If the PAC wants a piece of Texas without having to deal with the LHN, perhaps they could end up grabbing Texas Tech and Houston/Rice instead.

Interesting thing is if this were to occur, I could see the Big Ten sweeping in and offering Texas a deal while allowing them to keep the LHN in exchange of perhaps dual broadcast rights to the exclusive game, or even BTN gets a piece of LHN since ESPN has been "bleeding money" on the network.
10-12-2016 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JDTulane Offline
Sazeracs and Retirement
*

Posts: 11,779
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 420
I Root For: Peace
Location:
Post: #7
RE: How about this PAC-16??
Rice fans just exploded in their pants over that. Won't happen... too many other candidates that can edge out Rice;

I like it on a personal level tho
10-12-2016 11:19 AM
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: #8
RE: How about this PAC-16??
I think the most obvious move is for the PAC to add the four Texas schools.

Utah and Colorado arent afraid of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. What they are afraid of is Oklahoma and OSU dominating their division.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app
10-12-2016 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MinerInWisconsin Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,681
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 504
I Root For: UTEP, of course
Location: The Frozen Tundra
Post: #9
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 11:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I think the most obvious move is for the PAC to add the four Texas schools.

Utah and Colorado arent afraid of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. What they are afraid of is Oklahoma and OSU dominating their division.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

I thought they were afraid of missing out on games in California if too many more schools are added.
10-12-2016 11:50 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: #10
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 11:50 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 11:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I think the most obvious move is for the PAC to add the four Texas schools.

Utah and Colorado arent afraid of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. What they are afraid of is Oklahoma and OSU dominating their division.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

I thought they were afraid of missing out on games in California if too many more schools are added.

Exactly. Because of this, I don't see how the PAC could make a Texas/Oklahoma division work unless there was full CCG deregulation. A 9-game 3-2-2-2 schedule would work well for everyone, but it wouldn't be possible to then have a PAC championship game under the current rules and restrictions.

And forget rotating pods to make up 8-school divisions. I don't think there's any way that non-California legacy PAC schools would agree to not have any PAC football games in California for 2 years. But, may be there is a way to stack the schedule to make it work...??
10-12-2016 12:00 PM
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: #11
RE: How about this PAC-16??
,
I would think the best move for the PAC would be to add OU, OSU, KU, KSU, and Tech. Then offer Texas. If Texas says no thanks, replace them with Houston.

Make three six team pods.

Six Big 12 teams.
CU, Utah, AZ, AZ State, USC and UCLA.
Cal, Stanford, Oregon OSU, Wash and WSU.

That curtails travel issues and by rotating scheduling of two teams each from the other two divisions, that addresses playing the California teams.

Two highest rated division champs play in CCG. Reduces the possibilities of a rematch.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2016 02:01 PM by SMUmustangs.)
10-12-2016 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,275
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 148
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #12
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 12:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 11:50 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 11:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I think the most obvious move is for the PAC to add the four Texas schools.

Utah and Colorado arent afraid of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. What they are afraid of is Oklahoma and OSU dominating their division.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

I thought they were afraid of missing out on games in California if too many more schools are added.

Exactly. Because of this, I don't see how the PAC could make a Texas/Oklahoma division work unless there was full CCG deregulation. A 9-game 3-2-2-2 schedule would work well for everyone, but it wouldn't be possible to then have a PAC championship game under the current rules and restrictions.

And forget rotating pods to make up 8-school divisions. I don't think there's any way that non-California legacy PAC schools would agree to not have any PAC football games in California for 2 years. But, may be there is a way to stack the schedule to make it work...??

There is a way to make it work under the current rules. This was much discussed in old realigment threads. The key with the 3-2-2-2 format is don't assume the teams in the same pod would be in the same division. Then you can set up rotating divisions where half your podmates are always in the other division but you still play your podmates every year.

So if you put the 4 california schools in 1 pod, they will play each other every year. The other schools will play each Califonia school 50% of the time and 50% each year.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2016 01:51 PM by goofus.)
10-12-2016 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,551
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #13
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

I agree that the Pac is the most likely place for OK and State, however I have heard alot on this board about the SEC taking both schools as well as it would allow Mizzou to the West and Alabama/Auburn to the East.

If State's academics were a little better, I'd be all for that. On the other hand, in an 8 game schedule, OK actually has room for two power non-con teams.
10-12-2016 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Scoochpooch Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 164
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 14
I Root For: P4
Location:
Post: #14
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 11:50 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 11:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I think the most obvious move is for the PAC to add the four Texas schools.

Utah and Colorado arent afraid of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. What they are afraid of is Oklahoma and OSU dominating their division.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

I thought they were afraid of missing out on games in California if too many more schools are added.

