Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Greg Sankey....
Author Message
All4One Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,079
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 276
I Root For: Genuine & Unprivileged
Location:
Post: #1
Greg Sankey....
https://www.on3.com/news/greg-sankey-pus...a-georgia/

Quote:He added that forcing Alabama and Georgia to play three playoff games to reach a championship would be a “tremendous give.”


Gee, it's not like FCS schools all the way down to the high school level aren't already doing this (less games in the regular season than D1 FBS, but more in the postseason than D1 FBS), and they do it without SEC wealth to pay for world-class facilities, athletic trainers, strength & conditioning programs, and all manner of injury prevention and rehab facilities to be able to actually maintain a level of health and wellness of players to play 15-16 games a season through the playoffs to the championship game.

Sankey touts the SEC as immortal, but he sure does fear an expanded playoff...


Quote:“Those who asked (to expand the playoff) are not ready to act,” he said. “It’s in my best interest to leave it at four.”
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2022 02:42 PM by All4One.)
01-11-2022 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


PeteTheChop Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 308
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 31
I Root For: C-A-N-E-S
Location: North Florida lifer
Post: #2
RE: Greg Sankey....
Trim regular season from 12 to 11 games primarily by getting rid of games against I-AA opponents unpopular with ticket buyers, media partners and TV viewers alike.
01-11-2022 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,137
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #3
RE: Greg Sankey....
Look - I'm not an SEC fan.

However, I honestly think Greg Sankey made a good faith proposal regarding CFP expansion. The fact that such proposal wasn't even necessarily in the best best interests of the SEC is what made it into a good faith proposal.

I don't interpret his comments as fear of the SEC having to play more playoff games, but rather that the rest of college football is so stupid to look a gift horse in the mouth by not passing CFP expansion by this point. On that issue, I totally agree with him. I blame everyone other than the SEC and maybe ND for not getting CFP expansion passed as of yesterday. Yes, I blame the Alliance and yes, I blame the G5. Get over it and get it done.
01-11-2022 02:53 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,037
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 370
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 02:48 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Trim regular season from 12 to 11 games primarily by getting rid of games against I-AA opponents unpopular with ticket buyers, media partners and TV viewers alike.

So that solves the SEC - what about the B1G where less than half play FCS opponents?
01-11-2022 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,137
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #5
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 02:48 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Trim regular season from 12 to 11 games primarily by getting rid of games against I-AA opponents unpopular with ticket buyers, media partners and TV viewers alike.

The first rule of any realistic CFP expansion proposal is that it cannot take a single dime away from the P5 regarding regular season and CCG revenue.

We all know that each regular season home game is worth millions to the largest power schools, so that first rule is violated.
01-11-2022 02:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 43,094
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1570
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #6
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 02:40 PM)All4One Wrote:  Sankey touts the SEC as immortal, but he sure does fear an expanded playoff...

I don't think Sankey fears an expanded playoff. He was a member of a Working Group that came out with a 6+6 expansion model, a model that is more inclusive than models favored by the Alliance.

He's saying "look, we don't need this. We're fine with the playoffs as they are". It's a warning to other conferences that are holding out that the SEC is likely to continue to do better under the status quo than they will, so they should think harder before they keep holding out against various plans.

He's just promoting the interests of the SEC, which is what he is paid to do.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2022 03:00 PM by quo vadis.)
01-11-2022 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


TIGER-PAUL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,581
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 34
I Root For: PITT
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Greg Sankey....
The B10 is holding it, whatever the model, back from moving off step 1.
The rest-alliance, G5 etc is ancillary.
Guessing they haven't been all in from the get go.
01-11-2022 03:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,137
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #8
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 03:15 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  The B10 is holding it, whatever the model, back from moving off step 1.
The rest-alliance, G5 etc is ancillary.
Guessing they haven't been all in from the get go.

I don't think the others are ancillary at all.

It's becoming clearer by all accounts that the league that is farthest apart from everyone else is the ACC. They don't even agree to the size of the playoff itself much less how to deal with P5 auto-bids.

