REALIGNMENT MOCK DRAFT .:. ON THE CLOCK: Big South (R2, #12), AAC (R1, #8) [pending trade approval], Big12 (R1, #11)

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,164
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #61
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-31-2019 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-31-2019 09:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  I'm not suggesting conferences will go away, I'm suggesting the heavyweights will demand the lion's share eventually. I think the model will change and the payments will be based on what the individual school brings to the table rather than the conference as a whole.

The media rights for the top European soccer leagues are negotiated as a league package, but the money isn't divided evenly among each league's teams. The clubs with the biggest brand names end up with larger shares than the clubs at the middle or bottom of the table.

That could be a model for a conference to divide its football media rights, maybe with the split being like that in the Premier League, with larger or smaller shares going to a team based on where it finishes in the league standings.

Expanding on what you are saying, the Premier League revenue sharing has three components - a base amount that everyone gets, and then differences based on (a) league finish, and (b) TV appearances.

E.g., last year, every PL team got a base minimum of E80m (80 million Euros, or about $92m).

But, there were significant differences based on standings and TV. Each position in the standings was worth another E1.3m cumulative, so e.g. the 20th/last place finisher got 1.3 million euros, the 19th place received 2.6m, the 18th place 3.9m, etc up to the winner, who got 26 million Euros, all in addition to that base of 80 million Euros.

Finally, TV appearances, which are decided by the TV partners using their own criteria, adds more. All clubs got a base 12 million Euros for TV, and that was the amount you got if you appeared on TV ten times or less. But for each appearance on TV above ten, you got an extra 1.1 million Euros. E.g., Manchester United appeared on TV 28 times, so got about 32 million Euros in TV money - the base 12m and then 1.1m x 18 TV appearances.

All told, Manchester City got about 150 million Euros, because they won the PL and also appeared on TV almost 30 times, whereas the last place team walked away with 94 million Euros because they received just the 92 million base plus another 1.3 million for their last place finish.

Personally, I like the split between league finish and TV because they reward two valuable things. League finish rewards your performance on the field, whereas TV rewards a club's enduring brand value, the brand value as reflected in TV interest that they have built over the years, regardless of their present year performance.
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2019 10:05 PM by quo vadis.)
05-31-2019 09:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 18
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:07 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Per a UConn Twitter account:

Quote:AAC commissioner Mike Aresco states on @Sports56WHBQ the league will look at changing from two divisions to having the two top rated teams play for the conference title. Aresco also notes the league favors expanded CFP, adding a contract bowl, and more

https://twitter.com/uconnfbfacts/status/...17219?s=12

They can’t do that without requiring the CCG rules to be revised, right? My recollection is that when the Big XII got its revision it said that a league can only have no divisions AND a CCG if you have fewer than 12 teams and you play a round robin schedule, 12 or more teams require divisions.

The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).

Man, that rule is so goofy. Applying it to all conferences is, anyway. It makes no sense to allow for accountable cross-divisional play without also allowing at least some conferences to opt-out of divisions if they like. No divided conference wants to discount cross-division games, apparently, and so the two-division requirement for an exempt CG leaves some in a very awkward position.

Take the Pac-12, for instance. The 9-game conference schedule of any given Pac team must be 78% balanced with the respective conference schedules of at least three other teams in the same division. (Six common opponents plus each other/9.) 78% is the lowest possible level of balance between the conference schedules of any two Pac divisional teams and, as it is not exceeded by every pair of divisional teams, 78% is the benchmark by which the Pac deems it acceptable to judge/place any two divisional teams against one another.

Thing is, 9 conference games per team means that the conference schedules of any two Pac cross-divisional teams must also be at least 78% balanced, which leaves the divisions themselves groundless. Since the division benchmark is met by every pair of teams conference-wide, the entire Pac-12 can be sorted top to bottom as one whole just as readily as its divisions are sorted. At times, the very test the Pac uses to verify a team as the most deserving one in its division also verifies that it is not one of the two most deserving teams in the conference.

If the Pac-12 wants to use divisions, fine, but it shouldn't have to.

The Sun Belt is in the same boat. The conference schedules of all ten SB teams must be 88% balanced with each of their division mates,' and yet, with eight games apiece, the schedules of any two SB cross-divisional teams must be at least 88% balanced. Consider this: The schedules of two SB cross-divisional teams are, on average, more balanced than the schedules of two SB divisional teams – 90% vs 88%.

If the Sun Belt wants to use divisions, fine, but it shouldn't have to.

The AAC, MAC and MWC also do not justify the use of divisions relative to their division benchmarks. They could (barely) but they haven't arranged cross-division schedules the way they would need to. As things are, there is always at least one pair of teams in each division of those conferences with schedules that are only 63% balanced – the lowest possible level of commonality between the schedules of any two teams in those conferences.

