NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:22 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2015 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 ... 135  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:46 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
SlideRuleJockey wrote:
As we all know, the B1G is an athletic conference and an academic association, which just happens to have their own network. Based on the wealth and prestige of the B1G, it may be the holy grail of all conferences for any FBS institution of higher learning east of the Rockies. There is another perk that comes with joining the B1G: Membership to the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). Consider that that the B1G might generate ~$40 Million or so per school per year when the new TV contracts are signed, while at the University of Wisconsin alone, academic research pulls in a bit short of $1 Billion per year. The CIC is the academic arm of the B1G and is not just a prestigious club, like the AAU. There are tangible research benefits to be had from CIC membership.

As commish of this amalgamation, Mr. Delany is looking to boost the dollars coming into his conference and increase the prestige of the association, as well as stoke his massive ego as the "king" of conference hill. Thus, the driving factors in expanding the B1G beyond 14 members are, in no particular order:

A. Academic Standing which can be measured by AAU membership.
B. National Brand (called the "it factor")
C. Market Size

Academic Standing is hard to quantify, but efforts have been made in this area. This post will cite the US News and World Report Rankings as a benchmark. This is not to say that the USN&WR Rankings are accurate or the only source, but we will go with it here. For reference, here are the USN&WR Rankings and state populations (Source: 2010 US Census) of the present membership of the B1G:

Northwestern 12 12,830,632 (shared with U of Illinois)
Michigan 29 9,883,640 (shared with Michigan St.)
Wisconsin 41 5,686,986
Illinois 46 12,830,632 (shared with Northwestern)
Penn State 46 12,702,379
Ohio State 56 11,536,504
Maryland 58 5,773,552
Purdue 65 6,483,802 (shared with U of Indiana)
Minnesota 68 5,303,925
Rutgers 68 8,791,894
Iowa 72 3,046,355
Michigan State 72 9,883,640 (shared with U of Michigan)
Indiana 83 6,483,802 (shared with Purdue)
Nebraska 101 1,826,341

So for academics, the average B1G school has a USN&WR Ranking of ~58 and all schools other than Nebraska are AAU members. The B1G Footprint can draw on a population of 83,866,010 or roughly 6 Million people per school.

I think Delany has several targets in mind, namely:

Virginia: AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 24 and a population of 8,001,024
North Carolina: AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 30 and a population of 9,535,483

These two are almost no brainers to add. UNC may present a "tag along" issue in that they would only join if Duke came along for the ride. Here are Duke's Numbers:

Duke University: AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 8 and a population of 9,535,483, shared with UNC. Awesome academics and a national brand in Basketball. Would become the B1G's "Northwestern University of the South", and I think NU would not mind having another private school join the fold.

Delany takes all three and is at 17. The next target is easy, and needs no discussion:

Georgia Tech: AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 36 and a population of 9,687,653

So we sit at 18. A good number, but not enough to satiate Mr. Delany's appetite. He wants to get into Florida and its huge population of 18,801,310 which would be the largest state population in the inflated B1G, but this presents a bit of a conundrum. Florida State and Miami University would be there for the taking as the ACC crashes and burns with the SEC poaching a couple of schools (North Carolina State and Virginia Tech, for the sake of argument).

There may be another option. Could Delany entice the U. of Florida to leave the SEC to join the expanded B1G? The dollars would be there to match, if not exceed what the SEC could offer, and there is the attraction of B1G academic prestige. Would this be enough to pull Florida out of the SEC? Florida may demand that the U. of Georgia "tag along".

Here are the specifics on the candidates:

University of Miami: NOT an AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 44
Florida State: NOT an AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 97
University of Florida: AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 54
University of Georgia: NOT an AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 63

Is the U. of Florida the biggest draw in the sunshine state? Debatable, but I think so. Any way you crack the Florida nut, you are going to have to take a non-AAU school. I would guess Delany makes the effort. Georgia is no slouch academically, but would also require two schools in Georgia. Not ideal, but if you are Delany, you do it!

The ACC is now in shambles, and the SEC and Big 12 plunder the left overs.

So here we stand at 20 schools. Is Delany done yet? Not quite. There is still the 600 pound gorilla in the room. Notre Dame.