Now, the Big Ten certainly deserves some criticism here (and I say that as an unabashed Big Ten guy).

If even the Pac-12 is willing to have 6+6, then it's hard for me to see how the Big Ten could stand in the way. Granted, I think a lot of it may very well deal with the Rose Bowl interests that we've discussed in other threads. If there's a satisfactory agreement regarding access to and treatment of the Rose Bowl, then I think that could get the Big Ten to move to 6+6. Holding out on 6+6 may be the leverage point for the Big Ten to get what they want/need regarding the Rose Bowl.

I don't know what the heck the ACC is thinking, though. All of this stuff about waiting for NCAA rules meetings, analysis of student welfare, blah, blah, blah. If they had just come out and stated that they simply demand P5 auto-bids because they're valuable and the plebian G5 leagues aren't, then at least I'd have respect for that being an upfront (and maybe bluntly truthful) argument. When they start blabbering about all of these high-minded ideals and governance structures... give me a break.
01-11-2022 03:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,372
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Greg Sankey....
Alliance doesn't want to play the extra games AND they want AQ. They are holding out for the 5+1+2 model, and it's not going to happen.

CCG will have to be renegotiated into a first round if they go past 8. I am a staunch believer in that. I am not sure how long the TV contracts with Fox and ESPN are in place with each P5 CCG, but until those are renegotiated and reworked as the play-in round, they are not expanding past 8.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2022 03:53 PM by RUScarlets.)
01-11-2022 03:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,275
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 504
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 03:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-11-2022 03:15 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  The B10 is holding it, whatever the model, back from moving off step 1.
The rest-alliance, G5 etc is ancillary.
Guessing they haven't been all in from the get go.

I don't think the others are ancillary at all.

It's becoming clearer by all accounts that the league that is farthest apart from everyone else is the ACC. They don't even agree to the size of the playoff itself much less how to deal with P5 auto-bids.

Now, the Big Ten certainly deserves some criticism here (and I say that as an unabashed Big Ten guy).

If even the Pac-12 is willing to have 6+6, then it's hard for me to see how the Big Ten could stand in the way. Granted, I think a lot of it may very well deal with the Rose Bowl interests that we've discussed in other threads. If there's a satisfactory agreement regarding access to and treatment of the Rose Bowl, then I think that could get the Big Ten to move to 6+6. Holding out on 6+6 may be the leverage point for the Big Ten to get what they want/need regarding the Rose Bowl.

I don't know what the heck the ACC is thinking, though. All of this stuff about waiting for NCAA rules meetings, analysis of student welfare, blah, blah, blah. If they had just come out and stated that they simply demand P5 auto-bids because they're valuable and the plebian G5 leagues aren't, then at least I'd have respect for that being an upfront (and maybe bluntly truthful) argument. When they start blabbering about all of these high-minded ideals and governance structures... give me a break.

Thought to ponder. The ACC's position makes no sense at all from any kind of a cynical power politics point of view, which is the one we usually take, and rightly so.

Maybe the darn fools mean it?
01-11-2022 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 41,306
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 531
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 03:52 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Alliance doesn't want to play the extra games AND they want AQ. They are holding out for the 5+1+2 model, and it's not going to happen.

CCG will have to be renegotiated into a first round if they go past 8. I am a staunch believer in that. I am not sure how long the TV contracts with Fox and ESPN are in place with each P5 CCG, but until those are renegotiated and reworked as the play-in round, they are not expanding past 8.

The CCG isn't going to change with the P5 conferences. That's going to be there no matter how many teams we expand to.

Pac 12 is part of the alliance and they said 12 was fine. No, it sounds like it's the dumb ACC and maybe Big Ten holding things up. Stupid.
01-11-2022 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RUScarlets Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,372
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 03:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The CCG isn't going to change with the P5 conferences. That's going to be there no matter how many teams we expand to.

Pac 12 is part of the alliance and they said 12 was fine. No, it sounds like it's the dumb ACC and maybe Big Ten holding things up. Stupid.