But the AAC, MAC and MWC shouldn't have to disrupt scheduling to justify mandated divisions; just let 'em get rid of divisions if they want.

It's good to hear that the AAC is thinking about divisionlessness. Get that rule changed, Aresco, make it happen!


[Image: FSlEfg5.gif]



EDIT: Here's how the numbers would look for each conference compared to today. Notice that there isn't much difference for the 12-member conferences, practically none at all for the Pac. And, of course, the Sun Belt's numbers would be improved.

Min possible number of common games between two intra-divisional teams (common opponents plus each other, where applicable)—

Avg number of common games between two intra-divisional teams—

Rnd avg percentage of commonality between the schedules of two intra-divisional teams


Sun Belt (10 teams, 8 games)

1 div: 7 — 7.11 — 89%
2 div: 7 — 7.00 — 88%

AAC, MAC, MWC (12 teams, 8 games)

1 div: 5 — 5.82 — 73%
2 div: 5 — 6.20 — 78%

Pac-12 (12 teams, 9 games)

1 div: 7 — 7.36 — 82%
2 div: 7 — 7.40 — 82%

ACC, C-USA, SEC (14 teams, 8 games)

1 div: 3 — 4.92 — 62%
2 div: 6 — 6.33 — 79%

Big Ten (14 teams, 9 games)

1 div: 5 — 6.23 — 69%
2 div: 6 — 7.00 — 78%
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019 01:17 AM by chester.)
06-11-2019 12:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,853
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 556
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #63
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-11-2019 12:52 AM)chester Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).

Man, that rule is so goofy. Applying it to all conferences is, anyway. It makes no sense to allow for accountable cross-divisional play without also allowing at least some conferences to opt-out of divisions if they like. No divided conference wants to discount cross-division games, apparently, and so the two-division requirement for an exempt CG leaves some in a very awkward position.

The origin of the rule is a large conference (in I-AA, now FCS) wanting to have two divisions and a CCG. The round-robin limitation, for a conference with divisions, ensures that the divisions are meaningful. A random assignment of teams that didn't all play each other into divisions would not be meaningful, and might even be manipulated to try and make a certain CCG matchup more likely.

Your beef is not with that part of it, it's with the requirement that divisions are required at all (in conferences >10 teams) as a prerequisite for staging a CCG. That particular wrinkle in the rule was insisted upon by the Big Ten as a condition of allowing a rule change that permits conferences with ≤ 10 teams (mainly the Big 12) to stage a CCG without divisions.

My guess is that the rule as it stands now won't be changed, and that the Big Ten won't be the only conference that wants to leave the rule as is.
06-11-2019 01:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 18
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-11-2019 01:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The origin of the rule is a large conference (in I-AA, now FCS) wanting to have two divisions and a CCG. The round-robin limitation, for a conference with divisions, ensures that the divisions are meaningful. A random assignment of teams that didn't all play each other into divisions would not be meaningful, and might even be manipulated to try and make a certain CCG matchup more likely.

Your beef is not with that part of it, it's with the requirement that divisions are required at all (in conferences >10 teams) as a prerequisite for staging a CCG. That particular wrinkle in the rule was insisted upon by the Big Ten as a condition of allowing a rule change that permits conferences with ≤ 10 teams (mainly the Big 12) to stage a CCG without divisions.

My guess is that the rule as it stands now won't be changed, and that the Big Ten won't be the only conference that wants to leave the rule as is.

If memory serves, it was a 14-member DII conference that drafted the original legislation back in the 80's. That original draft was amended to benefit some particular 12-member conference before it came up for a vote.

I forget now which two conferences those were, but I do recall that teams in the 12-member conference played only 7 conference games apiece. A 12-member conference with 7 accountable games per team can justify the use of divisions. Of course, it would still run the risk of imbalanced cross-division schedules unfairly effecting the outcome of division races, and it would still face the possibility of imbalanced divisions, but it would not face the particular problem that I mentioned above.

I just think it's a shame that the people who drafted that legislation back then, the people who passed it, and the people who runs things now didn't and don't put a little more thought into the rule.

My team's conference, the SEC, used what I consider to be arbitrary divisions for 20 years. Blech. It still annoys me when I think about it and I'm still annoyed that the SEC played a part in blocking the ACC's effort to deregulate CCGs awhile back. Ah, well...
06-11-2019 02:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,992
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
Anyone know what the consequence would be for breaking the current CCG rule? What if the AAC simply played its regular season, that didn't necessarily include divisional round-robin schedules for everyone, and then staged an awesome CCG against its two best teams?
06-11-2019 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 663
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 36
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
This would be a return to the old SEC way of doing business.

