Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Selling out the WAC
Author Message
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #21
RE: Selling out the WAC
I think any schools that make realignment decisions based on "buying" an existing conference's tournament credits is chasing after fool's gold. In the long run, 6 units is chump change, and all you are doing is exchanging your current six units for someone else's six units. Align because it makes sense to play each other and forget all the rest.
03-27-2018 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think any schools that make realignment decisions based on "buying" an existing conference's tournament credits is chasing after fool's gold. In the long run, 6 units is chump change, and all you are doing is exchanging your current six units for someone else's six units. Align because it makes sense to play each other and forget all the rest.

It’s more than six credits if the future is counted. It is perpetual annual credits as long as the conference survives. Much better than seven schools waiting for seven years to qualify
03-27-2018 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #23
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think any schools that make realignment decisions based on "buying" an existing conference's tournament credits is chasing after fool's gold. In the long run, 6 units is chump change, and all you are doing is exchanging your current six units for someone else's six units. Align because it makes sense to play each other and forget all the rest.

I think the chances of this ever happening is very close to zero. Having said that, it wouldn't be buying the existing credits so much as buying an autobid that the move-in teams could use from day one.
03-27-2018 01:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #24
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think any schools that make realignment decisions based on "buying" an existing conference's tournament credits is chasing after fool's gold. In the long run, 6 units is chump change, and all you are doing is exchanging your current six units for someone else's six units. Align because it makes sense to play each other and forget all the rest.

I think the chances of this ever happening is very close to zero. Having said that, it wouldn't be buying the existing credits so much as buying an autobid that the move-in teams could use from day one.

But aren't all these schools already in a conference with an autobid? As long as the total number of autobids available doesn't change (and it won't), where's the advantage to moving?
03-27-2018 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think any schools that make realignment decisions based on "buying" an existing conference's tournament credits is chasing after fool's gold. In the long run, 6 units is chump change, and all you are doing is exchanging your current six units for someone else's six units. Align because it makes sense to play each other and forget all the rest.

I think the chances of this ever happening is very close to zero. Having said that, it wouldn't be buying the existing credits so much as buying an autobid that the move-in teams could use from day one.

But aren't all these schools already in a conference with an autobid? As long as the total number of autobids available doesn't change (and it won't), where's the advantage to moving?
In CUSA’s case, 14 teams divide one credit. That why CUSA is speculated needing to do something.
03-27-2018 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #26
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think any schools that make realignment decisions based on "buying" an existing conference's tournament credits is chasing after fool's gold. In the long run, 6 units is chump change, and all you are doing is exchanging your current six units for someone else's six units. Align because it makes sense to play each other and forget all the rest.

I think the chances of this ever happening is very close to zero. Having said that, it wouldn't be buying the existing credits so much as buying an autobid that the move-in teams could use from day one.

But aren't all these schools already in a conference with an autobid? As long as the total number of autobids available doesn't change (and it won't), where's the advantage to moving?

As I understand the theory here, it's something like this:

1) Wait for a few more WAC members to leave (because that makes step 2 less expensive)
2) Pay everyone left (except NMSU, who stays with the new group) to first invite 7-9 schools from CUSA and SBC into the WAC, and then to leave themselves, so that the new schools and NMSU are the only ones in the conference.

Unless there are other rules that would trip this up, executing that plan would allow the "new" WAC members to form a southwestern-based conference that has an autobid from day one.
03-27-2018 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #27
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 12:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 11:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-26-2018 11:59 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(03-26-2018 11:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the WAC has much value as a shell for someone else's realignment. CUSA sans WKU meets 8 years in 2020 and with WKU in 2021. Sun Belt meets in 2020 and with Coastal Carolina meets in 2023. Unless something catastrophic were to happen with AAC or MWC most any shuffle involving the southern teams is probably going to include 7 teams from one league or the other.

It sounds like you're thinking of the old continuity rules. That doesn't matter anymore.
Yes they do. Covered in another thread.
The only change to the continuity rule is an existing conference doesn't have to meet continuity as long as they keep their numbers up.

That's not what the rulebook says. I was the one who wrote the thread.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-768543.html

As far as the rulebook is concerned, continuity is a thing that conferences have, not a thing that schools have with each other. By the rulebook, if the original 10 Big Ten schools walked out today on Penn State, Rutgers, Nebraska and Maryland, they're no different than the Great West was.

(Of course it would be treated differently. I'm telling you what the PDF says.)
Exactly.

