Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
(01-03-2019 06:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Doubtful Texas really has any interest in moving to the BIG, SEC, or the PAC12.

They may try to resurrect the idea of moving to the ACC with partial football membership. The question will be would the ACC buy into it? Perhaps with enough money is put on the table. However, there are not natural rivals in the ACC and travel distance with costs would be an issue.

Staying in the B12 with partial football could be an option if OU and maybe one or two others leave for elsewhere and a couple of new additions come on board. I regard this as more viable than the ACC route. Basketball and baseball are important, and having a reputable conference as home for both will be a requirement.

Going totally football independent is not realistic, even for Texas. Quality schools will play them, but few will do so in most of October and November when conference schedules kick-in.

If the playoffs become more focused on having conference champions, being technically football independent could become more of a detriment.

The thing about Texas is they are rich enough that they can basically do whatever they want. It's also true that some options are more beneficial than others.

Their preferred plan would probably be a healthy and viable Big 12, but that's not likely anymore. They may very well throw a hail mary and try some crazy plan to save the conference, but I doubt it will work at this stage.

The ACC makes sense to a certain degree, but the SEC is the best overall fit even if some people in blog-land don't want to admit it.

I think the most interesting wrinkle is what exactly does ESPN want in this whole deal. Looks like they're going all in on the ACC Network so they'll probably want to push certain properties there to enhance the profile, but that might be easier said than done.

I can't rule out the idea that ESPN will find a way to acquire the PAC by getting Texas to go in on a new format, but that depends on a lot of things falling the right way. It also makes sense that ESPN would want to acquire more PAC content given that the ACC Network and the SEC Network will have taken some prime games away from their main channels. The other day, a report came out that ESPN2 had fallen behind FS1 and NBCSN in ratings.

I'm sure that's not something Disney will abide. Especially with the advent of ESPN+, I think the corporation will be looking for ways to increase their inventory in the coming years. College properties have been a staple for ESPN for a lot of reasons so it makes sense to me that they would try to recapture more of the Power conferences.

Of course, ESPN could do things to lure the PAC that wouldn't involve Texas as I'm sure some of the leaders in the PAC wouldn't want to compromise their model in exchange for UT or anyone else.
01-04-2019 02:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
(01-04-2019 02:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-03-2019 06:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Doubtful Texas really has any interest in moving to the BIG, SEC, or the PAC12.

They may try to resurrect the idea of moving to the ACC with partial football membership. The question will be would the ACC buy into it? Perhaps with enough money is put on the table. However, there are not natural rivals in the ACC and travel distance with costs would be an issue.

Staying in the B12 with partial football could be an option if OU and maybe one or two others leave for elsewhere and a couple of new additions come on board. I regard this as more viable than the ACC route. Basketball and baseball are important, and having a reputable conference as home for both will be a requirement.

Going totally football independent is not realistic, even for Texas. Quality schools will play them, but few will do so in most of October and November when conference schedules kick-in.

If the playoffs become more focused on having conference champions, being technically football independent could become more of a detriment.

The thing about Texas is they are rich enough that they can basically do whatever they want. It's also true that some options are more beneficial than others.

Their preferred plan would probably be a healthy and viable Big 12, but that's not likely anymore. They may very well throw a hail mary and try some crazy plan to save the conference, but I doubt it will work at this stage.

The ACC makes sense to a certain degree, but the SEC is the best overall fit even if some people in blog-land don't want to admit it.

I think the most interesting wrinkle is what exactly does ESPN want in this whole deal. Looks like they're going all in on the ACC Network so they'll probably want to push certain properties there to enhance the profile, but that might be easier said than done.

I can't rule out the idea that ESPN will find a way to acquire the PAC by getting Texas to go in on a new format, but that depends on a lot of things falling the right way. It also makes sense that ESPN would want to acquire more PAC content given that the ACC Network and the SEC Network will have taken some prime games away from their main channels. The other day, a report came out that ESPN2 had fallen behind FS1 and NBCSN in ratings.

I'm sure that's not something Disney will abide. Especially with the advent of ESPN+, I think the corporation will be looking for ways to increase their inventory in the coming years. College properties have been a staple for ESPN for a lot of reasons so it makes sense to me that they would try to recapture more of the Power conferences.

