Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #21
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(02-14-2018 01:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The PAC offers two certain things though that especially appeal to UT

1) Less competition. UT has thrived as the big fish in a small pond. They don't want to be a big fish in an ocean full of other big fish. The PAC would provide challenges but they would come in and immeadietly compete for the title.

2) Uneven distributions. Most people don't get this distinction about UT. They don't want to be making the MOST money, they want to be making MORE than their competition. IOW they don't want a conference deal that pays everyone 15 million for tier 3. They want a deal that gives them 10 million and everyone else 2-3 million. The PAC would be willing to indulge the favoritism they crave where no other conference would.

....which is why the PAC 12 couldn't come to an agreement with UT back in 2011:

"But it appears the 'deal' fell through before either president could take any sort of action, as Scott and Texas reportedly could not come to an agreement on how to pursue the Longhorn Network."

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...c-12-snub/
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2018 09:19 PM by Underdog.)
02-18-2018 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #22
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(02-18-2018 08:41 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(02-14-2018 01:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The PAC offers two certain things though that especially appeal to UT

1) Less competition. UT has thrived as the big fish in a small pond. They don't want to be a big fish in an ocean full of other big fish. The PAC would provide challenges but they would come in and immeadietly compete for the title.

2) Uneven distributions. Most people don't get this distinction about UT. They don't want to be making the MOST money, they want to be making MORE than their competition. IOW they don't want a conference deal that pays everyone 15 million for tier 3. They want a deal that gives them 10 million and everyone else 2-3 million. The PAC would be willing to indulge the favoritism they crave where no other conference would.

....which is why the PAC 12 couldn't come to an agreement with UT back in 2011:

"But it appears the 'deal' fell through before either president could take any sort of action, as Scott and Texas reportedly could not come to an agreement on how to pursue the Longhorn Network."

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...c-12-snub/

Very true, but with a different athletic director and President/Chancellor running the show, we’ll see how they play well with others during this next round of realignment.
02-19-2018 01:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #23
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(02-10-2018 11:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
Quote:Obviously, that's not the case so I watched the video to get a little more context. Basically, the AD is stating that it's crucial to show a commitment to football. "Also, creating a medical school is crucial," he said.

That medical school quote is big and not getting enough attention. TCU's biggest drawback in expansion is that it does basically no research. Medical schools are big research dollar draws. TCU getting a medical school and getting to $100M in research, or at least be trending that way, would help TCU a lot with academic objections by research schools (i.e. AAU snobs). The PAC is their most likely landing spot if they have to go it alone as the PAC is coming into TX sooner or later if it wants to grow it's revenues. The PAC would probably not consider TCU with it's current annual research levels.
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2018 09:39 PM by jhawkmvp.)
03-27-2018 09:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,909
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(03-27-2018 09:38 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(02-10-2018 11:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
Quote:Obviously, that's not the case so I watched the video to get a little more context. Basically, the AD is stating that it's crucial to show a commitment to football. "Also, creating a medical school is crucial," he said.

That medical school quote is big and not getting enough attention. TCU's biggest drawback in expansion is that it does basically no research. Medical schools are big research dollar draws. TCU getting a medical school and getting to $100M in research, or at least be trending that way, would help TCU a lot with academic objections by research schools (i.e. AAU snobs). The PAC is their most likely landing spot if they have to go it alone as the PAC is coming into TX sooner or later if it wants to grow it's revenues. The PAC would probably not consider TCU with it's current annual research levels.

T.C.U. has an outside shot at the SEC should Oklahoma head elsewhere. The SEC is hot for a bigger slice of DFW and even though the Frogs don't average much over 45,000 in attendance the ability of the SEC to play 6 conference games there a year without having to land a bowl or a preseason game for exposure would probably still move the needle for us.