The B10 opposed the ACC because they didn't want to see ND in any ACC title game format and because they were still pissed at counter overtures made to B10's little brothers.

Support for the current rule comes from certain schools in very weak conference divisions. Winning the B10 west is one thing, finishing first or second in the B10 after having to play OSU, UM, Wisky, Nebraska, and Iowa is something else.

Same issue in the SEC East and ACC Coastal.

The logical counter argument is to allow a semi-final based on three division of 4, 5, or 6

Example

B10 East - Rutgers, PSU, MD, Ohio State, Indiana
B10 Central - UM, MSU, Purdue, NW, Ilinois
B10 West - Minn, Iowa, Wisky, Nebraska (Kansas or Colorado)

ACC North - ND, BC, Pitt, Syr, Miami
ACC Central - VT, UVa, Duke, NCSU, UNC
ACC South - Louisville, GT, WF, Clemson, FSU

SEC East - UK, UT, SC, UGa, Florida
SEC Central - Bama, Auburn, Vandy, Ole Miss, MSU
SEC West LSU, Arkansas, Mizzou, TAMU, Ok State

P12 East - Texas, TCU, TT, OU,( Kansas or Colorado)
P12 South - Arizona, ASU, USC, Utah, Cal
P12 North - Stanford, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU



Hypothetical Semi Finals

OSU/PSU, Michigan/Iowa
ND/NC State, Clemson/Syracuse
Bama/TAMU, Georgia/Auburn
OU/Utah, Washington/Texas

Likely finals

OSU/Michigan
ND/Clemson
Bama/Georgia
Oklahoma/Texas

This is your real 16 team playoff

West Va, Iowa State. K-State. and Baylor are SOL until and unless one of these decides to go to 18 or three division of six - then West Va, Iowa State, Cincy, USF, UCF, Houston, Army, Navy, and Air Force wait for the call-up.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019 10:12 AM by Statefan.)
06-11-2019 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,853
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 556
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #67
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-11-2019 09:34 AM)YNot Wrote:  Anyone know what the consequence would be for breaking the current CCG rule? What if the AAC simply played its regular season, that didn't necessarily include divisional round-robin schedules for everyone, and then staged an awesome CCG against its two best teams?

If a conference wants its champion to have Jeff Long's infamous "13th data point", then the CCG conditions have to be met.

The current rule allows the teams in a CCG to play an extra game in addition to the regular season maximum number of games. The consequence of not meeting the conditions for a CCG is that teams that have already played the maximum number of games cannot play in a CCG.
06-11-2019 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,098
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 156
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #68
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
If the main holdup is Notre Dame being included in a title game, then make the requirement at least eight conference games. I can’t believe ACC teams would allow ND to participate in their title game anyway. ND is NOT a full football member.

Divisions are arbitrary and pointless, they should be eliminated.
06-11-2019 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,085
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 457
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #69
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-11-2019 10:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 09:34 AM)YNot Wrote:  Anyone know what the consequence would be for breaking the current CCG rule? What if the AAC simply played its regular season, that didn't necessarily include divisional round-robin schedules for everyone, and then staged an awesome CCG against its two best teams?

If a conference wants its champion to have Jeff Long's infamous "13th data point", then the CCG conditions have to be met.

The current rule allows the teams in a CCG to play an extra game in addition to the regular season maximum number of games. The consequence of not meeting the conditions for a CCG is that teams that have already played the maximum number of games cannot play in a CCG.

I think you missed the point of his question. I think he was asking what the consequence would be if they didn't meet the stated conditions for a CCG but staged one anyway.
06-11-2019 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,085
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 457
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #70
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.

Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.

It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.

I don't believe for a minute that the B1G and the SEC are opposed to this because the ACC wanted it. The ACC is no serious threat to either of those behemoths. And the notion that they are afraid the ACC might add ND as a full member is absurd. That's not a reason, that's an excuse. All three of those conferences know that isn't going to happen.
06-11-2019 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,992
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-11-2019 11:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 10:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 09:34 AM)YNot Wrote:  Anyone know what the consequence would be for breaking the current CCG rule? What if the AAC simply played its regular season, that didn't necessarily include divisional round-robin schedules for everyone, and then staged an awesome CCG against its two best teams?

If a conference wants its champion to have Jeff Long's infamous "13th data point", then the CCG conditions have to be met.

The current rule allows the teams in a CCG to play an extra game in addition to the regular season maximum number of games. The consequence of not meeting the conditions for a CCG is that teams that have already played the maximum number of games cannot play in a CCG.

I think you missed the point of his question. I think he was asking what the consequence would be if they didn't meet the stated conditions for a CCG but staged one anyway.

