Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,347
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-13-2017 03:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Guessing you're thinking next to the Events Center?

What about south of the track? Lot of swampy looking land down there ... though don't think University owns much south of track throwing area.

No there isn't enough room by the Stephens Center and it is very hilly. If you look at the Jack Stephens Center there is the big parking lot and then a long narrow parking lot connected by a sidewalk. That long narrow lot is cut into a hill and the sidewalk going down to the creek is actually steps and sloped sidewalk.

Way too hilly there only way to have room would be to relocate the Cooperative Extension building and US Ag Marketing Service Building. That would be uber expensive.

South of the Coleman Sports Complex (soccer and track), just south of campus, is the only viable spot for football office and practice complex, currently tabbed for baseball.

After that you are looking a Curren-Conway Field which is a city park and the city has rebuffed any efforts to turn it over to UALR beyond letting UALR trade upkeep of the baseball field for use of the facility.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 04:11 PM by arkstfan.)
07-13-2017 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,347
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-13-2017 03:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 03:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 01:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  arkst, thanks for the input.

Your argument about there being so many other higher-ed options in Ark for students to choose if they want football, could also be turned around and used by UALR to push football. "We have to stay competitive in the Arkansas market, and we can no longer offer football as part of our student experience with Arkansas no longer playing a home game in Little Rock."

But -- what this ultimately boils down to, anyway -- money doesn't grow on trees.

Absolutely could argue that and argue that the lack of football is why there is so little interest in spending $35 to purchase a UALR logo license plate from the state.

Unless they plan to do this half-cocked they need an absolute minimum of $15 million in capital improvements and to do it right more like $25 million and it also means their baseball team stays at a city ballfield the school pays to maintain (city of Little Rock gives nothing away) that is the 10th, 11th, or 12th worst baseball facility in the Sun Belt depending on who you ask because the only place to build a football practice facility, offices and weight rooms is where they planned to build the baseball field.

I feel much more confident in the ability to get the capital funds raised than the operating funds.


Little Rock U. already raised money for improvements on their sports teams that they do have. If more Sugar Daddy's aka wealthy local business leaders, they could raised the funds. Montana State - Billings got a sugar daddy who donated money for the school to add football, but the school needs more. The sugar daddy donated after the school announced that they will not add the sport. But, the donation would be a start. As for the Parks? If they helped paid for the feasibility study? That could mean that the stadium will be used for free with sharing of profits. Profits from tickets, parking, food, you name it.

There is a problem with the use free option.

The whole reason Parks and Tourism and the City are involved is to try to salvage some revenue.

If the City gives up parking revenue they've defeated their purpose. If Parks and Tourism gives up rent and concessions they've defeated their purpose.

USA has a very favorable deal with the city of Mobile but they are looking to build their own facility.
07-13-2017 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,669
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 130
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-12-2017 12:41 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UALR to me seems more suited for the Southland than Sun Belt.

Agree, the finances presented in this thread definitely argue for FCS, if not for D-2, if they intend to sponsor football.
07-13-2017 04:29 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: #64
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-13-2017 04:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  South of the Coleman Sports Complex (soccer and track), just south of campus, is the only viable spot for football office and practice complex, currently tabbed for baseball.

There would seem to be plenty of land to the sound of that, for both a new baseball stadium and a new football practice facility, if the school bought some more of the open land.
07-13-2017 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,347
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #65
Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-13-2017 04:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 04:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  South of the Coleman Sports Complex (soccer and track), just south of campus, is the only viable spot for football office and practice complex, currently tabbed for baseball.

There would seem to be plenty of land to the sound of that, for both a new baseball stadium and a new football practice facility, if the school bought some more of the open land.

Coleman family donated what they have there where when they sold Coleman Dairy. If you are an NFL fan you may have heard of referee Walt Coleman. Not sure how obtainable some of that land is.
07-13-2017 05:29 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: #66
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
Well, until and unless UALR decides to get much more serious about football ... I would go ahead and build the baseball stadium there, if that's already been planned out.

At this point, can only wait and see what the consultants say ... and that's usually what they're paid to say.
07-13-2017 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,865
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 435
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #67
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-13-2017 04:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 03:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 03:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 01:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  arkst, thanks for the input.

Your argument about there being so many other higher-ed options in Ark for students to choose if they want football, could also be turned around and used by UALR to push football. "We have to stay competitive in the Arkansas market, and we can no longer offer football as part of our student experience with Arkansas no longer playing a home game in Little Rock."