Conferences now have continuity, not the schools in their conferences.
Conference x has to establish continuity, not the schools in CUSA East

If the entire WAC found new homes tomorrow, the WAC would still retain continuity if it found 7 replacement schools
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2018 02:39 PM by solohawks.)
03-27-2018 02:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #28
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 02:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think any schools that make realignment decisions based on "buying" an existing conference's tournament credits is chasing after fool's gold. In the long run, 6 units is chump change, and all you are doing is exchanging your current six units for someone else's six units. Align because it makes sense to play each other and forget all the rest.

I think the chances of this ever happening is very close to zero. Having said that, it wouldn't be buying the existing credits so much as buying an autobid that the move-in teams could use from day one.

But aren't all these schools already in a conference with an autobid? As long as the total number of autobids available doesn't change (and it won't), where's the advantage to moving?

As I understand the theory here, it's something like this:

1) Wait for a few more WAC members to leave (because that makes step 2 less expensive)
2) Pay everyone left (except NMSU, who stays with the new group) to first invite 7-9 schools from CUSA and SBC into the WAC, and then to leave themselves, so that the new schools and NMSU are the only ones in the conference.

Unless there are other rules that would trip this up, executing that plan would allow the "new" WAC members to form a southwestern-based conference that has an autobid from day one.

Let's see if I have this right. We would go from a WAC that looks like this (Massey Composite hoops ranking in parentheses):

New Mexico State (56)
UT - Rio Grand Valley (254)
CS-Bakersfield (235)
UM-Kansas City (291)
Chicago State (345)
Seattle (186)
Grand Canyon (119)
Utah Valley (101)

To one that looks something like this:

New Mexico State (56)
UT - Rio Grand Valley (254)
North Texas (206)
Rice (316)
UT - San Antonio (179)
UTEP (256)
Texas State (231)
UT - Arlington (126)


Except now that I look at it, you wouldn't want Rio Grand and Arlington because they don't play FBS football (which would seem to be the point of this in the first place). Maybe you could get Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech to replace them.

That doesn't seem so hard, right?
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2018 03:33 PM by ken d.)
03-27-2018 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #29
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 02:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think any schools that make realignment decisions based on "buying" an existing conference's tournament credits is chasing after fool's gold. In the long run, 6 units is chump change, and all you are doing is exchanging your current six units for someone else's six units. Align because it makes sense to play each other and forget all the rest.

I think the chances of this ever happening is very close to zero. Having said that, it wouldn't be buying the existing credits so much as buying an autobid that the move-in teams could use from day one.

But aren't all these schools already in a conference with an autobid? As long as the total number of autobids available doesn't change (and it won't), where's the advantage to moving?

As I understand the theory here, it's something like this:

1) Wait for a few more WAC members to leave (because that makes step 2 less expensive)
2) Pay everyone left (except NMSU, who stays with the new group) to first invite 7-9 schools from CUSA and SBC into the WAC, and then to leave themselves, so that the new schools and NMSU are the only ones in the conference.

Unless there are other rules that would trip this up, executing that plan would allow the "new" WAC members to form a southwestern-based conference that has an autobid from day one.

Let's see if I have this right. We would go from a WAC that looks like this (Massey Composite hoops ranking in parentheses):

New Mexico State (56)
UT - Rio Grand Valley (254)
CS-Bakersfield (235)
UM-Kansas City (291)
Chicago State (345)
Seattle (186)
Grand Canyon (119)
Utah Valley (101)

To one that looks something like this:

New Mexico State (56)
UT - Rio Grand Valley (254)
North Texas (206)
Rice (316)
UT - San Antonio (179)
UTEP (256)
Texas State (231)
UT - Arlington (126)


Except now that I look at it, you wouldn't want Rio Grand and Arlington because they don't play FBS football (which would seem to be the point of this in the first place). Maybe you could get Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech to replace them.

That doesn't seem so hard, right?

I was thinking UTRGV would be one of the schools they'd pay to leave. NMSU is the only one that stays because they're the only one with FBS football.

For all three conferences to meet the requirement that an FBS conference have 8 full time members who play FBS football in the conference, the WAC would have to gain at least 7 new members who play FBS football, with no more than 6 coming from CUSA and no more than 2 coming from the SBC. (Alternate possibility: SBC loses 3 to the WAC and adds Liberty as a full-time member, and then has 8 FBS members.)

One example: WAC gains UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice, Texas State, La Tech, ULL. WAC has 8 for football, CUSA has 9, SBC has 8.
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2018 03:49 PM by Wedge.)
03-27-2018 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #30
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 03:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 02:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I think the chances of this ever happening is very close to zero. Having said that, it wouldn't be buying the existing credits so much as buying an autobid that the move-in teams could use from day one.