I understand why you said what you did about the PAC being their best bet, but they aren't without prospects simply due to location. The medical school would be the cherry on top.
03-27-2018 09:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #25
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
What does Texas want?
Control and positive exposure.
Where and how?
Well throwing yourself at the mercy of ESPN has worked pretty well for Texas and The ACC so far, so I would go with that for Texas' #1 strategy.
What would that entail?
The ACC adds Baylor and TCU and then offers Texas a Notre Dame type deal.
Why?
It's good for the ACC because they can then get market rate for the ACCN in Texas, and good for the SEC because the ACCN and SECN are now being sold as a pair and it would insure rate and maximum exposure for the SECN (without adding anyone) and puts pressure on Oklahoma to move to the SEC to be able to stay "connected" to Texas. Imagine an ESPN sponsored Texas vs. A&M match up that could replace Texas vs. Oklahoma if the Sooners were to move to the B1G.
Also it's good for Texas. Scheduling flexibility for 7-8 games played in Texas every year, exposure up and down the east coast with teams the Longhorns should be able to beat more often than not (unlike the SEC). And just as important to Texas, meaningful access to recruiting, especially in Florida (notice that the Big 12 no longer produces NFL talent in large numbers, if Texas is going to be nationally competitive again, they will need access to talent outside of the state of Texas).
03-28-2018 04:54 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: #26
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(03-28-2018 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  What does Texas want?
Control and positive exposure.
Where and how?
Well throwing yourself at the mercy of ESPN has worked pretty well for Texas and The ACC so far, so I would go with that for Texas' #1 strategy.
What would that entail?
The ACC adds Baylor and TCU and then offers Texas a Notre Dame type deal.
Why?
It's good for the ACC because they can then get market rate for the ACCN in Texas, and good for the SEC because the ACCN and SECN are now being sold as a pair and it would insure rate and maximum exposure for the SECN (without adding anyone) and puts pressure on Oklahoma to move to the SEC to be able to stay "connected" to Texas. Imagine an ESPN sponsored Texas vs. A&M match up that could replace Texas vs. Oklahoma if the Sooners were to move to the B1G.
Also it's good for Texas. Scheduling flexibility for 7-8 games played in Texas every year, exposure up and down the east coast with teams the Longhorns should be able to beat more often than not (unlike the SEC). And just as important to Texas, meaningful access to recruiting, especially in Florida (notice that the Big 12 no longer produces NFL talent in large numbers, if Texas is going to be nationally competitive again, they will need access to talent outside of the state of Texas).

The idea of Baylor to the ACC disgusts me, but I must admit it has a good chance of happening. Personally, I'd prefer TCU + Houston (if Texas is a partial). I'd also consider adding WVU and one other to get to 18 full members + 2 partials.

If I were the Czar of the ACC, the other would be Oklahoma 1st or Okie State 2nd or Iowa St 3rd. The SEC would then take whatever they wanted of the remaining Big 12 teams (probably OU, Kansas, Texas Tech, and Okie State/Baylor).

But the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.
03-28-2018 08:44 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,909
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #27
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(03-28-2018 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-28-2018 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  What does Texas want?
Control and positive exposure.
Where and how?
Well throwing yourself at the mercy of ESPN has worked pretty well for Texas and The ACC so far, so I would go with that for Texas' #1 strategy.
What would that entail?
The ACC adds Baylor and TCU and then offers Texas a Notre Dame type deal.
Why?
It's good for the ACC because they can then get market rate for the ACCN in Texas, and good for the SEC because the ACCN and SECN are now being sold as a pair and it would insure rate and maximum exposure for the SECN (without adding anyone) and puts pressure on Oklahoma to move to the SEC to be able to stay "connected" to Texas. Imagine an ESPN sponsored Texas vs. A&M match up that could replace Texas vs. Oklahoma if the Sooners were to move to the B1G.
Also it's good for Texas. Scheduling flexibility for 7-8 games played in Texas every year, exposure up and down the east coast with teams the Longhorns should be able to beat more often than not (unlike the SEC). And just as important to Texas, meaningful access to recruiting, especially in Florida (notice that the Big 12 no longer produces NFL talent in large numbers, if Texas is going to be nationally competitive again, they will need access to talent outside of the state of Texas).

The idea of Baylor to the ACC disgusts me, but I must admit it has a good chance of happening. Personally, I'd prefer TCU + Houston (if Texas is a partial). I'd also consider adding WVU and one other to get to 18 full members + 2 partials.

If I were the Czar of the ACC, the other would be Oklahoma 1st or Okie State 2nd or Iowa St 3rd. The SEC would then take whatever they wanted of the remaining Big 12 teams (probably OU, Kansas, Texas Tech, and Okie State/Baylor).

But the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

There are no other 2 conferences that could work together as cohesively to dissolve the Big 12 and keep the Big 12 schools at least somewhat connected. It is an opportunity which ESPN should not fail to take advantage of, but if they do fail to do so, then the next time our contracts are up we should abandon them. These opportunities don't come around very often. The failure to capitalize on it would be inexcusable.
03-28-2018 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #28
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(03-28-2018 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  What does Texas want?
Control and positive exposure.
Where and how?
Well throwing yourself at the mercy of ESPN has worked pretty well for Texas and The ACC so far, so I would go with that for Texas' #1 strategy.
What would that entail?
The ACC adds Baylor and TCU and then offers Texas a Notre Dame type deal.
Why?
It's good for the ACC because they can then get market rate for the ACCN in Texas, and good for the SEC because the ACCN and SECN are now being sold as a pair and it would insure rate and maximum exposure for the SECN (without adding anyone) and puts pressure on Oklahoma to move to the SEC to be able to stay "connected" to Texas. Imagine an ESPN sponsored Texas vs. A&M match up that could replace Texas vs. Oklahoma if the Sooners were to move to the B1G.
Also it's good for Texas. Scheduling flexibility for 7-8 games played in Texas every year, exposure up and down the east coast with teams the Longhorns should be able to beat more often than not (unlike the SEC). And just as important to Texas, meaningful access to recruiting, especially in Florida (notice that the Big 12 no longer produces NFL talent in large numbers, if Texas is going to be nationally competitive again, they will need access to talent outside of the state of Texas).