Of course, ESPN could do things to lure the PAC that wouldn't involve Texas as I'm sure some of the leaders in the PAC wouldn't want to compromise their model in exchange for UT or anyone else.

This topic, the CFP Championship ticket sale fiasco, and the push for an 8 school playoff all have 1 thing in common which is at the source of the screwed up mess we are in, ESPN.

The CFP was designed to appease the most powerful bowls. That's why you have a CCG in Atlanta followed by two more extant neutral high dollar sites for the fans to try to manage. If ESPN doesn't hold those bowl contracts then this thing doesn't get fouled up that way. If ESPN hadn't been so concerned about maximizing thee ad revenue from the CFP, and hadn't made promises to move the game around to appease all regions we wouldn't be in this mess. If ESPN didn't work so hard to try to include all regions as a priority then the first few years of the CFP wouldn't have been fouled up by leaving T.C.U. out, and stretching it to try to include a lousy PAC which just doesn't have right now what it takes to make that field.

Because of ESPN's involvement realignment didn't unfold naturally either. The market footprint model pushed some really odd duck moves.

So how do you go about fixing this mess?

Make the neutral site games a Summer ending last weekend of August game at a regional neutral site for between 16 to 20 of the top rated P schools.

Return to 8 conference games for all P conferences. Leave 3 slots for OOC or G5 games provided the G5 games are P home venue games only. They'll line up for the payday but gripe about it until doomsday. But, they'll do it for the money. If a school wants to schedule two of those as other P conference home and home series then fine that's on them and they shouldn't complain about having only 6 home games instead of 7.

The rest of the P5 open with home and homes with other P5 schools not of their conference.

The top 8 to 10 bowls get a great season opener, with fans optimistic about their year to come, and at the end of Summer vacations and while they still have cash and what's more the fans will have had since January to know who they will be playing and where to arrange travel and save for the event.

ESPN should release the rest of the bowls from their contract, unless the G5 uses them for similar purposes, and pay them the remainder of their contract.

Then ESPN should cooperate with FOX to place out the Big 12 schools and move us to a P4. IMO opinion they need to do the same in the G5 with their weakest conference.

Then after the CCG's the champions move to semis. Only each conference's runner up will be paid with another conference's champion at the home of the champion. The quarter-finals are played on the 2nd Saturday of December.

Semi finals again are played at the home stadium of the remaining highest 2 seeds 2 weeks after the quarter finals, Jan 1st.

The finals are then held at a pre-determined neutral site 1 week later. All fans will know ahead of time where that will be and contingent tickets and accommodations can be made in advance with the winners receiving the tickets and the accommodations. Others will have reserved these with a credit card which is credited if their teams lose.

That way fans begin the season potentially at a neutral site if they are ranked in the top 20. They have all season to prepare to save for the CCG's and Finals.

The interest and travel would remain reasonable and regional until the finals.

Let WVU and N.D. join the ACC in full. Let Texas take Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Kansas State to the PAC. Let Kansas and Iowa State join the Big 10, and let Oklahoma and Oklahoma State come to the SEC. Relegate Baylor.

Now you have 4 conferences of 16 each with two divisions of 8 the winners of which do play in the CCG. The runner up of each conference is determined not by the CCG but the best record and tie breakers after the CCG.

Those 8 teams are your playoff first round.

That's what we need in my opinion. It solves all 3 messes, helps the fans, guarantees the best possible 8 teams are in the finals, and solves the content issues for the networks.

Tie post season play to season ticket priorities and you have no lag in the sale of regular season tickets.
01-04-2019 03:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,794
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 402
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #43
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
Related to the above messages, I am a proponent of each school (all conferences really) playing their top 5 or 6 regional rivals, whether in conference or not, on a yearly basis. I believe such needs to be contracted nationwide, with the balance of schedules fulfilled by conference games up to the point of a maximum of eight conference games total. Fans want to see natural rivals play, and to be able to DRIVE to games within reason.

Structure new permanent non-conference, yearly (and old) rivalries.

Georgia-Clemson
SC-NC/NCSU
Texas A&M-Texas
Auburn-GT?
Ark.-Texas/Ok. St.
Tenn.-Va Tech?
Mizzou-Kansas
etc.

8 conference games, 2 non-conference P5 or P5-like opponents of which at least one is mandated longterm, and 2 free choices, but no more than one FCS school on the schedule.
01-04-2019 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
I think the disconnect between what should happen and what can happen comes down to essentially one factor...