But aren't all these schools already in a conference with an autobid? As long as the total number of autobids available doesn't change (and it won't), where's the advantage to moving?

As I understand the theory here, it's something like this:

1) Wait for a few more WAC members to leave (because that makes step 2 less expensive)
2) Pay everyone left (except NMSU, who stays with the new group) to first invite 7-9 schools from CUSA and SBC into the WAC, and then to leave themselves, so that the new schools and NMSU are the only ones in the conference.

Unless there are other rules that would trip this up, executing that plan would allow the "new" WAC members to form a southwestern-based conference that has an autobid from day one.

Let's see if I have this right. We would go from a WAC that looks like this (Massey Composite hoops ranking in parentheses):

New Mexico State (56)
UT - Rio Grand Valley (254)
CS-Bakersfield (235)
UM-Kansas City (291)
Chicago State (345)
Seattle (186)
Grand Canyon (119)
Utah Valley (101)

To one that looks something like this:

New Mexico State (56)
UT - Rio Grand Valley (254)
North Texas (206)
Rice (316)
UT - San Antonio (179)
UTEP (256)
Texas State (231)
UT - Arlington (126)


Except now that I look at it, you wouldn't want Rio Grand and Arlington because they don't play FBS football (which would seem to be the point of this in the first place). Maybe you could get Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech to replace them.

That doesn't seem so hard, right?

I was thinking UTRGV would be one of the schools they'd pay to leave. NMSU is the only one that stays because they're the only one with FBS football.

For all three conferences to meet the requirement that an FBS conference have 8 full time members who play FBS football in the conference, the WAC would have to gain at least 7 new members who play FBS football, with no more than 6 coming from CUSA and no more than 2 coming from the SBC. (Alternate possibility: SBC loses 3 to the WAC and adds Liberty as a full-time member, and then has 8 FBS members.)

One example: WAC gains UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice, Texas State, La Tech, ULL. WAC has 8 for football, CUSA has 9, SBC has 8.

How do you compensate the schools who leave CUSA and the SBC for the loss of the CFP money? And, of course, all the money from those conferences' lucrative media contracts? Or is the satisfaction of restoring the WAC to FBS status compensation enough? 07-coffee3
03-27-2018 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Selling out the WAC
This is what the Great North should do, if the Great North were actually a thing. Although judging from the increasingly frantic calls and letters I'm getting about re-upping my donations (fat f-ing chance), I'm relatively confident Idaho at least doesn't have any extra money to buy anybody out of anything.
03-27-2018 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #32
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 03:57 PM)ken d Wrote:  How do you compensate the schools who leave CUSA and the SBC for the loss of the CFP money? And, of course, all the money from those conferences' lucrative media contracts? Or is the satisfaction of restoring the WAC to FBS status compensation enough? 07-coffee3

That is one reason why I said the following earlier in this thread:

(03-27-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I think the chances of this ever happening is very close to zero.
03-27-2018 04:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,278
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #33
RE: Selling out the WAC
Ideally the Summit , WAC and BSC would work together.
With the Summit getting the flagship possible FBS schools.
Keeping Denver and adding a few geographically friendly school out of the mix.
The WAC getting ORU , W Illinois and FWU.
The BSC the rest that fit geographically .
Saving travel cost and stabilizing the WAC.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
03-27-2018 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #34
RE: Selling out the WAC
I'll play

End contract with Chicago St
Terminate move up of Cal Baptist and allow Bakersfield to move to Big West right away
Pay UMKC, UVU, and Seattle to go work out deals with their geographically affiliated conferences (Summit, Big Sky, and WCC respectively)

*Grand Canyon
NMSU
UTEP
UTSA
Texas St
*UTRGV

Rice
N Texas
*UT Arlington
Ark St
*UALR
La Tech
03-27-2018 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-26-2018 07:29 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  How about the Summit?

UND/NDSU
USD/SDSU
UNO/UMKC
ORU/UTRGV
DU/UVU
GCU/NMSU

Fort Wayne to Horizon, WIU to OVC.

That’s a good league.

Its a logical combination. Summit could use the WAC name which has more recognition.
03-27-2018 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #36
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 04:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 03:57 PM)ken d Wrote:  How do you compensate the schools who leave CUSA and the SBC for the loss of the CFP money? And, of course, all the money from those conferences' lucrative media contracts? Or is the satisfaction of restoring the WAC to FBS status compensation enough? 07-coffee3

That is one reason why I said the following earlier in this thread:

(03-27-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I think the chances of this ever happening is very close to zero.