With the ACC dismantled, they may finally see the handwriting on the wall and throw in the towel on football independence. ND would be the only Catholic school in the conference, and they may demand that Boston College come along with them. Fine, if that is what it takes. BC is a great school and adds a New England presence, but neither they nor ND are AAU members. I think that in Delany's fantasy world, they take both. As an added bonus, both ND and BC have great Hockey programs, which would take the B1G Hockey League to 8, which is the ideal number for such leagues. Don't want to debate College Hockey here, but it would be a plus. Here are the specifics on the two new Catholic members of the B1G:

Notre Dame: NOT an AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 17 Population: Does not matter. National Brand.
Boston College: NOT an AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 31 Population: 6,547,629

OK, so now we are at 22 members of the B1G. An OK number, but not quite ideal. Just a bit more fruit to pluck. The east coast is almost covered, but there would be a hole. The state of South Carolina (Population: 4,625,364). Here are the candidates:

Clemson: NOT an AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 68
U. of South Carolina: NOT an AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 115

Clemson is much higher on the USN&WR rankings and has great athletics. They get the nod. But now who would be number 24?

Here are some candidates:

Connecticut: NOT an AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 63 Population: 3,574,097
U. of Missouri: AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 97 Population: 5,988,927
U. of Kansas: AAU Member and a USN&WR Ranking of 106 Population: 2,853,118

All have issues. UConn is not an AAU member and Boston College has already sewed up New England. Kansas has the GOR and K-State tag along issues. That leaves Missouri, AAU member with a nice sized population. If Florida and Georgia leave the SEC, I think Missouri could overcome the bad taste of the Nebraska decision and join up.

OK, so now we have a 24 headed monster of a conference. 19 of 24 schools are AAU. Average USN&WR ranking drops from ~58 to 52ish. 18 State Footprint has a population of 147,053,400 increasing the average footprint population per school from 5.990 million to 6.127 million. The total Footprint Population does not even include New York State, and other states which are not home to B1G schools, but follow the B1G for FBS Football. Adding in those populations, you cover over HALF of the U.S. Population! Upcoming Television Deal would be in the Stratosphere. B1G Network payout makes Delany cry little green tears of joy. There are still details to work out though. How would you deal with a conference of this size? I have two proposals.

The first would be four "pods" of six schools each:

Pod #1:
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Northwestern
Iowa
Missouri
Minnesota

Pod #2:
Michigan
Ohio State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois

Pod #3:
Penn State
Notre Dame
Rutgers
Maryland
Boston College
Virginia

Pod #4:
Florida
Georgia
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Duke
Clemson

The Pods each would have at least a couple of strong schools at the top. They are somewhat balanced. I could see Michigan State slide from Pod 2 to Pod 1 in exchange for Northwestern to even things out, but any way you cut this, you are going to have to split either the Illinois or Michigan schools.

In the four pod solution, the top two rated schools would play in the B1G Championship Game, which could alternate between Indianapolis, Chicago, Charlotte and Atlanta, take your pick. After any schools are taken for the four school National Championship playoffs, the top rated school goes to the Rose Bowl, the next school would go to the Orange Bowl. With the ACC a smoldering wreck, the Orange Bowl settles on the second pick schools of the B1G and SEC. Each Pod member would play the other five members in the pod, and one school from each of the other three pods. Travel would not be outrageous.

Another option would be to make two separate, and almost independent conferences out to Pods 1 and 2, and pods 3 and 4. All schools would be members of the CIC, and Delany would be in charge of both conferences. All revenue (TV, BTN, Bowls...every last dime) would be shared equally between the 24 schools. There would be Championship Games between Pods 1 and 2 and between Pods 3 and 4. Rose Bowl gets choice of the Pods 1 and 2 conference, Orange Bowl gets choice of pods 3 and 4 conference. Of course, these choices would be made after any schools selected to play in the National Championship playoffs. Scheduling would include schools in your pod, as well as three from the other pod in your "conference". A game like Iowa vs. Maryland could be scheduled, but would be considered a non-conference game. You could even have a Bowl game which matches up a school from each of these independent conferences.

So I have laid this all out. Would this happen? Probably not. Here are some of the major issues I would foresee:

* Would the B1G take both North Carolina and Duke?
* Could the B1G snag any schools from the SEC?
* Would the B1G take both Georgia and Georgia Tech?
* Would the B1G take any schools other than Notre Dame who are not AAU Members?