You're absolutely correct, that's why the vetoed OK and OK St in Fall 2011. And that's why the PAC will probably never expand again. These schools should have banned from voting on expansion issues.
10-12-2016 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
superdeluxe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,756
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 44
I Root For: UW
Location:
Post: #15
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

If you take 2 teams in Texas I don't think its Rice and SMU. I think it would be Tech and Houston. Rice might have location, but no football is a massive drawback. And you take Houston 10 x 10 over SMU. Oklahoma helps deliver some of that Dallas Metroplex you want.
10-12-2016 03:32 PM
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: #16
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 02:12 PM)Soobahk40050 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

I agree that the Pac is the most likely place for OK and State, however I have heard alot on this board about the SEC taking both schools as well as it would allow Mizzou to the West and Alabama/Auburn to the East.

If State's academics were a little better, I'd be all for that. On the other hand, in an 8 game schedule, OK actually has room for two power non-con teams.

State's academics are as good as some in the SEC.
10-12-2016 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #17
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 01:47 PM)goofus Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 12:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 11:50 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 11:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I think the most obvious move is for the PAC to add the four Texas schools.

Utah and Colorado arent afraid of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. What they are afraid of is Oklahoma and OSU dominating their division.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

I thought they were afraid of missing out on games in California if too many more schools are added.

Exactly. Because of this, I don't see how the PAC could make a Texas/Oklahoma division work unless there was full CCG deregulation. A 9-game 3-2-2-2 schedule would work well for everyone, but it wouldn't be possible to then have a PAC championship game under the current rules and restrictions.

And forget rotating pods to make up 8-school divisions. I don't think there's any way that non-California legacy PAC schools would agree to not have any PAC football games in California for 2 years. But, may be there is a way to stack the schedule to make it work...??

There is a way to make it work under the current rules. This was much discussed in old realigment threads. The key with the 3-2-2-2 format is don't assume the teams in the same pod would be in the same division. Then you can set up rotating divisions where half your podmates are always in the other division but you still play your podmates every year.

So if you put the 4 california schools in 1 pod, they will play each other every year. The other schools will play each Califonia school 50% of the time and 50% each year.

It's a lot easier than that. Make a PAC North and PAC South.

PAC North: Wash, WSU, Ore, OSU, Stanford, Cal, Utah, Colorado
PAC South: UCLA, USC, Ariz, ASU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, UT

This is the fear about Oklahoma, they are basically an Alabama on hiatus. Its very possible that if Stoops were to leave and they brought in the next Nick Saban they'll spend a decade at the #1 spot.

If you're Utah and Colorado why would you want to be beat down by Oklahoma every year? Texas schools to put the deal on B1G level I can see that.

If that original six pack deal went down where Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M all joined the PAC it adds 3 super dominant football programs. TAMU is no longer in the picture. I think the smaller programs in PAC football would be fine with Texas and three relative dwarfs (Tech, Baylor, TCU) joined. I'm not saying those 3 aren't good, of course they are solid as Texas P5 programs but they'll never be Alabama strong.

07-coffee3
10-12-2016 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,732
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 778
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #18
RE: How about this PAC-16??
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.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2016 05:03 PM by Fighting Muskie.)
10-12-2016 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,551
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #19
RE: How about this PAC-16??
(10-12-2016 04:14 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 02:12 PM)Soobahk40050 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

I agree that the Pac is the most likely place for OK and State, however I have heard alot on this board about the SEC taking both schools as well as it would allow Mizzou to the West and Alabama/Auburn to the East.

If State's academics were a little better, I'd be all for that. On the other hand, in an 8 game schedule, OK actually has room for two power non-con teams.

State's academics are as good as some in the SEC.

Exactly. The SEC wants to improve their academic standing, not keep the status quo.
10-12-2016 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PK_UToledo Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 94
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Toledo, Lamar
Location:
Post: #20
RE: How about this PAC-16??
I know this is way out there, but might the PAC consider Hawaii? Brings in a bridge to Asian markets. Allows football a 13th game playing in Honolulu. Solidifies their place in the Hawaii Bowl. Decent academics. Football can be really good on occasion. I highly doubt this, but I have seen this discussion before.

I also see Oklahoma and Oklahoma State coming to the conference. The conference may be ok with them staying together. Their academics aren't AAU, so no B1G. SEC may look elsewhere to split states rather than keep state schools together. The ACC isn't a geographic fit.

Divisions (whatever the names) could be the classic PAC 8 schools in one, and the modern PAC 10+ teams, including the Arizonas, Colorado, Utah, the Oklahomas, Hawaii, and someone else in the other. Just a thought.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2016 05:10 PM by PK_UToledo.)
10-12-2016 05:09 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.