Exactly. About the only party with any significant incentive to do any of this is NMSU, and nobody has an obligation to help them improve their unfortunate situation.
03-27-2018 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Selling out the WAC
I see three scenarios for the WAC:
1) Continue as the western misfit and breeding ground for new Division 1 schools
2) Develop into a Texas/Louisiana/Oklahoma/Arkansas I-AAA conference
3) Be the breakoff league for a Conference USA or other Division 1 conference split
03-27-2018 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-27-2018 03:57 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 03:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 03:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 02:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(03-27-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  But aren't all these schools already in a conference with an autobid? As long as the total number of autobids available doesn't change (and it won't), where's the advantage to moving?

As I understand the theory here, it's something like this:

1) Wait for a few more WAC members to leave (because that makes step 2 less expensive)
2) Pay everyone left (except NMSU, who stays with the new group) to first invite 7-9 schools from CUSA and SBC into the WAC, and then to leave themselves, so that the new schools and NMSU are the only ones in the conference.

Unless there are other rules that would trip this up, executing that plan would allow the "new" WAC members to form a southwestern-based conference that has an autobid from day one.

Let's see if I have this right. We would go from a WAC that looks like this (Massey Composite hoops ranking in parentheses):

New Mexico State (56)
UT - Rio Grand Valley (254)
CS-Bakersfield (235)
UM-Kansas City (291)
Chicago State (345)
Seattle (186)
Grand Canyon (119)
Utah Valley (101)

To one that looks something like this:

New Mexico State (56)
UT - Rio Grand Valley (254)
North Texas (206)
Rice (316)
UT - San Antonio (179)
UTEP (256)
Texas State (231)
UT - Arlington (126)


Except now that I look at it, you wouldn't want Rio Grand and Arlington because they don't play FBS football (which would seem to be the point of this in the first place). Maybe you could get Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech to replace them.

That doesn't seem so hard, right?

I was thinking UTRGV would be one of the schools they'd pay to leave. NMSU is the only one that stays because they're the only one with FBS football.

For all three conferences to meet the requirement that an FBS conference have 8 full time members who play FBS football in the conference, the WAC would have to gain at least 7 new members who play FBS football, with no more than 6 coming from CUSA and no more than 2 coming from the SBC. (Alternate possibility: SBC loses 3 to the WAC and adds Liberty as a full-time member, and then has 8 FBS members.)

One example: WAC gains UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice, Texas State, La Tech, ULL. WAC has 8 for football, CUSA has 9, SBC has 8.

How do you compensate the schools who leave CUSA and the SBC for the loss of the CFP money? And, of course, all the money from those conferences' lucrative media contracts? Or is the satisfaction of restoring the WAC to FBS status compensation enough? 07-coffee3

Previously answered some of those questions. CUSA should divide the CFB on a pro-rated basis, and then depart from each other amicably. The travel costs avoided will be large and each half gets their own set of bowl agreements, tv agreements, Mbb tournament that will be better attended. CUSA in simply too big and the P5 partly destroyed in by setting a limit of essentially ten on the CFP distribution for G5’s. CUSA would be better to split and each half set out their own path, now rather than later. Maybe some “rival”games could be scheduled with no cost to either and even a bowl game pitting their champions.

At least the posters from CUSA won’t squawk so much. Any separation agreement wouldn’t come until closer to 2025 though, because Presidents are so change adverse, despite their rhetoric.
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2018 09:26 PM by NoDak.)
03-27-2018 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,795
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #39
RE: Selling out the WAC
Ideally, getting 10 FBS schools into the WAC would be great and the pool of NMSU, C-USA West, ULL, Ark St, and Texas St gives you 11 to choose from.

GCU, UVU, UTRGV, and UMKC are given a 6-10 year deadline to find a more suitable conference or start FBS football and are permitted to leave without exit fees. Sounds fair to me.

Regarding C-USA, it's in the East's best interest to let them go without fees and pocket the travel savings and benefits associated with a smaller league. JMU and the SBC provide a pool to get membership back up to 10.
03-27-2018 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Vamos Morados
*

Posts: 7,467
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 121
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #40
RE: Selling out the WAC
(03-26-2018 07:29 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  How about the Summit?

UND/NDSU
USD/SDSU
UNO/UMKC
ORU/UTRGV
DU/UVU
GCU/NMSU

Fort Wayne to Horizon, WIU to OVC.

That’s a good league.
Denver left the WAC over Grand Canyon, so this won’t happen.
03-27-2018 10:18 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 © 2002-2024 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.