The OU vs Texas game is the biggest fund raiser those schools currently have. There would have to be some extremely bad blood between the administrations for that game to not continue even if those schools are in different conferences.

I still think Texas would be better off as an independent in football if OU left the 12. UT would need to schedule some old rivals to keep their fan base happy with their season ticket packages. Also, greater flexibility allows them to add more marque games like a USC or a ND etc.

As long as there is a strong enough and stable regional conference for UT to dump their Olympic sports in, independence could be a viable option
04-02-2018 05:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #29
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(04-02-2018 05:53 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(03-28-2018 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  What does Texas want?
Control and positive exposure.
Where and how?
Well throwing yourself at the mercy of ESPN has worked pretty well for Texas and The ACC so far, so I would go with that for Texas' #1 strategy.
What would that entail?
The ACC adds Baylor and TCU and then offers Texas a Notre Dame type deal.
Why?
It's good for the ACC because they can then get market rate for the ACCN in Texas, and good for the SEC because the ACCN and SECN are now being sold as a pair and it would insure rate and maximum exposure for the SECN (without adding anyone) and puts pressure on Oklahoma to move to the SEC to be able to stay "connected" to Texas. Imagine an ESPN sponsored Texas vs. A&M match up that could replace Texas vs. Oklahoma if the Sooners were to move to the B1G.
Also it's good for Texas. Scheduling flexibility for 7-8 games played in Texas every year, exposure up and down the east coast with teams the Longhorns should be able to beat more often than not (unlike the SEC). And just as important to Texas, meaningful access to recruiting, especially in Florida (notice that the Big 12 no longer produces NFL talent in large numbers, if Texas is going to be nationally competitive again, they will need access to talent outside of the state of Texas).

The OU vs Texas game is the biggest fund raiser those schools currently have. There would have to be some extremely bad blood between the administrations for that game to not continue even if those schools are in different conferences.

I still think Texas would be better off as an independent in football if OU left the 12. UT would need to schedule some old rivals to keep their fan base happy with their season ticket packages. Also, greater flexibility allows them to add more marque games like a USC or a ND etc.

As long as there is a strong enough and stable regional conference for UT to dump their Olympic sports in, independence could be a viable option

The thing about independence is that Texas is used to a certain level of competition when it comes to their Olympic sports. I don't think they'd go the BYU route and join a lesser league.

Notre Dame's gravitas got them into the ACC, but even then they had to agree to 5 games a year. Texas would likely have to do at least that, but I don't see another Power league taking them under those circumstances.

The Big 12 would basically be gone in this scenario so none of the other Power leagues would have any real motivation to accommodate Texas' desires.
04-02-2018 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #30
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
Notre Dame's athletic department matches up well with the ACC.
Soccer, Lacrosse, FENCING, rowing, golf, tennis........everything but field hockey.
04-04-2018 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Grassy Nole Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 164
Joined: Apr 2018
Reputation: 45
I Root For: FSU & Ohio U
Location: The Aug
Post: #31
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(03-28-2018 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-28-2018 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  What does Texas want?
Control and positive exposure.
Where and how?
Well throwing yourself at the mercy of ESPN has worked pretty well for Texas and The ACC so far, so I would go with that for Texas' #1 strategy.
What would that entail?
The ACC adds Baylor and TCU and then offers Texas a Notre Dame type deal.
Why?
It's good for the ACC because they can then get market rate for the ACCN in Texas, and good for the SEC because the ACCN and SECN are now being sold as a pair and it would insure rate and maximum exposure for the SECN (without adding anyone) and puts pressure on Oklahoma to move to the SEC to be able to stay "connected" to Texas. Imagine an ESPN sponsored Texas vs. A&M match up that could replace Texas vs. Oklahoma if the Sooners were to move to the B1G.
Also it's good for Texas. Scheduling flexibility for 7-8 games played in Texas every year, exposure up and down the east coast with teams the Longhorns should be able to beat more often than not (unlike the SEC). And just as important to Texas, meaningful access to recruiting, especially in Florida (notice that the Big 12 no longer produces NFL talent in large numbers, if Texas is going to be nationally competitive again, they will need access to talent outside of the state of Texas).

The idea of Baylor to the ACC disgusts me, but I must admit it has a good chance of happening. Personally, I'd prefer TCU + Houston (if Texas is a partial). I'd also consider adding WVU and one other to get to 18 full members + 2 partials.