But -- what this ultimately boils down to, anyway -- money doesn't grow on trees.

Absolutely could argue that and argue that the lack of football is why there is so little interest in spending $35 to purchase a UALR logo license plate from the state.

Unless they plan to do this half-cocked they need an absolute minimum of $15 million in capital improvements and to do it right more like $25 million and it also means their baseball team stays at a city ballfield the school pays to maintain (city of Little Rock gives nothing away) that is the 10th, 11th, or 12th worst baseball facility in the Sun Belt depending on who you ask because the only place to build a football practice facility, offices and weight rooms is where they planned to build the baseball field.

I feel much more confident in the ability to get the capital funds raised than the operating funds.


Little Rock U. already raised money for improvements on their sports teams that they do have. If more Sugar Daddy's aka wealthy local business leaders, they could raised the funds. Montana State - Billings got a sugar daddy who donated money for the school to add football, but the school needs more. The sugar daddy donated after the school announced that they will not add the sport. But, the donation would be a start. As for the Parks? If they helped paid for the feasibility study? That could mean that the stadium will be used for free with sharing of profits. Profits from tickets, parking, food, you name it.

There is a problem with the use free option.

The whole reason Parks and Tourism and the City are involved is to try to salvage some revenue.

If the City gives up parking revenue they've defeated their purpose. If Parks and Tourism gives up rent and concessions they've defeated their purpose.

USA has a very favorable deal with the city of Mobile but they are looking to build their own facility.

Yep, USA basically gets a FBS stadium (a dumpy one but a large one) for zero capital outlays and for negligible rent. Its a really nice deal for USA.

The real issue for Little Rock is the same as it was for the City of Mobile...what do you do to keep up a stadium that has few uses? Mobile decided...okay, lets get something from USA and at least use the facility for more than two bowl games, a concert or two a year, and some high school games. Perhaps Little Rock could look at it this way....they're paying to maintain the stadium anyway, might as well get some use for the investment. Otherwise, they can just tear the stadium down, I suppose. Cities HATE removing infrastructure. But empty stadiums are almost as expensive as keeping them maintained.

I don't think LR should make the jump. USA has more money and fewer substitutes than Little Rock. And a lot more students. And its been somewhat of a struggle for us. I don't think that if USA only had 11k students, they'd be able to really swing it. Coastal is trying it at that level. But they've already invested in football as a FCS.

Greenfields are different. Fan support and donor support takes time to develop. Moveups have an easier time of it than greenfields. At least the moveups have some infrastructure and programs in place.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 09:19 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
07-13-2017 09:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 113
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
Little Rock does have their old stadium that they used when they were a junior college. I think the field is being used for the soccer team.
07-14-2017 02:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,347
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-14-2017 02:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Little Rock does have their old stadium that they used when they were a junior college. I think the field is being used for the soccer team.

Unless you've got some info I've never heard, they played at stadiums owned and still used by Little Rock School District. Scott Field and Quigley Field.
07-14-2017 09:12 AM
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: #70
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-13-2017 09:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I don't think LR should make the jump. USA has more money and fewer substitutes than Little Rock. And a lot more students. And its been somewhat of a struggle for us. I don't think that if USA only had 11k students, they'd be able to really swing it. Coastal is trying it at that level. But they've already invested in football as a FCS.

11k to 16k students makes all the difference?

I really don't see UALR situation being all that (any?) different than USA pre-football.
07-14-2017 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,549
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 72
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-14-2017 09:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 09:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I don't think LR should make the jump. USA has more money and fewer substitutes than Little Rock. And a lot more students. And its been somewhat of a struggle for us. I don't think that if USA only had 11k students, they'd be able to really swing it. Coastal is trying it at that level. But they've already invested in football as a FCS.

11k to 16k students makes all the difference?

I really don't see UALR situation being all that (any?) different than USA pre-football.

It's also a commuter school. A residential school (where most of the students live >50 miles away from home) typically gets double, treble or quadruple the support. Also schools closer to 50-50 men to women do better. The key number is less than 4,000 undergrad males - and the large majority are commuters. (Grad students are not much of a fan base, pretty much zero, many night students)

It's a much smaller school for athletics than it appears on the surface.
07-14-2017 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,865
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 435
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #72
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-14-2017 09:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 09:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I don't think LR should make the jump. USA has more money and fewer substitutes than Little Rock. And a lot more students. And its been somewhat of a struggle for us. I don't think that if USA only had 11k students, they'd be able to really swing it. Coastal is trying it at that level. But they've already invested in football as a FCS.