It's ESPN in a way, but they are just taking advantage of the landscape that is set before them. The core problem is that the power structure of college athletics is divided. Every conference is out there trying to get the best deal for itself and thus they are competing with one another. It's divide and conquer by ESPN.

You don't see this in other sports. ESPN would never be able to manipulate or railroad the professional leagues(even the weaker ones) like this. The reason is because they speak with one voice. They have a central leadership structure that plans out a national and international strategy.

Now, the NCAA is incapable and, not to mention, wholly unqualified to perform that function so it's not really on them.

The problem is that the money makers in college athletics haven't devised a way to coalesce and create any leverage. I still believe that the Power leagues are underpaid compared to their professional counterparts. The reason is because there's such little leverage on their side.

This is why I've always advocated larger and larger leagues. More content and markets = more leverage.
01-04-2019 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
(01-04-2019 03:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the disconnect between what should happen and what can happen comes down to essentially one factor...

It's ESPN in a way, but they are just taking advantage of the landscape that is set before them. The core problem is that the power structure of college athletics is divided. Every conference is out there trying to get the best deal for itself and thus they are competing with one another. It's divide and conquer by ESPN.

You don't see this in other sports. ESPN would never be able to manipulate or railroad the professional leagues(even the weaker ones) like this. The reason is because they speak with one voice. They have a central leadership structure that plans out a national and international strategy.

Now, the NCAA is incapable and, not to mention, wholly unqualified to perform that function so it's not really on them.

The problem is that the money makers in college athletics haven't devised a way to coalesce and create any leverage. I still believe that the Power leagues are underpaid compared to their professional counterparts. The reason is because there's such little leverage on their side.

This is why I've always advocated larger and larger leagues. More content and markets = more leverage.

The problem ATU is that until the early 80's and the Oklahoma/Georgia lawsuit against the NCAA, the NCAA negotiated all of the contracts and pocketed oodles of money off of us just like they do now with the NCAA Tourney.

The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the individual schools. What needs to happen for what you are wanting is that the P5 commissioners need to form a cartel and negotiate together. The problem is if we did the SEC and Big 10 would earn less. There's your issue.
01-04-2019 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
(01-04-2019 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 03:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the disconnect between what should happen and what can happen comes down to essentially one factor...

It's ESPN in a way, but they are just taking advantage of the landscape that is set before them. The core problem is that the power structure of college athletics is divided. Every conference is out there trying to get the best deal for itself and thus they are competing with one another. It's divide and conquer by ESPN.

You don't see this in other sports. ESPN would never be able to manipulate or railroad the professional leagues(even the weaker ones) like this. The reason is because they speak with one voice. They have a central leadership structure that plans out a national and international strategy.

Now, the NCAA is incapable and, not to mention, wholly unqualified to perform that function so it's not really on them.

The problem is that the money makers in college athletics haven't devised a way to coalesce and create any leverage. I still believe that the Power leagues are underpaid compared to their professional counterparts. The reason is because there's such little leverage on their side.

This is why I've always advocated larger and larger leagues. More content and markets = more leverage.

The problem ATU is that until the early 80's and the Oklahoma/Georgia lawsuit against the NCAA, the NCAA negotiated all of the contracts and pocketed oodles of money off of us just like they do now with the NCAA Tourney.

The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the individual schools. What needs to happen for what you are wanting is that the P5 commissioners need to form a cartel and negotiate together. The problem is if we did the SEC and Big 10 would earn less. There's your issue.

I don't think it's really a zero-sum game. Depending on how the cartel was structured, I'm not sure they'd make less. They might not make as much as they're worth, but a combo of conferences should get the networks' attention.

The SEC and Big Ten both have some of the better properties in the game, but the payouts are relatively small because few people outside their regions are interested. If you were to essentially combine the regions under one roof then it could be quite lucrative depending on how many mouths you had to feed.

But that's a big change from the way things work right now so unless Alston forces some new realities on everyone then it probably won't happen.
01-04-2019 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
(01-04-2019 04:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 03:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the disconnect between what should happen and what can happen comes down to essentially one factor...