If I were the Czar of the ACC, the other would be Oklahoma 1st or Okie State 2nd or Iowa St 3rd. The SEC would then take whatever they wanted of the remaining Big 12 teams (probably OU, Kansas, Texas Tech, and Okie State/Baylor).

But the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU. Otherwise if Texas joins the ACC in full hell I would take Incarnate Word if it guarantees the Longhorns, those folks in Austin are truly that valuable.
04-04-2018 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,909
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #32
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  
(03-28-2018 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-28-2018 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  What does Texas want?
Control and positive exposure.
Where and how?
Well throwing yourself at the mercy of ESPN has worked pretty well for Texas and The ACC so far, so I would go with that for Texas' #1 strategy.
What would that entail?
The ACC adds Baylor and TCU and then offers Texas a Notre Dame type deal.
Why?
It's good for the ACC because they can then get market rate for the ACCN in Texas, and good for the SEC because the ACCN and SECN are now being sold as a pair and it would insure rate and maximum exposure for the SECN (without adding anyone) and puts pressure on Oklahoma to move to the SEC to be able to stay "connected" to Texas. Imagine an ESPN sponsored Texas vs. A&M match up that could replace Texas vs. Oklahoma if the Sooners were to move to the B1G.
Also it's good for Texas. Scheduling flexibility for 7-8 games played in Texas every year, exposure up and down the east coast with teams the Longhorns should be able to beat more often than not (unlike the SEC). And just as important to Texas, meaningful access to recruiting, especially in Florida (notice that the Big 12 no longer produces NFL talent in large numbers, if Texas is going to be nationally competitive again, they will need access to talent outside of the state of Texas).

The idea of Baylor to the ACC disgusts me, but I must admit it has a good chance of happening. Personally, I'd prefer TCU + Houston (if Texas is a partial). I'd also consider adding WVU and one other to get to 18 full members + 2 partials.

If I were the Czar of the ACC, the other would be Oklahoma 1st or Okie State 2nd or Iowa St 3rd. The SEC would then take whatever they wanted of the remaining Big 12 teams (probably OU, Kansas, Texas Tech, and Okie State/Baylor).

But the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU. Otherwise if Texas joins the ACC in full hell I would take Incarnate Word if it guarantees the Longhorns, those folks in Austin are truly that valuable.

Texas hasn't really hankered for independence. What they really want is the opportunity to play most of their schedule in the state of Texas. Well the ACC can give them that. Texas Tech is a bridge too far for the ACC but Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Kansas State would give them quite a bit. Then you could put N.D. to the question, "In or out?" They'd go in because they have nowhere else to go to get a special deal and the ACC offers them more of what they need.

Then ESPN can use the SEC to take the two Oklahoma's, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and W.V.U..

Both conferences move to 20 and nobody worries about the worth of a product because the ACC with UT and ND moves to 50 million per school, the SEC moves to 55, and the total cost to ESPN, including buying out the FOX half, (even if they sublet the rights back to FOX), and the remaining T3 would not top $800 million. That's 4% of the total profits of ESPN.

To sew up 40 solid programs in the largest market footprint, combined with the 1st & 3rd best viewing regions would be huge.

And quite frankly they could do it without increasing the budget if they let MNF go.
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2018 08:47 PM by JRsec.)
04-04-2018 08:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Grassy Nole Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 164
Joined: Apr 2018
Reputation: 45
I Root For: FSU & Ohio U
Location: The Aug
Post: #33
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(04-04-2018 04:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  Notre Dame's athletic department matches up well with the ACC.
Soccer, Lacrosse, FENCING, rowing, golf, tennis........everything but field hockey.

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  
(03-28-2018 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-28-2018 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  What does Texas want?
Control and positive exposure.
Where and how?
Well throwing yourself at the mercy of ESPN has worked pretty well for Texas and The ACC so far, so I would go with that for Texas' #1 strategy.
What would that entail?
The ACC adds Baylor and TCU and then offers Texas a Notre Dame type deal.
Why?
It's good for the ACC because they can then get market rate for the ACCN in Texas, and good for the SEC because the ACCN and SECN are now being sold as a pair and it would insure rate and maximum exposure for the SECN (without adding anyone) and puts pressure on Oklahoma to move to the SEC to be able to stay "connected" to Texas. Imagine an ESPN sponsored Texas vs. A&M match up that could replace Texas vs. Oklahoma if the Sooners were to move to the B1G.
Also it's good for Texas. Scheduling flexibility for 7-8 games played in Texas every year, exposure up and down the east coast with teams the Longhorns should be able to beat more often than not (unlike the SEC). And just as important to Texas, meaningful access to recruiting, especially in Florida (notice that the Big 12 no longer produces NFL talent in large numbers, if Texas is going to be nationally competitive again, they will need access to talent outside of the state of Texas).