11k to 16k students makes all the difference?

I really don't see UALR situation being all that (any?) different than USA pre-football.

Yes, when you're using a lot of student fees to finance your football program, and UALR will be doing exactly that, having a THIRD fewer students to spread that cost around is really important.

That's why schools like Georgia State and Texas State have a lot more flexibility. They have tons of students.
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2017 10:36 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
07-14-2017 10:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 113
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-14-2017 09:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 02:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Little Rock does have their old stadium that they used when they were a junior college. I think the field is being used for the soccer team.

Unless you've got some info I've never heard, they played at stadiums owned and still used by Little Rock School District. Scott Field and Quigley Field.


They may have torn it down, but if I remember right, back in the 1980s when I visited my uncle for Christmas. I went by the old stadium. It was an old stadium used for other sports, but not used for big things.
07-14-2017 11:22 AM
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: #74
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-14-2017 10:10 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's also a commuter school. A residential school (where most of the students live >50 miles away from home) typically gets double, treble or quadruple the support.

Students pay tuition/fees regardless if they "cash in" on their free tickets to games. Major schools make students pay for tickets on top of their tuition/fees (like Minnesota), but we're not talking about that with UALR or USA.

So if the students are all paying, and less are showing up, that's just more general admission tickets to sell to the public.


(07-14-2017 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yes, when you're using a lot of student fees to finance your football program, and UALR will be doing exactly that, having a THIRD fewer students to spread that cost around is really important.

That's why schools like Georgia State and Texas State have a lot more flexibility. They have tons of students.

This argument would work if something like 15k students was a floor for making it work. But nothing says it can't also work just fine with 10k students, so long as students will continue to enroll at the school paying a bit higher of tuition/fees.

Would UALR be the lowest enrollment public school in FBS? The answer to the is no. I'll let you take one big, giant guess as to a school from their own conference that is smaller ...
07-14-2017 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 113
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-14-2017 03:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 10:10 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's also a commuter school. A residential school (where most of the students live >50 miles away from home) typically gets double, treble or quadruple the support.

Students pay tuition/fees regardless if they "cash in" on their free tickets to games. Major schools make students pay for tickets on top of their tuition/fees (like Minnesota), but we're not talking about that with UALR or USA.

So if the students are all paying, and less are showing up, that's just more general admission tickets to sell to the public.


(07-14-2017 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yes, when you're using a lot of student fees to finance your football program, and UALR will be doing exactly that, having a THIRD fewer students to spread that cost around is really important.

That's why schools like Georgia State and Texas State have a lot more flexibility. They have tons of students.

This argument would work if something like 15k students was a floor for making it work. But nothing says it can't also work just fine with 10k students, so long as students will continue to enroll at the school paying a bit higher of tuition/fees.

Would UALR be the lowest enrollment public school in FBS? The answer to the is no. I'll let you take one big, giant guess as to a school from their own conference that is smaller ...

Tulsa and Wake Forest seems to be smaller. Rice is also down there as well.

http://www.tulsahurricane.com/news/2017/...dings.aspx

Quote:Tulsa has the smallest enrollment of all American Athletic Conference schools and is also the smallest FBS school in the nation.
07-14-2017 03:33 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: #76
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
But those are private schools, with huge tuitions and so rich kids who can afford to pay big fees.

That's why I specifically said public.
07-14-2017 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,376
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-14-2017 03:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 10:10 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's also a commuter school. A residential school (where most of the students live >50 miles away from home) typically gets double, treble or quadruple the support.

Students pay tuition/fees regardless if they "cash in" on their free tickets to games. Major schools make students pay for tickets on top of their tuition/fees (like Minnesota), but we're not talking about that with UALR or USA.

So if the students are all paying, and less are showing up, that's just more general admission tickets to sell to the public.


(07-14-2017 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yes, when you're using a lot of student fees to finance your football program, and UALR will be doing exactly that, having a THIRD fewer students to spread that cost around is really important.

That's why schools like Georgia State and Texas State have a lot more flexibility. They have tons of students.

This argument would work if something like 15k students was a floor for making it work. But nothing says it can't also work just fine with 10k students, so long as students will continue to enroll at the school paying a bit higher of tuition/fees.

Would UALR be the lowest enrollment public school in FBS? The answer to the is no. I'll let you take one big, giant guess as to a school from their own conference that is smaller ...

