Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile additions
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #21
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-19-2017 01:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  If the Pac were to land UT but not OU, would they allow three more Texas schools to tag along?

It would be profitable. My guess is that the votes would be there for it.
07-19-2017 02:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #22
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile additions
If Texas and Tech were in, and the PAC simply said no thank you to TCU and Baylor, would the PAC take New Mexico to go with Tech? Or would they rather Houston or Rice?

That would be an interesting scenario to me.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2017 02:28 PM by MplsBison.)
07-19-2017 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #23
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-19-2017 02:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 01:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  If the Pac were to land UT but not OU, would they allow three more Texas schools to tag along?

It would be profitable. My guess is that the votes would be there for it.

Interesting. Texas Tech would be one, since the Pac already deemed them acceptable in the 2010 proposal. For the other two spots, I see three options, each of which has a respectable football program right now.

Baylor
Pro: decent academics
Cons: religious private school, small metro, much baggage due to scandals

TCU
Pros: decent academics, large metro
Cons: religious private school (although more liberal than Baylor)

Houston
Pros: public school, large metro
Cons: academics not so good, not currently a "power" school

I suppose one might say Rice has an outside chance, given its academic creds, but the relatively poor state of their athletics makes their odds slim to nil.

IMO, TCU and Houston would get the nod.
07-19-2017 03:02 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: #24
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
I don't think this is happening any time in the near future. But if it ever did, UT would have a lot of say in who else was invited. Who and how many would probably be the subject of negotiation between UT and the Pac.
07-19-2017 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,893
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #25
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-19-2017 01:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 01:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-18-2017 08:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I believe you will find that T.C.U., Baylor, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia would all elevate the value of the current ACC and PAC MEAN and Median numbers.

Value added to TV rights is what is important because that's what makes money for existing conference members when the conference expands. An athletic department's budget/revenue is a sign of how well-resourced the department is, and a very good sign, but not directly related to TV value. Donations do not increase a team's value to ESPN and Fox. Boone Pickens' generosity to Ok St athletics is a huge boost to Ok St's bottom line, but by itself that $$$ has no bearing on whether ESPN or Fox would pay huge money to a conference for adding Ok St.

Wedge Oklahoma State has plenty of value content wise as they are very competitive in all sports. What they have that the PAC doesn't want is an R2 status. So just as West Virginia might add some competitive value to the Big 10 their academic rating precludes their consideration. That's the issue for OSU with regards to the PAC.

Money talks. The issue is how much ESPN and Fox are willing to pay a conference if that conference adds Oklahoma State. If ESPN and Fox had been willing to give each current Pac-12 school an additional $3-5 million/year in TV money, then OU and Ok St would have been invited in 2011. If there is no "new money" on the table for existing members, then they are not going to vote to issue invitations.

As I said in an earlier thread, ESPN likes two things about the Pac-12: (1) They are the only power conference covering the pacific and mountain time zones, and (2) They are the only power conference that delivers live FB and BB games in west coast prime time. Neither of those benefits is enhanced by adding, say, Oklahoma State to the Pac-12. ESPN and Fox already have an abundance of central time zone teams to choose from if they want to broadcast their games; the TV guys don't need those teams to be in the Pac-12.

Adding UT is different because they are so inherently valuable to TV that they add a lot of TV value to any conference regardless of other factors. That's why I think that the Pac isn't adding anyone from the central time zone unless UT is included -- because, as was proven in 2011, the TV guys will only make it profitable for the Pac if UT is included.

And, that was the whole idea behind the 2010 attempt at a Pac-16. The purpose wasn't to add central time zone teams for the sake of being in the central time zone. The purpose was to land the Longhorns, and to let them bring some local schools along with them if that's what it takes to get the Horns to say yes.

Then UT will have to absolutely want to head to the PAC because if not, they have better options, possibly 3 of them.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2017 12:32 PM by JRsec.)
07-19-2017 05:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #26
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-18-2017 03:50 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(07-18-2017 10:40 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(07-18-2017 02:49 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Do you guys have any idea how long it takes to convert a basketball school into a dual sports school? A very long time. While you guys may not think there's any merit to taking both Kansas & K-State, there actually is merit to doing so, IMO. The SEC just has half of the KC market. The Big Ten will have to take both teams in Kansas just to get the KC market for football & basketball. And Oklahoma State is a little known basketball powerhouse, IMO. Likewise, the Big Ten could capture half of the Pittsburgh market by going after WVU. To me, the one Big 12 member that offers nothing is Baylor.