The idea of Baylor to the ACC disgusts me, but I must admit it has a good chance of happening. Personally, I'd prefer TCU + Houston (if Texas is a partial). I'd also consider adding WVU and one other to get to 18 full members + 2 partials.

If I were the Czar of the ACC, the other would be Oklahoma 1st or Okie State 2nd or Iowa St 3rd. The SEC would then take whatever they wanted of the remaining Big 12 teams (probably OU, Kansas, Texas Tech, and Okie State/Baylor).

But the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU. Otherwise if Texas joins the ACC in full hell I would take Incarnate Word if it guarantees the Longhorns, those folks in Austin are truly that valuable.

Texas hasn't really hankered for independence. What they really want is the opportunity to play most of their schedule in the state of Texas. Well the ACC can give them that. Texas Tech is a bridge too far for the ACC but Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Kansas State would give them quite a bit. Then you could put N.D. to the question, "In or out?" They'd go in because they have nowhere else to go to get a special deal and the ACC offers them more of what they need.

Then ESPN can use the SEC to take the two Oklahoma's, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and W.V.U..

Both conferences move to 20 and nobody worries about the worth of a product because the ACC with UT and ND moves to 50 million per school, the SEC moves to 55, and the total cost to ESPN, including buying out the FOX half, (even if they sublet the rights back to FOX), and the remaining T3 would not top $800 million. That's 4% of the total profits of ESPN.

To sew up 40 solid programs in the largest market footprint, combined with the 1st & 3rd best viewing regions would be huge.

And quite frankly they could do it without increasing the budget if they let MNF go.

Also the cross promotion rivalry games ESPN loves to do too
04-04-2018 10:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,909
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #34
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(04-04-2018 10:07 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 04:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  Notre Dame's athletic department matches up well with the ACC.
Soccer, Lacrosse, FENCING, rowing, golf, tennis........everything but field hockey.

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  
(03-28-2018 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(03-28-2018 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  What does Texas want?
Control and positive exposure.
Where and how?
Well throwing yourself at the mercy of ESPN has worked pretty well for Texas and The ACC so far, so I would go with that for Texas' #1 strategy.
What would that entail?
The ACC adds Baylor and TCU and then offers Texas a Notre Dame type deal.
Why?
It's good for the ACC because they can then get market rate for the ACCN in Texas, and good for the SEC because the ACCN and SECN are now being sold as a pair and it would insure rate and maximum exposure for the SECN (without adding anyone) and puts pressure on Oklahoma to move to the SEC to be able to stay "connected" to Texas. Imagine an ESPN sponsored Texas vs. A&M match up that could replace Texas vs. Oklahoma if the Sooners were to move to the B1G.
Also it's good for Texas. Scheduling flexibility for 7-8 games played in Texas every year, exposure up and down the east coast with teams the Longhorns should be able to beat more often than not (unlike the SEC). And just as important to Texas, meaningful access to recruiting, especially in Florida (notice that the Big 12 no longer produces NFL talent in large numbers, if Texas is going to be nationally competitive again, they will need access to talent outside of the state of Texas).

The idea of Baylor to the ACC disgusts me, but I must admit it has a good chance of happening. Personally, I'd prefer TCU + Houston (if Texas is a partial). I'd also consider adding WVU and one other to get to 18 full members + 2 partials.

If I were the Czar of the ACC, the other would be Oklahoma 1st or Okie State 2nd or Iowa St 3rd. The SEC would then take whatever they wanted of the remaining Big 12 teams (probably OU, Kansas, Texas Tech, and Okie State/Baylor).

But the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU. Otherwise if Texas joins the ACC in full hell I would take Incarnate Word if it guarantees the Longhorns, those folks in Austin are truly that valuable.

Texas hasn't really hankered for independence. What they really want is the opportunity to play most of their schedule in the state of Texas. Well the ACC can give them that. Texas Tech is a bridge too far for the ACC but Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Kansas State would give them quite a bit. Then you could put N.D. to the question, "In or out?" They'd go in because they have nowhere else to go to get a special deal and the ACC offers them more of what they need.

Then ESPN can use the SEC to take the two Oklahoma's, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and W.V.U..

Both conferences move to 20 and nobody worries about the worth of a product because the ACC with UT and ND moves to 50 million per school, the SEC moves to 55, and the total cost to ESPN, including buying out the FOX half, (even if they sublet the rights back to FOX), and the remaining T3 would not top $800 million. That's 4% of the total profits of ESPN.

To sew up 40 solid programs in the largest market footprint, combined with the 1st & 3rd best viewing regions would be huge.

And quite frankly they could do it without increasing the budget if they let MNF go.