I'm surprised by the PAC 12, but 8 is still the ideal number for most Alliance reps. I know Frank has been in here pounding his chest about 12 teams, and all the sources were reporting 12 was indeed the number, but I stressed caution since last summer. It's only now that we are hearing officials blatantly holding out for the 8 team model, which is exactly what I warned would happen.

When it comes to a playoff of this size (4 rounds), you cannot waste that weekend, especially these 9-3 and 8-4 division winners. You need to kick this division model out the window. There are other ways to crown champions within the 12 game season. You could have a flex conference game weekend in the middle of November to ensure 1st place teams play one another. There are many possibilities beyond the archaic Division A vs B winners.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2022 04:11 PM by RUScarlets.)
01-11-2022 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 41,306
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 531
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 04:09 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  
(01-11-2022 03:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The CCG isn't going to change with the P5 conferences. That's going to be there no matter how many teams we expand to.

Pac 12 is part of the alliance and they said 12 was fine. No, it sounds like it's the dumb ACC and maybe Big Ten holding things up. Stupid.

I'm surprised by the PAC 12, but 8 is still the ideal number for most Alliance reps. I know Frank has been in here pounding his chest about 12 teams, and all the sources were reporting 12 was indeed the number, but I stressed caution since last summer. It's only now that we are hearing officials blatantly holding out for the 8 team model, which is exactly what I warned would happen.

When it comes to a playoff of this size (4 rounds), you cannot waste that weekend, especially these 9-3 and 8-4 division winners. You need to kick this division model out the window. There are other ways to crown champions within the 12 game season. You could have a flex conference game weekend in the middle of November to ensure 1st place teams play one another. There are many possibilities beyond the archaic Division A vs B winners.
It's such a huge moneymaker that means there is no chance in hell that it's going to change. I mean Big Ten gets about 40 million I think just on that game in TV money, let alone ticket sales etc.
01-11-2022 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,372
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's such a huge moneymaker that means there is no chance in hell that it's going to change. I mean Big Ten gets about 40 million I think just on that game in TV money, let alone ticket sales etc.

Then the 12-team playoff is simply not going to happen... until we adopt semi-professional status or a new super division all together. I also do not envision them going to an 11 game regular season, although this is more likely and may be the only path forward for 12 teams.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2022 04:22 PM by RUScarlets.)
01-11-2022 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CarlSmithCenter Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 648
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Ball So Hard U
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 03:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-11-2022 03:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-11-2022 03:15 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  The B10 is holding it, whatever the model, back from moving off step 1.
The rest-alliance, G5 etc is ancillary.
Guessing they haven't been all in from the get go.

I don't think the others are ancillary at all.

It's becoming clearer by all accounts that the league that is farthest apart from everyone else is the ACC. They don't even agree to the size of the playoff itself much less how to deal with P5 auto-bids.

Now, the Big Ten certainly deserves some criticism here (and I say that as an unabashed Big Ten guy).

If even the Pac-12 is willing to have 6+6, then it's hard for me to see how the Big Ten could stand in the way. Granted, I think a lot of it may very well deal with the Rose Bowl interests that we've discussed in other threads. If there's a satisfactory agreement regarding access to and treatment of the Rose Bowl, then I think that could get the Big Ten to move to 6+6. Holding out on 6+6 may be the leverage point for the Big Ten to get what they want/need regarding the Rose Bowl.

I don't know what the heck the ACC is thinking, though. All of this stuff about waiting for NCAA rules meetings, analysis of student welfare, blah, blah, blah. If they had just come out and stated that they simply demand P5 auto-bids because they're valuable and the plebian G5 leagues aren't, then at least I'd have respect for that being an upfront (and maybe bluntly truthful) argument. When they start blabbering about all of these high-minded ideals and governance structures... give me a break.

Thought to ponder. The ACC's position makes no sense at all from any kind of a cynical power politics point of view, which is the one we usually take, and rightly so.

Maybe the darn fools mean it?