Penn State already gives the Big 10 as much of the Pittsburgh market as WVU could deliver.

Um, I kinda doubt that because Morgantown, WV, is much closer to Pittsburgh(75 miles; 1 hour 25 minutes) than State College (136 miles; 2 hrs 39 minutes) is. Also, WVU would also give a portion of the Washington, DC market too, although it already has a portion of it through the addition of Maryland.

West Virginia University provides little to no extra exposure for the Big Ten. Penn State carries the Pittsburgh market, and Ohio State enhances that even further. State College may not be that close relative to Morgantown but it is still located in Pennsylvania, which Penn State is the flagship for.
07-19-2017 09:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #27
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile additions
(07-19-2017 03:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Interesting. Texas Tech would be one, since the Pac already deemed them acceptable in the 2010 proposal. For the other two spots, I see three options, each of which has a respectable football program right now.

Baylor
Pro: decent academics
Cons: religious private school, small metro, much baggage due to scandals

TCU
Pros: decent academics, large metro
Cons: religious private school (although more liberal than Baylor)

Houston
Pros: public school, large metro
Cons: academics not so good, not currently a "power" school

I suppose one might say Rice has an outside chance, given its academic creds, but the relatively poor state of their athletics makes their odds slim to nil.

IMO, TCU and Houston would get the nod.

Just wondering why you say that TCU and Baylor academics are "decent" but Houston academics are "not so good".

What is "academics"?
07-20-2017 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #28
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-20-2017 09:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 03:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Interesting. Texas Tech would be one, since the Pac already deemed them acceptable in the 2010 proposal. For the other two spots, I see three options, each of which has a respectable football program right now.

Baylor
Pro: decent academics
Cons: religious private school, small metro, much baggage due to scandals

TCU
Pros: decent academics, large metro
Cons: religious private school (although more liberal than Baylor)

Houston
Pros: public school, large metro
Cons: academics not so good, not currently a "power" school

I suppose one might say Rice has an outside chance, given its academic creds, but the relatively poor state of their athletics makes their odds slim to nil.

IMO, TCU and Houston would get the nod.

Just wondering why you say that TCU and Baylor academics are "decent" but Houston academics are "not so good".

What is "academics"?

I was just going by the US News rankings: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran..._mode=list

Baylor is 71st, TCU is 82nd, and Houston is 194th. For comparison, Rice is 15th, UT-Austin is 56th, A&M-College Station is 74th, and Texas Tech is 176th. While Houston comes in at the bottom here, it's not too much worse than Tech, which was already deemed acceptable by the Pac.
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2017 12:08 PM by Nerdlinger.)
07-20-2017 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,893
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #29
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-20-2017 12:07 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-20-2017 09:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 03:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Interesting. Texas Tech would be one, since the Pac already deemed them acceptable in the 2010 proposal. For the other two spots, I see three options, each of which has a respectable football program right now.

Baylor
Pro: decent academics
Cons: religious private school, small metro, much baggage due to scandals

TCU
Pros: decent academics, large metro
Cons: religious private school (although more liberal than Baylor)

Houston
Pros: public school, large metro
Cons: academics not so good, not currently a "power" school

I suppose one might say Rice has an outside chance, given its academic creds, but the relatively poor state of their athletics makes their odds slim to nil.

IMO, TCU and Houston would get the nod.

Just wondering why you say that TCU and Baylor academics are "decent" but Houston academics are "not so good".

What is "academics"?

I was just going by the US News rankings: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran..._mode=list

Baylor is 71st, TCU is 82nd, and Houston is 194th. For comparison, Rice is 15th, UT-Austin is 56th, A&M-College Station is 74th, and Texas Tech is 176th. While Houston comes in at the bottom here, it's not too much worse than Tech, which was already deemed acceptable by the Pac.

USNWR rankings are generally made to reflect undergraduate rankings. The PAC will be interested in research rankings. ARWU would be the better guideline.
07-20-2017 12:35 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: #30
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-20-2017 12:07 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I was just going by the US News rankings: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran..._mode=list

Baylor is 71st, TCU is 82nd, and Houston is 194th. For comparison, Rice is 15th, UT-Austin is 56th, A&M-College Station is 74th, and Texas Tech is 176th. While Houston comes in at the bottom here, it's not too much worse than Tech, which was already deemed acceptable by the Pac.