Also the cross promotion rivalry games ESPN loves to do too

Exactly. Texas could keep OU and pick back up A&M if they wanted to do so. Or they could alternate Tech and Aggie and keep OU annually. By breaking up Kansas and KState both conferences are represented in another end of season ACC/SEC tie up. Add WVU/Pitt to that T.C.U./Tech, etc. and the add up. Iowa / Iowa State stays as a SEC/Big 10 game and Missouri could renew with Illinois since they would have Kansas in division.
04-04-2018 10:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #35
Exclamation RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
...the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU...

...Texas Tech is a bridge too far for the ACC but Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Kansas State would give them quite a bit. Then you could put N.D. to the question, "In or out?" They'd go in because they have nowhere else to go to get a special deal and the ACC offers them more of what they need.

Then ESPN can use the SEC to take the two Oklahoma's, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and W.V.U..

Both conferences move to 20 and nobody worries about the worth of a product because the ACC with UT and ND moves to 50 million per school, the SEC moves to 55, and the total cost to ESPN, including buying out the FOX half, (even if they sublet the rights back to FOX), and the remaining T3 would not top $800 million. That's 4% of the total profits of ESPN.

To sew up 40 solid programs in the largest market footprint, combined with the 1st & 3rd best viewing regions would be huge.

And quite frankly they could do it without increasing the budget if they let MNF go.

JR, I love this scenario of yours and I hope it comes to pass, but... can't we trade Kansas State for WVU? The 'Eers have HUGE multiplier value in the ACC (vs. Pitt, VT, Syracuse, and to a lesser extent UVA, BC, Louisville, etc.). There must be some way to make that happen!?!

I'd be willing to trade Baylor for WVU if the problem is 2 teams from Kansas (which IS a problem, no doubt).
04-05-2018 02:22 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,909
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #36
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(04-05-2018 02:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU...

...Texas Tech is a bridge too far for the ACC but Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Kansas State would give them quite a bit. Then you could put N.D. to the question, "In or out?" They'd go in because they have nowhere else to go to get a special deal and the ACC offers them more of what they need.

Then ESPN can use the SEC to take the two Oklahoma's, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and W.V.U..

Both conferences move to 20 and nobody worries about the worth of a product because the ACC with UT and ND moves to 50 million per school, the SEC moves to 55, and the total cost to ESPN, including buying out the FOX half, (even if they sublet the rights back to FOX), and the remaining T3 would not top $800 million. That's 4% of the total profits of ESPN.

To sew up 40 solid programs in the largest market footprint, combined with the 1st & 3rd best viewing regions would be huge.

And quite frankly they could do it without increasing the budget if they let MNF go.

JR, I love this scenario of yours and I hope it comes to pass, but... can't we trade Kansas State for WVU? The 'Eers have HUGE multiplier value in the ACC (vs. Pitt, VT, Syracuse, and to a lesser extent UVA, BC, Louisville, etc.). There must be some way to make that happen!?!

I'd be willing to trade Baylor for WVU if the problem is 2 teams from Kansas (which IS a problem, no doubt).

Hey, I'm not exactly hot for WVU, but the issue for the SEC is divisional balance.

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

We won't take 3 from a state under these circumstances and Texas will insist on a division of friendly faces if they head to the ACC. So it just breaks that way.

Anyway I hope ESPN sees the same merit in it that we do.
04-05-2018 03:21 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: #37
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(04-05-2018 03:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-05-2018 02:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU...

...Texas Tech is a bridge too far for the ACC but Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Kansas State would give them quite a bit. Then you could put N.D. to the question, "In or out?" They'd go in because they have nowhere else to go to get a special deal and the ACC offers them more of what they need.

Then ESPN can use the SEC to take the two Oklahoma's, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and W.V.U..

Both conferences move to 20 and nobody worries about the worth of a product because the ACC with UT and ND moves to 50 million per school, the SEC moves to 55, and the total cost to ESPN, including buying out the FOX half, (even if they sublet the rights back to FOX), and the remaining T3 would not top $800 million. That's 4% of the total profits of ESPN.

To sew up 40 solid programs in the largest market footprint, combined with the 1st & 3rd best viewing regions would be huge.

And quite frankly they could do it without increasing the budget if they let MNF go.

JR, I love this scenario of yours and I hope it comes to pass, but... can't we trade Kansas State for WVU? The 'Eers have HUGE multiplier value in the ACC (vs. Pitt, VT, Syracuse, and to a lesser extent UVA, BC, Louisville, etc.). There must be some way to make that happen!?!

I'd be willing to trade Baylor for WVU if the problem is 2 teams from Kansas (which IS a problem, no doubt).

Hey, I'm not exactly hot for WVU, but the issue for the SEC is divisional balance.

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

We won't take 3 from a state under these circumstances and Texas will insist on a division of friendly faces if they head to the ACC. So it just breaks that way.