Have I missed anything? Are there other schools which should be considered that I did not list?

This is truly a mind blowing scenario with huge potential benefits for all. Please kick this around and share your thoughts. No attacks please, I already know this is a far fetched plan. Please feel free to add to the benefits or describe other problems which I did not list. Have at it.


Slide, no attack from me. You put considerable thought and time into the post, and you delivered it in a well-written and organized fashion. I hope you continue posting here. Without addressing details, and you acknowledged the "far fetched" dimension of it,
I would like to respond to the theoretical core of the concept. The basic theme you delivered gets presented by multiple people here and elsewhere; however, you take it to a deeper level, with an offered rationale.
First, if the motive and power of Delany (and B1G) are as formidable as you imply, then the assumption is this conference may operate at will. Because Delany was able to extract an unhappy Maryland from the ACC, that's a big jump to suggest everyone else is ready and willing to be accepting. That's also going way beyond what Delany's actual intent may be.
Second, you present this as if the B1G's expansion initiative is all built around their academic consortium. That's a selling mechanism to faculty, but this day and age, cooperative research is international, and technologies for networking are growing through all kinds of new and developing associations. The consortium concept is indeed respectable, but it is also old-school.
Third, in your presentation, where is the fundamental question of athletic justification? That's the key factor beyond grouping certain AAU schools and the assumed point enough money can buy anything via the Big 10 network and other broadcast contracting.
Third, if a conference grows into the numbers of 20-plus, then the B1G would essentially transform into an umbrella organization. What's the goal then? Controll all? One could continue adding "pods" until all is consumed. Then what?
Fourth, to go as far as Georgia in the B1G, that may be something to present if one is on a powerful hallucinogenic substance; it's far-fetched even for a dream thread. Please understand, that is not intended to be an offensive analogy; but if a scenario is presented as some rationality, then one needs to retain a decent element of realism.
Fifth, there is the political dimension that goes beyond money. Is the B1G now the new and better Walmart of college athletic consumption and ESPN is to be their China? The ACC gets to be old F. W. Woolworth Company, and the SEC becomes the struggling Mom-N-Pop store fighting to hang on.
Sixth, the B1G can't get Notre Dame but can anyone else? Thus, if enough of everybody else is taken, Notre Dame shall relent? So, the B1G has unlimted power to bust all other conferences, except for the one school smack in the middle of the B1G's geography?

It is understood all this is revenue driven with power thirts. And hostile take-overs happen in the corporate world. And if the B1G seeks and has the evident means to go there, then the "corporate-ism" (not capitalism--there's a certain difference per anti-trust, etc.) may prevail. Beforehand though, a thorough analysis of the set and flexible assets at the B1G's disposal, taking into consideration all comparative and predictable assets of all others, would be in order. That does not even include the intangible or the other tangible factors. Additionally, the B1G cannot operate within a vaccum per such decisions and embarkments, and past evidence has shown they have not always gotten everything, including matters unrelated to expanding, when and where they wanted. Neither have any other conferences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1716
Wow !

That's certainly ambitious.
One problem I see immediately is that you are still only about a year and a half from an 11-team conference (pre-Nebraska) and suddenly you are at 24.
Culturally 1/2 of your new membership has no "Big Ten Indoctrination" and those college adminstrators may not be so used to bowing to Delany's every whim.
Expanding so fast can lead to some potential issues with everyone being on the same page....

Will this more than double the revenue of the conference ? Because, if it doesn't, you've reduced the revenue per school.
You have to get value for evey piece of marketable content you have to sell, and at some point, you will reach a law of diminishing returns with regard to
finding media outlets with capacity to air all the sports of 24 schools....

Maybe it's workable, but Delany is VERY deliberate, and I do NOT see him moving so fast.

The Maryland move seemed designed to destabilize the ACC. The Rutgers move ???? The jury is still out on that one...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:05 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7434
CSNBBS MB thread discussing above linked Columbus Dispatch blog article with comments from OSU President regarding possible future Big 10 expansion at http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=615190


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:34 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1372
Location: Baltimore, MD
Old Gordon says many things not shared by his colleagues. His remarks have stirred up much thought for this board, but I think the B1G will pause at 14 for a few years.
A clue might be how quickly or slowly they realign the divisions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:11 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1124
westwolf wrote:
Old Gordon says many things not shared by his colleagues. His remarks have stirred up much thought for this board, but I think the B1G will pause at 14 for a few years.
A clue might be how quickly or slowly they realign the divisions.