It's not accurate to say that Texas Tech was "deemed more acceptable" by the Pac-12 than any other school, and certainly not accurate to say that they would ever get an invitation in the absence of UT. In an effort to attract UT, TTU and others were given an invitation in 2010 that was conditioned on UT accepting (which, of course, they didn't).
07-20-2017 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AntiG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,396
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #31
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-18-2017 06:25 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Can't see the B1G ever adding WVU.

As a Rutgers fan, I would be thrilled if they did, but yeah its not realistic.
07-20-2017 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #32
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
Rankings from ARWU: http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2016.html

Baylor and TCU don't even make the list, though Houston and Texas Tech are on there.

Oklahoma isn't on the list either, but Oklahoma State is. Something seems awry with ARWU...


.png  ARWU Rankings.png (Size: 51.63 KB / Downloads: 10)
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2017 03:35 PM by Nerdlinger.)
07-20-2017 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #33
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-20-2017 12:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-20-2017 12:07 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-20-2017 09:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 03:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Interesting. Texas Tech would be one, since the Pac already deemed them acceptable in the 2010 proposal. For the other two spots, I see three options, each of which has a respectable football program right now.

Baylor
Pro: decent academics
Cons: religious private school, small metro, much baggage due to scandals

TCU
Pros: decent academics, large metro
Cons: religious private school (although more liberal than Baylor)

Houston
Pros: public school, large metro
Cons: academics not so good, not currently a "power" school

I suppose one might say Rice has an outside chance, given its academic creds, but the relatively poor state of their athletics makes their odds slim to nil.

IMO, TCU and Houston would get the nod.

Just wondering why you say that TCU and Baylor academics are "decent" but Houston academics are "not so good".

What is "academics"?

I was just going by the US News rankings: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran..._mode=list

Baylor is 71st, TCU is 82nd, and Houston is 194th. For comparison, Rice is 15th, UT-Austin is 56th, A&M-College Station is 74th, and Texas Tech is 176th. While Houston comes in at the bottom here, it's not too much worse than Tech, which was already deemed acceptable by the Pac.

USNWR rankings are generally made to reflect undergraduate rankings. The PAC will be interested in research rankings. ARWU would be the better guideline.

In that rating, Houston is higher than Baylor, TCU and Tech.
07-20-2017 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #34
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-19-2017 03:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 02:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 01:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  If the Pac were to land UT but not OU, would they allow three more Texas schools to tag along?

It would be profitable. My guess is that the votes would be there for it.

Interesting. Texas Tech would be one, since the Pac already deemed them acceptable in the 2010 proposal. For the other two spots, I see three options, each of which has a respectable football program right now.

Baylor
Pro: decent academics
Cons: religious private school, small metro, much baggage due to scandals

TCU
Pros: decent academics, large metro
Cons: religious private school (although more liberal than Baylor)

Houston
Pros: public school, large metro
Cons: academics not so good, not currently a "power" school

I suppose one might say Rice has an outside chance, given its academic creds, but the relatively poor state of their athletics makes their odds slim to nil.

IMO, TCU and Houston would get the nod.


I'm not even going to try to defend Baylor on those scandals, but Waco, Texas is gradually being affected by urban sprawl from what will soon be Texas' newest twin cities, Austin-San Antonio.
07-21-2017 12:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 16,477
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
Post: #35
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-19-2017 04:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't think this is happening any time in the near future. But if it ever did, UT would have a lot of say in who else was invited. Who and how many would probably be the subject of negotiation between UT and the Pac.

Two to three years...
The Big 12 GOR expires in '25.
I would expect conferences would want to have plans in place four to five years in advance.
CJ
07-21-2017 03:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tcufrog86 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,167
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 101
I Root For: TCU & Wisconsin
Location: Minnesota Uff da
Post: #36
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-21-2017 12:55 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 03:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 02:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 01:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  If the Pac were to land UT but not OU, would they allow three more Texas schools to tag along?

It would be profitable. My guess is that the votes would be there for it.

Interesting. Texas Tech would be one, since the Pac already deemed them acceptable in the 2010 proposal. For the other two spots, I see three options, each of which has a respectable football program right now.