It's ESPN in a way, but they are just taking advantage of the landscape that is set before them. The core problem is that the power structure of college athletics is divided. Every conference is out there trying to get the best deal for itself and thus they are competing with one another. It's divide and conquer by ESPN.

You don't see this in other sports. ESPN would never be able to manipulate or railroad the professional leagues(even the weaker ones) like this. The reason is because they speak with one voice. They have a central leadership structure that plans out a national and international strategy.

Now, the NCAA is incapable and, not to mention, wholly unqualified to perform that function so it's not really on them.

The problem is that the money makers in college athletics haven't devised a way to coalesce and create any leverage. I still believe that the Power leagues are underpaid compared to their professional counterparts. The reason is because there's such little leverage on their side.

This is why I've always advocated larger and larger leagues. More content and markets = more leverage.

The problem ATU is that until the early 80's and the Oklahoma/Georgia lawsuit against the NCAA, the NCAA negotiated all of the contracts and pocketed oodles of money off of us just like they do now with the NCAA Tourney.

The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the individual schools. What needs to happen for what you are wanting is that the P5 commissioners need to form a cartel and negotiate together. The problem is if we did the SEC and Big 10 would earn less. There's your issue.

I don't think it's really a zero-sum game. Depending on how the cartel was structured, I'm not sure they'd make less. They might not make as much as they're worth, but a combo of conferences should get the networks' attention.

The SEC and Big Ten both have some of the better properties in the game, but the payouts are relatively small because few people outside their regions are interested. If you were to essentially combine the regions under one roof then it could be quite lucrative depending on how many mouths you had to feed.

But that's a big change from the way things work right now so unless Alston forces some new realities on everyone then it probably won't happen.

Alston has the potential to end conferences. Strong conferences have been built because it provided scheduling security for all sports, and because if each school was competitive it multiplied the value of the conference. The SEC has more competitive programs than not. Our value is as high as it is because of that. The Big 10 is not hyper competitive but they have the other thing conferences are paid for, viewers. There is really no good reason other than bad leadership decisions that the SEC doesn't earn about 15% more than the Big 10 on all media contracts. We have more viewers and we are more competitive.

The problem with Alston is at the heart of the case is the setting of salary caps. If salary caps are prohibited by conference, then we are going to need to form leagues where salary caps aren't imposed on players but rather on teams. The NFL is a legal precedent for this.

If we don't we'll wind up like MLB where the rich get richer and the poor make do. This environment is not conducive to conferences as we know them.

The reason this avoids the Alston ruling in part is because an individual player might get paid a lot more, but the team as a whole couldn't spend more than the cap. This approach will allow us to keep conferences or possibly grow into leagues for the leverage in bargaining with networks.

So if we head to no caps on team payrolls then its the end of conferences. If we head to a salary cap for each team we'll be okay.
01-04-2019 05:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
(01-04-2019 03:04 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Related to the above messages, I am a proponent of each school (all conferences really) playing their top 5 or 6 regional rivals, whether in conference or not, on a yearly basis. I believe such needs to be contracted nationwide, with the balance of schedules fulfilled by conference games up to the point of a maximum of eight conference games total. Fans want to see natural rivals play, and to be able to DRIVE to games within reason.

Structure new permanent non-conference, yearly (and old) rivalries.

Georgia-Clemson
SC-NC/NCSU
Texas A&M-Texas
Auburn-GT?
Ark.-Texas/Ok. St.
Tenn.-Va Tech?
Mizzou-Kansas
etc.

8 conference games, 2 non-conference P5 or P5-like opponents of which at least one is mandated longterm, and 2 free choices, but no more than one FCS school on the schedule.

That can easily be accomplished in the structure I suggested, and it could even if we went to an all P4 schedule. The only problem with the all P4 schedule is that it would be difficult to guarantee 7 home games for a season ticket book. For that reason at least 2 G5's need to remain for the home only scheduling purposes.
01-04-2019 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,794
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 402
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #49
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
(01-04-2019 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 03:04 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Related to the above messages, I am a proponent of each school (all conferences really) playing their top 5 or 6 regional rivals, whether in conference or not, on a yearly basis. I believe such needs to be contracted nationwide, with the balance of schedules fulfilled by conference games up to the point of a maximum of eight conference games total. Fans want to see natural rivals play, and to be able to DRIVE to games within reason.

Structure new permanent non-conference, yearly (and old) rivalries.