Yes. ^^ This is my question.
06-11-2019 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,767
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 529
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #72
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-11-2019 11:06 AM)esayem Wrote:  If the main holdup is Notre Dame being included in a title game, then make the requirement at least eight conference games. I can’t believe ACC teams would allow ND to participate in their title game anyway. ND is NOT a full football member.

Divisions are arbitrary and pointless, they should be eliminated.

This is a funny discussion.

There has been no expressed interest by ND, ever, to participate in the ACC title game.

Quite the contrary, in fact.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019 11:30 AM by TerryD.)
06-11-2019 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,853
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 556
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #73
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-11-2019 11:27 AM)YNot Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 11:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 10:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 09:34 AM)YNot Wrote:  Anyone know what the consequence would be for breaking the current CCG rule? What if the AAC simply played its regular season, that didn't necessarily include divisional round-robin schedules for everyone, and then staged an awesome CCG against its two best teams?

If a conference wants its champion to have Jeff Long's infamous "13th data point", then the CCG conditions have to be met.

The current rule allows the teams in a CCG to play an extra game in addition to the regular season maximum number of games. The consequence of not meeting the conditions for a CCG is that teams that have already played the maximum number of games cannot play in a CCG.

I think you missed the point of his question. I think he was asking what the consequence would be if they didn't meet the stated conditions for a CCG but staged one anyway.

Yes. ^^ This is my question.

Oh, you mean, "F-U, we're not going to follow your stupid rules anymore."

It's a violation of NCAA rules, same as if a FBS team played 14 regular season games or a D-I hoops team played 40 regular season games. Presumably the consequence is being ineligible for postseason play.

Also seems likely that the CFP committee would refuse to place teams in violation of the CCG rules in any CFP game, even if a bowl ban wasn't issued by the NCAA. If the AAC, for example, has a CCG that violates the NCAA rules, the committee could say, you don't have a conference champ under the rules, and the access berth is only available to G5 conference champs.
06-11-2019 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,098
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 156
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #74
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-11-2019 11:29 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 11:06 AM)esayem Wrote:  If the main holdup is Notre Dame being included in a title game, then make the requirement at least eight conference games. I can’t believe ACC teams would allow ND to participate in their title game anyway. ND is NOT a full football member.

Divisions are arbitrary and pointless, they should be eliminated.

This is a funny discussion.

There has been no expressed interest by ND, ever, to participate in the ACC title game.

Quite the contrary, in fact.

I’ve never heard it either, but people are saying that’s why the Big Ten and SEC are apparently against it.
06-11-2019 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,213
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 142
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #75
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
The B1G is seriously considering it. The SEC no rumblings whatsoever.

The ACC wanted it already, but the B1G (really Delaney) was suspicious. But feedback from the 7 team divisions is that too many rivalries from the other division have been broken up. Also the CCG is no longer seen as a near lock for a Playoff bid, given they have missed the cut and also tOSU got the bid without playing in the CCG.

In short the B1G is changing it's mind, and see it useful to ditch divisions for scheduling, whether they ever expand again or nor.

Aresco is not off the wall, he simply represents the 4th conference with issues. The B12 may switch back though, given they are the prime target to lose a school more easily should the B1G or SEC expand.
06-11-2019 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,820
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 55
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-11-2019 01:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 12:52 AM)chester Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).

Man, that rule is so goofy. Applying it to all conferences is, anyway. It makes no sense to allow for accountable cross-divisional play without also allowing at least some conferences to opt-out of divisions if they like. No divided conference wants to discount cross-division games, apparently, and so the two-division requirement for an exempt CG leaves some in a very awkward position.

The origin of the rule is a large conference (in I-AA, now FCS) wanting to have two divisions and a CCG. The round-robin limitation, for a conference with divisions, ensures that the divisions are meaningful. A random assignment of teams that didn't all play each other into divisions would not be meaningful, and might even be manipulated to try and make a certain CCG matchup more likely.

Your beef is not with that part of it, it's with the requirement that divisions are required at all (in conferences >10 teams) as a prerequisite for staging a CCG. That particular wrinkle in the rule was insisted upon by the Big Ten as a condition of allowing a rule change that permits conferences with ≤ 10 teams (mainly the Big 12) to stage a CCG without divisions.

My guess is that the rule as it stands now won't be changed, and that the Big Ten won't be the only conference that wants to leave the rule as is.

Nicely put.

+2
06-12-2019 10:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TIGER-PAUL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,494
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 34
I Root For: PITT
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
Delaney was paranoid, he's gone, B10 champ getting bypassed, SEC doesn't care ie- it will change now.
06-13-2019 04:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,164
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #78
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(06-13-2019 04:40 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Delaney was paranoid, he's gone, B10 champ getting bypassed, SEC doesn't care ie- it will change now.

We don't know what the new B1G commissioner's take is on it, do we?
06-13-2019 08:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.