Baylor
Pro: decent academics
Cons: religious private school, small metro, much baggage due to scandals

TCU
Pros: decent academics, large metro
Cons: religious private school (although more liberal than Baylor)

Houston
Pros: public school, large metro
Cons: academics not so good, not currently a "power" school

I suppose one might say Rice has an outside chance, given its academic creds, but the relatively poor state of their athletics makes their odds slim to nil.

IMO, TCU and Houston would get the nod.


I'm not even going to try to defend Baylor on those scandals, but Waco, Texas is gradually being affected by urban sprawl from what will soon be Texas' newest twin cities, Austin-San Antonio.

Waco has definitely improved a lot in the last 5 to 7 years, being pretty much smack dab between downtown Fort Worth and downtown Austin puts them relatively close to a lot of population growth.

There are almost 9MM people within a 200 mile radius of Waco.
07-21-2017 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #37
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-20-2017 03:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Rankings from ARWU: http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2016.html

Baylor and TCU don't even make the list, though Houston and Texas Tech are on there.

Oklahoma isn't on the list either, but Oklahoma State is. Something seems awry with ARWU...

Baylor and TCU do not have big graduate research departments. Both are Tier II Carnegie. Not sure why Oklahoma wasn't on that year. They were the year before. Houston is consistently in the 200-300 category with FSU, NCSU, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Notre Dame, among others. Like TCU, Notre Dame is relatively stronger undergrad than graduate.
07-21-2017 08:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tcufrog86 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,167
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 101
I Root For: TCU & Wisconsin
Location: Minnesota Uff da
Post: #38
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-21-2017 08:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(07-20-2017 03:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Rankings from ARWU: http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2016.html

Baylor and TCU don't even make the list, though Houston and Texas Tech are on there.

Oklahoma isn't on the list either, but Oklahoma State is. Something seems awry with ARWU...

Baylor and TCU do not have big graduate research departments. Both are Tier II Carnegie. Not sure why Oklahoma wasn't on that year. They were the year before. Houston is consistently in the 200-300 category with FSU, NCSU, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Notre Dame, among others. Like TCU, Notre Dame is relatively stronger undergrad than graduate.

Yep TCU and Baylor don't have a lot of PhD programs, both offer enough to be considered doctoral level universities but the programs are limited.

TCU is starting a med-school, but since it is a partnership between TCU and the University of North Texas Health Science Center that already exists in Fort Worth then i'm not sure how that research activity will be counted.
07-21-2017 08:55 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: #39
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile ...
(07-21-2017 08:32 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  Waco has definitely improved a lot in the last 5 to 7 years, being pretty much smack dab between downtown Fort Worth and downtown Austin puts them relatively close to a lot of population growth.

There are almost 9MM people within a 200 mile radius of Waco.

200 miles is too big a radius. Almost every ACC team is in the multi-millions if you use a net that big! I'd think 100 miles, tops.

IMO, Baylor is the redundant Big XII team in Texas. It should've been Houston, IMO.

If the ACC were forced to take 2 other Texas teams in addition to Texas (hypothetically), I'd want those to be TCU and Houston... again, JMO.
07-21-2017 09:36 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #40
RE: For Those Who Have Said K-State & Ok-State & WVU aren't really worthwhile additions
(07-20-2017 12:07 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I was just going by the US News rankings: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran..._mode=list

Baylor is 71st, TCU is 82nd, and Houston is 194th. For comparison, Rice is 15th, UT-Austin is 56th, A&M-College Station is 74th, and Texas Tech is 176th. While Houston comes in at the bottom here, it's not too much worse than Tech, which was already deemed acceptable by the Pac.

Well there you go - any list that has Baylor above TA&M's main campus isn't worth the ink that was used to print it. Might as well be a list of "top party schools in America".


(07-21-2017 09:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IMO, Baylor is the redundant Big XII team in Texas. It should've been Houston, IMO.

I think/I guess, Baylor used to have influence in the state or at least in the politics of the state. It used to mean something, in that regard. And it used that influence to push itself into the Big 12, when the SWC was dying. Not sure if Houston should have been included instead, maybe. Or maybe Baylor should've simply been cast down into the "glad you were with us in the SWC all those years ... good luck, see ya!" group.

In any case, I think the scandal has greatly, greatly damaged the brand of Baylor and soiled what people think when they hear the word. If I was BCoM, I would seriously look at changing the name of the institution. Granted, it should have merged with Rice a long time ago, but BCoM's president is a turd.
07-21-2017 10:25 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.