Georgia-Clemson
SC-NC/NCSU
Texas A&M-Texas
Auburn-GT?
Ark.-Texas/Ok. St.
Tenn.-Va Tech?
Mizzou-Kansas
etc.

8 conference games, 2 non-conference P5 or P5-like opponents of which at least one is mandated longterm, and 2 free choices, but no more than one FCS school on the schedule.

That can easily be accomplished in the structure I suggested, and it could even if we went to an all P4 schedule. The only problem with the all P4 schedule is that it would be difficult to guarantee 7 home games for a season ticket book. For that reason at least 2 G5's need to remain for the home only scheduling purposes.

The SEC and BIG would be the pacesetters for change. Both have some unique similarities beyond being the revenue leaders. They share a long, but distinct border. Each is in 11 states. Three states in each conference have 2 conference schools, they are all flagship and land grant institutions with each having one elite private school. There are some differences in sponsoring a few Olympic-style/minor revenue sports. The BIG has more extensive academic research collectively, and possess the strong AAU membership numbers. And of course, there are the weather differences. Otherwise, the compatibilities for political influence and control, for mutual benefits, are there if they choose to exercise it more extensively.

The BIG's long affection with the PAC12 has much to do with the prestige of the Rose Bowl and attracting some recruits from the far west. However, there has been some conflict with the PAC12 in the last couple of decades over some scheduling and governance matters.
The ACC and BIG have a strained relationship over Maryland, Notre Dame, and BIG expansion interests.
The B12 have their resentments, but cooperate for self-interest.

The SEC and BIG need to be partners in all this and not allow other entities divide and conquer.
01-04-2019 06:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Realignment Chess as Played by the Big 10. Why Oklahoma and Texas?
(01-04-2019 06:40 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 03:04 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Related to the above messages, I am a proponent of each school (all conferences really) playing their top 5 or 6 regional rivals, whether in conference or not, on a yearly basis. I believe such needs to be contracted nationwide, with the balance of schedules fulfilled by conference games up to the point of a maximum of eight conference games total. Fans want to see natural rivals play, and to be able to DRIVE to games within reason.

Structure new permanent non-conference, yearly (and old) rivalries.

Georgia-Clemson
SC-NC/NCSU
Texas A&M-Texas
Auburn-GT?
Ark.-Texas/Ok. St.
Tenn.-Va Tech?
Mizzou-Kansas
etc.

8 conference games, 2 non-conference P5 or P5-like opponents of which at least one is mandated longterm, and 2 free choices, but no more than one FCS school on the schedule.

That can easily be accomplished in the structure I suggested, and it could even if we went to an all P4 schedule. The only problem with the all P4 schedule is that it would be difficult to guarantee 7 home games for a season ticket book. For that reason at least 2 G5's need to remain for the home only scheduling purposes.

The SEC and BIG would be the pacesetters for change. Both have some unique similarities beyond being the revenue leaders. They share a long, but distinct border. Each is in 11 states. Three states in each conference have 2 conference schools, they are all flagship and land grant institutions with each having one elite private school. There are some differences in sponsoring a few Olympic-style/minor revenue sports. The BIG has more extensive academic research collectively, and possess the strong AAU membership numbers. And of course, there are the weather differences. Otherwise, the compatibilities for political influence and control, for mutual benefits, are there if they choose to exercise it more extensively.

The BIG's long affection with the PAC12 has much to do with the prestige of the Rose Bowl and attracting some recruits from the far west. However, there has been some conflict with the PAC12 in the last couple of decades over some scheduling and governance matters.
The ACC and BIG have a strained relationship over Maryland, Notre Dame, and BIG expansion interests.
The B12 have their resentments, but cooperate for self-interest.

The SEC and BIG need to be partners in all this and not allow other entities divide and conquer.

My suggestion is for the Old Big 8 schools to join the Big 10 along with the old Big East Programs and N.D.

Let the Texas schools join the SEC along with the Old Core ACC plus Florida State and Louisville.

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Virginia Tech to the Big 10.

North Carolina, N.C. State, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Virginia, Miami, Texas, Texas Tech to the SEC.

Louisville, T.C.U. Baylor, West Virginia, Wake Forest to the American.

The PAC would go along. Now were down to 60 schools.
01-04-2019 08:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.