Anyway I hope ESPN sees the same merit in it that we do.

How about this:
WVU, Oklahoma State, TCU and Texas to the ACC
Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech to the SEC

Partial ACC member: Notre Dame
Without a seat: Baylor, Kansas State

That leaves the 2 least valuable Big XII teams without a seat (sorry guys), but assuming the lawyers can work it out I think this is the best-case scenario for both the ACC and SEC:
- ACC gets WVU plus 3 teams in the Oklahoma/Texas area
- SEC ends up with 3 teams in that area too, plus 2 AAU schools

If/when the Big Ten admits they are never going to get the Irish and they agree to a champs-only playoff, the ACC would add Notre Dame and Kansas State (or even a top G5 team), and SEC would have the option to stay where they are (or conversely, the SEC could add the last 2 Big XII teams while the ACC takes ND + a top G5).
04-05-2018 09:26 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #38
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(04-05-2018 03:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-05-2018 02:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU...

...Texas Tech is a bridge too far for the ACC but Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Kansas State would give them quite a bit. Then you could put N.D. to the question, "In or out?" They'd go in because they have nowhere else to go to get a special deal and the ACC offers them more of what they need.

Then ESPN can use the SEC to take the two Oklahoma's, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and W.V.U..

Both conferences move to 20 and nobody worries about the worth of a product because the ACC with UT and ND moves to 50 million per school, the SEC moves to 55, and the total cost to ESPN, including buying out the FOX half, (even if they sublet the rights back to FOX), and the remaining T3 would not top $800 million. That's 4% of the total profits of ESPN.

To sew up 40 solid programs in the largest market footprint, combined with the 1st & 3rd best viewing regions would be huge.

And quite frankly they could do it without increasing the budget if they let MNF go.

JR, I love this scenario of yours and I hope it comes to pass, but... can't we trade Kansas State for WVU? The 'Eers have HUGE multiplier value in the ACC (vs. Pitt, VT, Syracuse, and to a lesser extent UVA, BC, Louisville, etc.). There must be some way to make that happen!?!

I'd be willing to trade Baylor for WVU if the problem is 2 teams from Kansas (which IS a problem, no doubt).

Hey, I'm not exactly hot for WVU, but the issue for the SEC is divisional balance.

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

We won't take 3 from a state under these circumstances and Texas will insist on a division of friendly faces if they head to the ACC. So it just breaks that way.

Anyway I hope ESPN sees the same merit in it that we do.

I don't mind this arrangement (though I think getting KY-TN in the same division with Vandy might be a better overall setup). I do think that WVU is worth more in the ACC than in the SEC. And honestly I don't know what value KSU would bring after Snyder anyway. (No offense meant to KSU fans, I really am saying "I don't know"). So what if the ACC took WVU instead of KSU and the SEC took USF? KSU could land in the AAC or the MWC and be okay-ish, or even wind up with the NY6 bowl most years due to their advantages. If they convince a conference to unbalanced pay/etc. (ala the WCC to keep Gonzaga), they could make decent money (not the $50 mil range but maybe 15-20 mil with NCAA credits/etc, maybe.)

I know the SEC wouldn't normally take a G5 school, but USF has pretty good research and would give the school a second Florida team without taking from the ACC. They also have some (short) history, reaching #2 in the nation in the old Big East. They also have 50,000+ students, etc.

Just a thought. If the the networks want to maximize value, then WVU to the ACC does make some sense.
04-05-2018 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Grassy Nole Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 164
Joined: Apr 2018
Reputation: 45
I Root For: FSU & Ohio U
Location: The Aug
Post: #39
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(04-05-2018 02:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU...

...Texas Tech is a bridge too far for the ACC but Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Kansas State would give them quite a bit. Then you could put N.D. to the question, "In or out?" They'd go in because they have nowhere else to go to get a special deal and the ACC offers them more of what they need.

Then ESPN can use the SEC to take the two Oklahoma's, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and W.V.U..

Both conferences move to 20 and nobody worries about the worth of a product because the ACC with UT and ND moves to 50 million per school, the SEC moves to 55, and the total cost to ESPN, including buying out the FOX half, (even if they sublet the rights back to FOX), and the remaining T3 would not top $800 million. That's 4% of the total profits of ESPN.

To sew up 40 solid programs in the largest market footprint, combined with the 1st & 3rd best viewing regions would be huge.

And quite frankly they could do it without increasing the budget if they let MNF go.

JR, I love this scenario of yours and I hope it comes to pass, but... can't we trade Kansas State for WVU? The 'Eers have HUGE multiplier value in the ACC (vs. Pitt, VT, Syracuse, and to a lesser extent UVA, BC, Louisville, etc.). There must be some way to make that happen!?!