I'm not a Gee fan, but I find his talk revealing and much more frank than Delany's "shroud of mystery." The guy was having talks with Texas when Delany was putting out the "not on our current radar" junk.

I think they will want 16+ (I suspect they will stop at 20) pretty soon. But not until the new contract is renegotiated. They will see what they get with these two new schools, and then use that to propel themselves further in revenue. Going for broke and grabbing everything at once will actually not work them at the table. The money will be so ungodly high that the network could throw any number, and it would look good to the B1G.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:43 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
westwolf wrote:
Old Gordon says many things not shared by his colleagues. His remarks have stirred up much thought for this board, but I think the B1G will pause at 14 for a few years.
A clue might be how quickly or slowly they realign the divisions.


I'm not a Gee fan, but I find his talk revealing and much more frank than Delany's "shroud of mystery." The guy was having talks with Texas when Delany was putting out the "not on our current radar" junk.

I think they will want 16+ (I suspect they will stop at 20) pretty soon. But not until the new contract is renegotiated. They will see what they get with these two new schools, and then use that to propel themselves further in revenue. Going for broke and grabbing everything at once will actually not work them at the table. The money will be so ungodly high that the network could throw any number, and it would look good to the B1G.


At 20, hypothetically, each school would play in fb the other nine schools in their division and then divisional champions face-off in the CCG. At least no re-matches then. It's hardly different from the concept of two distinct conferences squaring off for a spot in the playoffs. But for the B1G, it would be about grand numbers to market.

I would hope the B1G, and the SEC, would pause for an extended period as Westwolf noted. 14 is stretched and loaded. 16 pretty much minimizes cross-divisional play. 20 re-defines everything, and the B1G schools shall have to ask themselves what kind of integration of regular scheduling do they really seek? It does change, for better or worse, I suppose depending on how each school may see it. It's will no longer be just a rust belt persona of huge flagship campuses. Maybe the western division shall be.

Rather than the B1G having Gee and others drop speculative hints about expansion, I'd like to see the conference state the purpose. We all know what the purpose would be, but I want them to state it---what's the goal here? Where's the position paper on having 4 (or is it 3?) super-mega conferences, with a stated reason and timetable, and who is cooperating? The SEC? The B12? The PAC12?
Is the B1G to do such first, and two to three others shall follow? Has the B1G decided, by themselves or with whomever, the ACC is to become a shell of itself? If so, declare the intent, and make it a survival of the fittest game---round four or five.

And if it is about a playoff fb fixture, how many years does the B1G think UVA, GT, UNC, and maybe Pitt, shall get them there, if any or all are a future part of the B1G? It's a move for future playoff guarantee by numbers----one rep each by 4 mega-conferences. That in addition to making satellite and cable bills more expensive near everywhere for lower-down repeat games, and other edge-of-the-seat programming such as cheerleader try-out clinics and coaches' charity golf outings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:08 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1124
One has to qualify the playoff talk with the time factor. We'll have this structure for the next 12 years or so, and who knows how much longer beyond that should the presidents decide to renegotiate and renew (ala this current cycle of nonsense). I suspect we won't be seeing bowls going away anytime soon. Decades from now, at least. Until then, with a group of middling football programs like UMD, Rutgers, UNC, UVA, GT, and Pitt, mixed with the likes of Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue, and Northwestern...you can get a lot of parity that find themselves in that 6+ win, bowl-eligible category. So, on that front, football is covered.

You ride the likes of those ACC schools to the bank for their other sports; tapping into populations who follow soccer, lacrosse, and baseball. Getting an additional program who supports ice hockey would also go a long way. I, for one, don't think basketball's profitability is quite yet maximized.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:49 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1124
So, to 16 and beyond we go?

Please, Delany...retire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:18 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:41 am
Posts: 118
Location: Chicago, IL
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
So, to 16 and beyond we go?

Please, Delany...retire.