Being larger than the smallest public (both in enrollment and budget) in FBS is not a ringing endorsement to move up. A better argument would be that school is more suited to FCS 07-coffee3
07-14-2017 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,347
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-14-2017 03:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 10:10 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's also a commuter school. A residential school (where most of the students live >50 miles away from home) typically gets double, treble or quadruple the support.

Students pay tuition/fees regardless if they "cash in" on their free tickets to games. Major schools make students pay for tickets on top of their tuition/fees (like Minnesota), but we're not talking about that with UALR or USA.

So if the students are all paying, and less are showing up, that's just more general admission tickets to sell to the public.


(07-14-2017 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yes, when you're using a lot of student fees to finance your football program, and UALR will be doing exactly that, having a THIRD fewer students to spread that cost around is really important.

That's why schools like Georgia State and Texas State have a lot more flexibility. They have tons of students.

This argument would work if something like 15k students was a floor for making it work. But nothing says it can't also work just fine with 10k students, so long as students will continue to enroll at the school paying a bit higher of tuition/fees.

Would UALR be the lowest enrollment public school in FBS? The answer to the is no. I'll let you take one big, giant guess as to a school from their own conference that is smaller ...

And has the lowest budget in FBS and has an all-time losing record in conference play in all their team sports.
07-14-2017 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,865
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 435
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #79
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-14-2017 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 03:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 10:10 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's also a commuter school. A residential school (where most of the students live >50 miles away from home) typically gets double, treble or quadruple the support.

Students pay tuition/fees regardless if they "cash in" on their free tickets to games. Major schools make students pay for tickets on top of their tuition/fees (like Minnesota), but we're not talking about that with UALR or USA.

So if the students are all paying, and less are showing up, that's just more general admission tickets to sell to the public.


(07-14-2017 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yes, when you're using a lot of student fees to finance your football program, and UALR will be doing exactly that, having a THIRD fewer students to spread that cost around is really important.

That's why schools like Georgia State and Texas State have a lot more flexibility. They have tons of students.

This argument would work if something like 15k students was a floor for making it work. But nothing says it can't also work just fine with 10k students, so long as students will continue to enroll at the school paying a bit higher of tuition/fees.

Would UALR be the lowest enrollment public school in FBS? The answer to the is no. I'll let you take one big, giant guess as to a school from their own conference that is smaller ...


And has the lowest budget in FBS and has an all-time losing record in conference play in all their team sports.

But that school also had been playing football at the FCS level, with some success, for decades prior to moving up. They at least had some history.

By the way, no way they'd start a football program as a greenfield program now.

Starting a greenfield program is much, much, much harder than moving up from FCS. No alumni have any experience going to games. They're are no community links. It takes decades to build that.

BTW, if UTA were making this move, I'd be far less concerned. While there's a lot of competition, having 40,000 students can make up for a lot.
(This post was last modified: 07-15-2017 12:19 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
07-15-2017 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 113
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Arkansas Little Rock Football / Marching Band Study
(07-15-2017 12:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 03:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 10:10 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's also a commuter school. A residential school (where most of the students live >50 miles away from home) typically gets double, treble or quadruple the support.

Students pay tuition/fees regardless if they "cash in" on their free tickets to games. Major schools make students pay for tickets on top of their tuition/fees (like Minnesota), but we're not talking about that with UALR or USA.

So if the students are all paying, and less are showing up, that's just more general admission tickets to sell to the public.


(07-14-2017 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yes, when you're using a lot of student fees to finance your football program, and UALR will be doing exactly that, having a THIRD fewer students to spread that cost around is really important.

That's why schools like Georgia State and Texas State have a lot more flexibility. They have tons of students.

This argument would work if something like 15k students was a floor for making it work. But nothing says it can't also work just fine with 10k students, so long as students will continue to enroll at the school paying a bit higher of tuition/fees.

Would UALR be the lowest enrollment public school in FBS? The answer to the is no. I'll let you take one big, giant guess as to a school from their own conference that is smaller ...


And has the lowest budget in FBS and has an all-time losing record in conference play in all their team sports.

But that school also had been playing football at the FCS level, with some success, for decades prior to moving up. They at least had some history.

By the way, no way they'd start a football program as a greenfield program now.

Starting a greenfield program is much, much, much harder than moving up from FCS. No alumni have any experience going to games. They're are no community links. It takes decades to build that.

BTW, if UTA were making this move, I'd be far less concerned. While there's a lot of competition, having 40,000 students can make up for a lot.

UALR did field a football team. They won the 1949 Little Rose Bowl in Pasadena. There could be some alumni still alive remembering those days.
07-15-2017 03:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.