I'd be willing to trade Baylor for WVU if the problem is 2 teams from Kansas (which IS a problem, no doubt).

Although TCU would be nice, I am pretty sure Texas and OU being in the same conference would be a teensy bit better for the ACC (a man can dream). Otherwise for Texas rivalries, I feel that Texas vs A&M will probably become an annual rivalry game again (ESPN will demand it), and we all know that OU will never give up the Red River Shootout with Texas either. There is too much "must see TV" potential for ESPN here and they WILL maximize this. I am sure if it was up to ESPN they would put WVU in the ACC (to renew a ton of rivalries), have Texas in the SEC with OU (for a bunch of rivalries), and ND goes all in to the ACC. Realign the ACC into two "Leagues\Divisions" of old ACC and Big East.
04-05-2018 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,909
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #40
RE: T.C.U. AD Says About the Future of the Big 12, "There Are No Guarantees."
(04-05-2018 10:56 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(04-05-2018 03:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-05-2018 02:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...the ideal for the ACC would be: Texas, TCU, WVU and any 4th Big XII team except Texas Tech (too far). If Texas/OU ends up being another ACC/SEC rivalry, all the better.

(04-04-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:09 PM)The Grassy Nole Wrote:  Yeah I am not a huge fan of it either but honestly I can see the ACC picking Baylor up over TCU...

...Texas Tech is a bridge too far for the ACC but Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Kansas State would give them quite a bit. Then you could put N.D. to the question, "In or out?" They'd go in because they have nowhere else to go to get a special deal and the ACC offers them more of what they need.

Then ESPN can use the SEC to take the two Oklahoma's, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech and W.V.U..

Both conferences move to 20 and nobody worries about the worth of a product because the ACC with UT and ND moves to 50 million per school, the SEC moves to 55, and the total cost to ESPN, including buying out the FOX half, (even if they sublet the rights back to FOX), and the remaining T3 would not top $800 million. That's 4% of the total profits of ESPN.

To sew up 40 solid programs in the largest market footprint, combined with the 1st & 3rd best viewing regions would be huge.

And quite frankly they could do it without increasing the budget if they let MNF go.

JR, I love this scenario of yours and I hope it comes to pass, but... can't we trade Kansas State for WVU? The 'Eers have HUGE multiplier value in the ACC (vs. Pitt, VT, Syracuse, and to a lesser extent UVA, BC, Louisville, etc.). There must be some way to make that happen!?!

I'd be willing to trade Baylor for WVU if the problem is 2 teams from Kansas (which IS a problem, no doubt).

Hey, I'm not exactly hot for WVU, but the issue for the SEC is divisional balance.

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

We won't take 3 from a state under these circumstances and Texas will insist on a division of friendly faces if they head to the ACC. So it just breaks that way.

Anyway I hope ESPN sees the same merit in it that we do.

I don't mind this arrangement (though I think getting KY-TN in the same division with Vandy might be a better overall setup). I do think that WVU is worth more in the ACC than in the SEC. And honestly I don't know what value KSU would bring after Snyder anyway. (No offense meant to KSU fans, I really am saying "I don't know"). So what if the ACC took WVU instead of KSU and the SEC took USF? KSU could land in the AAC or the MWC and be okay-ish, or even wind up with the NY6 bowl most years due to their advantages. If they convince a conference to unbalanced pay/etc. (ala the WCC to keep Gonzaga), they could make decent money (not the $50 mil range but maybe 15-20 mil with NCAA credits/etc, maybe.)

I know the SEC wouldn't normally take a G5 school, but USF has pretty good research and would give the school a second Florida team without taking from the ACC. They also have some (short) history, reaching #2 in the nation in the old Big East. They also have 50,000+ students, etc.

Just a thought. If the the networks want to maximize value, then WVU to the ACC does make some sense.

I agree that USF will eventually have a big upside and that the SEC should keep an eye on them. But, as many of these threads are want to do the premise of what is being discussed was lost a few pages back. The concept being discussed has to do with ESPN absorbing all of the Big 12 between the ACC and SEC so that it could be moved prior to the expiration of the GOR so the placement of Kansas State, Baylor, and Iowa State is assumed here for the purposes of the speculation.

As to Hokie Marks suggestions of having Oklahoma State head to the ACC with Texas, that is probably the most detrimental thing that Oklahoma could experience schedule wise. They need to have either Texas or Oklahoma State with them in order to keep playing both regularly as they do not want them both as OOC games. So if the ACC wants Texas and the SEC wants Oklahoma in this scenario then Okie State needs to stay with the Sooners. That's why I placed KState in the ACC in my scenario. Snyder and Texas have always had good relations and Texas needed another regional school in its division and if Texas Tech is too far for the ACC schools then KState has to be it.
04-05-2018 11:33 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.