I wonder what this would do for money from TV rights. Wisconsin vs. Iowa is much more valuable than Wisconsin vs. Northern Iowa and Ohio State vs. Michigan State is much more valuable than Ohio State vs. Eastern Michigan. You'd lose the money from a home game but additional money in TV rights might help solve that problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:11 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1124
hickory_cornhusker wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
So, to 16 and beyond we go?

Please, Delany...retire.


I wonder what this would do for money from TV rights. Wisconsin vs. Iowa is much more valuable than Wisconsin vs. Northern Iowa and Ohio State vs. Michigan State is much more valuable than Ohio State vs. Eastern Michigan. You'd lose the money from a home game but additional money in TV rights might help solve that problem.


The Big Ten has made it known in the past they wanted the opportunity to play each other every year. That was complicated by each expansion after ten. They will say this is the catalyst, although there wasn't any push to go to nine or ten when they were at 11, and the logic was the same as it was then as it is now.

This is the Big Ten having a hissy fit about losing that PAC-crossover deal. This is about not sharing with the ACC and its Notre Dame attachment. This is about forcing the MAC to take a pay cut to get onto the schedule. This is about "synergy;" making money in-house and not sharing it with others. This isn't forward-thinking. It's not even good business. Forcing BTN down PA, NJ, and MD's throats so folks can watch Indiana football is not going to endear the conference to national respect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:48 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1124
Johns Hopkins to the B1G?!

This story is all full of news. JHU considering any conference affiliation, the B1G forming a lacrosse conference, UMD and the ACC rift, B1G and partial membership?!

I see a temporary relationship. What's in play here is a lot of moving parts, with the Patriot growing, ECAC's scramble to rebuild, the ACC losing AQ, the Big East and their whole thing...it sounds like the pool of non-AQs just grew, and now JHU is on the same level as a lot of its more situated rivals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:02 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
A view from Iowa...

http://thegazette.com/2013/01/18/iowa-a ... alignment/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:58 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1372
Location: Baltimore, MD
Finally some sensibility concerning alignment and scheduling:

http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/football/2013/2/12/3979448/big-ten-talks-9-10-game-schedule-divisions-november-night-games

9 games and East-West make the most sense IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:05 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 399
Conferences need to thoroughly consider the impact on divisional alignments and scheduling BEFORE expanding. Sometimes it makes it better, sometimes it doesn't.

Agree, the B1G looks like they recognize the scheduling changes needed, and the additions provide the opportunity for their members to be open for shifts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:35 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1716
I so whole-heartedly agree that they should have thought this through, PRIOR to deciding who to add in the last expansion.

For B1G, we can agree that Rutgers, Md, PSU, OSU in East, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota in West.
After that, it's hard to see any way to split up the remainder 7-7 logically without putting Wisconsin in East, or splitting up one of: Ill-NW, Indiana-Purdue, MU, MSU.
They should have added Missouri when they had the chance (instead of either Maryland or Rutgers) and everything would have been cleaner.

Similarly, the SEC divisions are goofy (Missouri in East), because KY and TN belong in the same division, and you can't split up Auburn and Alabama.
SEC should have added WVU (placing them in SEC East) instead of Missouri in my opinion.

And the ACC sttill has their stupid zipper.

The PAC has the best divisions, and used the double rivalry concept to solve their political issues with the CA schools.
However, the cross-divisional rivalry game in the Big Ten is cumbersome. To stick Rutgers with a "rival" rom the West is just LAME.
Whomever it is, they were NEVER rivals. All it will do, is serve to slow down the rotation through the other cross-divisional match-ups.

What merits some discussion is Steve Spurrier's suggestion.....
Count ONLY the INTRA-division round-robin games toward who plays in the CCG.
This does 2 things:
1) it imposes fairness, with regard to winning the conference.
2) it would allow scheduling of a rivalry match-up where one makes sense, and the schools that don't have a rival can cyle through the other
cross-division schools (but not those locked up with a rivalry game) more frequently.
For instance, in the SEC - Alabama-Tennessee can have a rivaly, as can Missouri and Arkansas, perhaps Auburn and a Mississippi school.
They would play 6 within their division + a rivalry + 1 or 2 inter-division game (rotating), depending on a 8 or 9-game league schedule.
The other 8 schools play 6 within their division, but play NO rivalry and 2 or 3 inter-division games.
Wouldn't this make sense ?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2015 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 ... 135  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rcs1014 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group