The exceptionally long-term (through 2036), low-paying media rights deal Swofford inked with ESPN is going to become a bigger debacle each year, particularly when average B1G teams are pulling down $20-$30m more per year than Clemson, Chapel Hill, Pitt, Miami etc. The only way the ACC's position --- holding out for an 8 team playoff with P5 autobids --- makes any sense is if it is a desperate gambit by the conference to gain some sort of leverage over ESPN. If the rights to the CFP hit the open market there is a chance Turner/HBOMax, NBC/Peacock, Amazon, Fox, or CBS/Paramount+ could swoop in any get partial rights. Conversely, if the CFP is expanded before the current deal expires, I don't see any way that ESPN doesn't insist on an extension of its exclusive rights. To that end, the ACC plays the contrarian until ESPN either shortens the ACC media deal or ups the annual payout.
01-11-2022 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 207
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 11
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 04:26 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  
(01-11-2022 03:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-11-2022 03:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-11-2022 03:15 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  The B10 is holding it, whatever the model, back from moving off step 1.
The rest-alliance, G5 etc is ancillary.
Guessing they haven't been all in from the get go.

I don't think the others are ancillary at all.

It's becoming clearer by all accounts that the league that is farthest apart from everyone else is the ACC. They don't even agree to the size of the playoff itself much less how to deal with P5 auto-bids.

Now, the Big Ten certainly deserves some criticism here (and I say that as an unabashed Big Ten guy).

If even the Pac-12 is willing to have 6+6, then it's hard for me to see how the Big Ten could stand in the way. Granted, I think a lot of it may very well deal with the Rose Bowl interests that we've discussed in other threads. If there's a satisfactory agreement regarding access to and treatment of the Rose Bowl, then I think that could get the Big Ten to move to 6+6. Holding out on 6+6 may be the leverage point for the Big Ten to get what they want/need regarding the Rose Bowl.

I don't know what the heck the ACC is thinking, though. All of this stuff about waiting for NCAA rules meetings, analysis of student welfare, blah, blah, blah. If they had just come out and stated that they simply demand P5 auto-bids because they're valuable and the plebian G5 leagues aren't, then at least I'd have respect for that being an upfront (and maybe bluntly truthful) argument. When they start blabbering about all of these high-minded ideals and governance structures... give me a break.

Thought to ponder. The ACC's position makes no sense at all from any kind of a cynical power politics point of view, which is the one we usually take, and rightly so.

Maybe the darn fools mean it?

The exceptionally long-term (through 2036), low-paying media rights deal Swofford inked with ESPN is going to become a bigger debacle each year, particularly when average B1G teams are pulling down $20-$30m more per year than Clemson, Chapel Hill, Pitt, Miami etc. The only way the ACC's position --- holding out for an 8 team playoff with P5 autobids --- makes any sense is if it is a desperate gambit by the conference to gain some sort of leverage over ESPN. If the rights to the CFP hit the open market there is a chance Turner/HBOMax, NBC/Peacock, Amazon, Fox, or CBS/Paramount+ could swoop in any get partial rights. Conversely, if the CFP is expanded before the current deal expires, I don't see any way that ESPN doesn't insist on an extension of its exclusive rights. To that end, the ACC plays the contrarian until ESPN either shortens the ACC media deal or ups the annual payout.

Shortening the deal would just expedite the ability of brands to leave. The death of the ACC.

Maybe it’s putting the squeeze on ND to join the ACC, but that’s not happening and ND working with SEC to remove ACC from being an issue just as likely.

If athletes are ruled employees, the biggest disruption since OU and Co sued for rights, espn is not cornered into paying the ACC for their vote
01-11-2022 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


PeteTheChop Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 308
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 31
I Root For: C-A-N-E-S
Location: North Florida lifer
Post: #17
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 02:53 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(01-11-2022 02:48 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Trim regular season from 12 to 11 games primarily by getting rid of games against I-AA opponents unpopular with ticket buyers, media partners and TV viewers alike.

So that solves the SEC - what about the B1G where less than half play FCS opponents?

