Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: What is the Big 12 likely to do?
Nothing. All of them will maintain the status quo.
They are working behind the scenes to find new homes.
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Soobahk40050 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 475
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #11
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
If only Texas/Ok/Kansas and Ok state/West VA get placed, it's probably a money saver to the networks, with the money from sending the rest to the AAC/MWC, they easily pay for the increase to those four.

On the other hand, if 6-8 have to get placed, it may be more economically feasible for the networks to keep the Big 12 together and pay a "within range" of the Big 10/SEC rate.

So the fate of the big 12 may depend on TCU/Tech and Iowa State.
08-07-2017 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,776
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #12
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-07-2017 05:04 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Looking at the financial situation, the PAC is in worse shape. The PAC has more desirable brands for the B1G & geographically fit into the B12. A couple B12 teams could slip to the SEC & ACC to make more room in the B12 for PAC schools. BYU & possibly Boise can more easily be assembled into the B12 than the PAC. I can see the B12 outlasting the PAC & this could be why all is quite on the B12 front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have to factor in that the Big 12 is currently getting overpaid. The networks threw them a lifeline to get control of the situation when schools started bailing.

The PAC does take make less money currently, but their demographics are much, much better. They also have a network that they can use as a bargaining chip with the networks.

By contrast, the vast majority of value in the Big 12 is concentrated in 2-4 schools. The networks will have little motivation to pay everyone a competitive rate if the league insists on the status quo. The networks stand to make a lot more money by moving a piece or two to other leagues. Come 2025, if UT and OU want competitive P5 money they are going to have to move. That, of course, creates instability for everyone else.
08-08-2017 12:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,879
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-07-2017 05:37 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 04:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 03:13 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  It really depends on the value of that next conference contract. All Big 12 schools that have options will know how much they'll make elsewhere and what their schedule will look like. The question is will Fox and ESPN overpay again? I don't think so. ESPN didn't want to match Fox's bid for B1G content; probably won't do the same to the current Big 12 teams. Might be cheaper to add 2-4 Big 12 schools to the SEC and let Texas go independent.

Al we know is things will get interesting in a few years.

I agree. And to make it simple if ESPN added 5 to the SEC and ACC it would be break even for them minus the LHN if they can get out of that. If they add only 3 and let Texas pursue independence it would still be less money. Let FOX buy the other 5 or 6 and move them somewhere they have to pay more.

So if Texas joined the ACC for football only then together with N.D. they equal a whole school since N.D. joined for everything but football. Then add WVU to give the ACC more gravitas in all sports (like Louisville) and add Oklahoma and another to the SEC and they get out for full cost in 3 and they can either fold the LHN or keep it.

I think something like that would be the most effective outside of the SEC taking Texa-homa.

So your scenario has the ACC adding Texas as a football only member and then grabbing WVU as a full member. Even if ESPN paid the conference for the 'eers,I'm not sure the votes would be there. Assuming they are, the ACC probably needs a 16th full time member.

I could see the SEC grabbing OU and OSU to secure OU, then maybe KU and WVU if the presidents are in favor for it. Then, ten years later, adding FSU and Virginia Tech. :D

Anyway, if Texas did abandon the remenants of the Big 12 for a partial ACC membership, I imagine the rest of the Big 12 finds homes in the American or the MWC.

The only way I see Texas and friends joining the PAC would be if their collection of networks made competitive money. That might be enough to save Texas plus three other Big 12 schools from losing P5 status and money.

The only other possibility I see is Texas does a Notr Dame type deal with the American--same conference that had Norte Dame as a partial. There are already several former SWC schools there. Add in the remaining B12 schools and that would probably be the most economical move for all parties involved. Assuming the LHN doesn't throw a wrench in there.

It won't happen but the real way to do it is to take Texa-homa plus Kansas and West Virginia and move to 20 with four divisions of 5. That pretty well guts the value out of the Big 12.

Another move I would be open to would be Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to 18.

But I figure the most likely outcome is going to be a move to 16 with one of the top 2 brands.

The most efficient move would surprise me, pleasantly. Oklahoma and Texas to 16, Alabama and Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West.

But truthfully I'm just ready to get it over with and start normalizing the seasons and reacquiring some old rivals to make it more fun.
08-08-2017 12:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,421
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 251
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #14
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-07-2017 03:27 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I don't think that the Big 12 is looking to break up. Texas nor Oklahoma wants any real competition, and the rest of the league is really just happy to have a home in the P5.

I tend to agree with this. OU and UT won't give up the control they have or the easiest path to the playoff for any major program (only one other King level program in the league and no title game to worry about) willingly to be just another big fish in an ocean of big fish where they have no final say on issues and win xare much harder to come by.

Now there are some cracks starting to show. There are currently two main issues that both stem from the same source: no one respects the rest of the B12 outside of the two Kings. This reality has led to the pair of problems, the first being that to make the playoffs, a B12 team who isn't OU or UT has to have a perfect record and OU and UT can get in with one loss...as long as it's not to a B12 team other than themselves.

The second issue it creates is growing dissatisfaction from OU and UT fans with their annual conference schedules. They see prices continuing to go up every year for a set of games they simply don't care about outside of RRS and Bedlam for OU. There is even a growing opinion that the B12 is too soft of a schedule (particularly on defense) and that's why the league either doesn't make the playoff and when they do they don't perform well.

Now is this enough to cause them to shift?

A lot depends on the outcome of the next half dozen playoffs. They set up the B12 to be an easy, almost guranteed path to the playoff....but if instead it leads to a situation where they feel that it is a liability that's keeping them from being competitive in the playoff then you'll see the machine actually start turning around 2022.