Good reminder Tank ... and of course the 7- and 8-game home schedules only work when "G5" and I-AA schools play one offs in exchange for a nice check.
01-11-2022 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BigOwensboroCard Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,552
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Owensboro, KY
Post: #18
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 02:48 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Trim regular season from 12 to 11 games primarily by getting rid of games against I-AA opponents unpopular with ticket buyers, media partners and TV viewers alike.

Hell knock the season down to 10 games and allowing every school the opportunity to schedule at least two exhibition games against FCS opponents. This way everyone is able to have their home games, and this would allow coaches the opportunity to play freshmen and other under classmen who need evaluating during games etc other than practice. Allow a 13th game to be played if the FBS school will travel to the FCS and still help with finances etc. These games either could be scheduled at the beginning of the season or throughout the season to help scheduling.
01-11-2022 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PeteTheChop Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 308
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 31
I Root For: C-A-N-E-S
Location: North Florida lifer
Post: #19
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 04:26 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  To that end, the ACC plays the contrarian until ESPN either shortens the ACC media deal or ups the annual payout.

Nobody would like to see the ACC media deal cut short more than FSU and Clemson.

Butting heads with Greg Sankey and his SEC constituents will not end well for the folks in Greensboro.
01-11-2022 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,137
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #20
RE: Greg Sankey....
(01-11-2022 04:21 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  
(01-11-2022 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's such a huge moneymaker that means there is no chance in hell that it's going to change. I mean Big Ten gets about 40 million I think just on that game in TV money, let alone ticket sales etc.

Then the 12-team playoff is simply not going to happen... until we adopt semi-professional status or a new super division all together. I also do not envision them going to an 11 game regular season, although this is more likely and may be the only path forward for 12 teams.

To be very clear, the Big Ten was fine with 12 teams - they just are still asking for P5 auto-bids. The only party that has objected to 12 teams is the ACC. Semi-professional status is here already - if these colleges are truly worried about having to pay athletes, then one would think that it’s even more important to make the most money possible in an expanded CFP.

In any event, I agree with stever20 that CCGs aren’t going anywhere EVER. Those games make more money for the SEC and Big Ten than the CFP itself at this point and they don’t have to share a dime of it. The expanded CFP in whatever form needs to be 100% additive to the current system.

By the way, I personally advocated for an 8-team playoff (particularly the 5+1+2 format) for many, many, many years. Before I ever wrote anything on conference realignment, one of the first posts that I had on my blog over 15 years ago was an 8-team playoff with the then 6 BCS AQ conferences and 2 at-large bids. I’d be 100% happy with an 8-team playoff with 5+1+2 or 6+2 over today’s system.

However, the CFP expansion proposal committee honestly shocked me with their 12-team playoff proposal. It would be like hoping that you could double your money one day and now you find out that you could triple your money.

At the same time, I see why going larger to 12 teams was actually the compromise. Ultimately, the SEC and ND need as many at-large bids as possible. The other conferences need some form of conference champ protection, whether it’s the top 6 conference champ or P5 auto-bids. The 8-team playoff simply cannot serve both, which is why everyone except the ACC seems to at least acknowledge that 12 teams is where we should be at (even if there are still disagreements about *who* those 12 teams should be).

So, believe me - I’m not advocating for 12 teams simply because it’s 12 teams. Instead, I’m advocating for CFP expansion in and of itself and, in analyzing everyone’s interests, the only size of a playoff that could conceivably meet those interests is 12. If 8 teams could serve those interests, then that would be fantastic, but it’s very clear that the SEC and ND would only agree to that if it’s a straight top 8 ranking, which is exactly what everyone else in college football doesn’t want.

I admit upfront that I am an unabashed and completely biased supporter of CFP expansion. Therefore, I am an unabashed and completely biased supporter of the format that will get us to that end point even if it’s actually different than the one that I’ve advocated for previously.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2022 04:58 PM by Frank the Tank.)
01-11-2022 04:56 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2022 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, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.