Until then it's just business as usual
(This post was last modified: 08-08-2017 07:07 AM by 10thMountain.)
08-08-2017 07:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,010
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #15
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).
08-08-2017 07:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 475
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #16
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).


While true that moving to larger and larger conferences creates more of an "association" than a conference:

1) 16 is actually easier to schedule either in pods (3-2-2-2) or as a 7-2 set up, or any other number of ways to help keep rivalries.

2) Conferences won't stop expanding until expansion no longer makes financial sense. The SEC gaining OK or Texas would bring in more money, and open up the possibility of conference semi's. That's an easy motivation for expansion.
08-08-2017 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,879
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.
08-08-2017 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,010
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #18
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Money becomes the ultimate problem.
If the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it gets pricey.
Each schools in the SEC will expect an increase, because that's what has happened in the past. For the pair lets say $4 Million each, so that's what $56 million add on the payout for both schools at $45 million each. JR, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't worth $150 million and ESPN would be crazy to guarantee that kind of money for that pair for 20 years.
Texas may be worth even less to the SEC than Oklahoma, because your already getting cable fees in Texas without having to pay Texas $50 million a year.
Peak may be peak dollars so why would you take on more overhead for zero profit. It's just not smart business.
08-08-2017 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,294
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #19
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
(08-08-2017 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more I look at this:
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
3m
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
·
5m
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.


the more i'm beginning to think that the B1G, SEC and ACC are done.
The PAC only needs to add the two things they need most. Windows for the rest of the country to see PAC football and basketball. That could be accomplished with Kansas and Oklahoma to get the PAC to 14 members.
Texas would become the "new Notre Dame" with a partial football deal with somebody (PAC/SEC/B1G....most likely the PAC which would include Oklahoma as a permanent) and their other sports in the western division of the American. Which would include two schools in Kansas (Wichita State, Kansas State) , two in Oklahoma (Oklahoma State, Tulsa) , 5 in Texas (Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU). The other side of the American would include Iowa State, Tulane, UConn, Temple. East Carolina, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati).

This way we end up with 4 X 14 and two Prima Donnas and one really good league of 18 (which is the best of the rest).
Playoffs could be expanded to 6, one spot for the American and 1 at large to go with the 4 champions of the P4.

This like a lot of scenarios is pure speculation in an effort to find something workable to bring things to a close. But I find this one very realistic in that it evens the playing field between the P4, parks Texas in a place that they will be happy, and gives the PAC the two things they need with eastern audiences (access to the west and blue-bloods in both sports to lend credibility to eastern viewers).

X, the whole picture is complicated by the word "peak". I think it is operative, but not with what is a workable number of schools. 16 is truly easier to work with for scheduling, geographical groups, and providing a reason for conference semis (which would be about money) than is 14. I think the word "peak" is operative because of revenue. So what Delany and Dodds may really be hinting at is that we are peaking on revenue which means 14 is as big as you get.....for some conferences. Delany didn't say the Big 10 had peaked, but in truth at 51.1 million in 2018 projected I don't think even Kansas adds to their bottom line.

So Delany is soft soaping his audience for the eventuality that the Big 10 can't land Texas and therefore Oklahoma as a single entity doesn't do it for them academically and doesn't match them well for minor sports. Therefore they are done until they can get into Virginia or North Carolina. But that should that eventuality ever come 16 may be as big as they get.

Now after this season the SEC will be sitting at 43 million an by 2018 we should be around 45-46 million. At that range of income we could profit a bit more with Oklahoma and Texas and their sports actually fit ours better than they do the Big 10. But the same may be said of the PAC and the ACC.

I think you need to revisit the 15 concept as it has a particular interest if we have peaked in income. It would lead to 3 divisions of 5 per conference and that would open up conference semis with the best at large. All of that could boost revenue.

If we head there then Oklahoma to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC, and Texas and Kansas to the PAC perhaps with Texas Tech makes some sense. Oklahoma would put the SEC at or near 50 million. Texas and Kansas would boost the PAC and WVU gives the ACC a boost. I think the Big 10 would sit at 14 for now.

From the start of all of this most have said the final number could be between 60 to 72 for inclusion in the upper tier. So all we are saying here is that it is looking more like 60 than 64 and 72 is probably priced out of the game.

Need to alter the format to allow for large conferences. The rules requiring two divisions of round robin can't work for very large conferences as Slive predicts they might grow to.

I propose we leave the national playoffs at 4 teams and add conference semifinal games to thos that want it. This would allow only one team per conference getting into the national playoffs and allow the conferences more flexibility with how they schedule and produce their top four teams. Even in a fifteen team model, three pod/divisional winners and a wild card team enters a four team playoff. Money from the extra inventory and two conference playoff games should create enough of a pay raise to keep all happy no matter how many schools a conference decides to have.
08-08-2017 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,776
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #20
RE: The Big 12: The Nuts and Bolts of Their Present Situation
I may be parsing words, but Delaney's phrasing is probably not incidental.

He said "much beyond 14 is an association" rather than "beyond 14 is an association."

Some of these leagues have been trying to get to 16 for a while and it may be that there's something magic about the number 16 after all. Perhaps it's structurally conducive to maximizing profits while keeping everyone in close enough quarters that they don't feel disconnected to the other end of the league.

16 is easier to schedule than 14, as others have stated, albeit you have to be willing to be a little creative rather than dividing everyone into 2 hard and fast divisions. That takes care of the structural angle.

With 16, you can also add more league games and potentially tap new markets. I know the market model is expiring as it pertains to how conference networks are funded, but what I'm really talking about is tapping a new set of previously disinterested fans. You add them to your base viewing and as long as the competition is strong then the market aspect is still relevant.

The SEC has it a little tougher there because really only OU and UT could possibly add a large number of previously disinterested fans to our collective.
08-08-2017 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.