NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:04 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:06 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:53 pm
Posts: 309
Anyone have the 411 on UTSA football? UTSA announced football 10 months ago yet nothing since. OTOH, 4 months ago Lamar announced football, hired a coach and staff, and already scheduled its first game with a FCS powerhouse. All over this forum, including my post, we had UTSA in CUSA or the new SWC.
It's getting late for UTSA to play in 2010. I did hear a rumor to play in 2011, can anyone confirm? is UTSA football dead?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:13 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1649
Here's what I've seen -

There are 3 Southland schools that seem to be moving ahead with starting up football.

1) Lamar - scheduled to start up in 2010 (may have FBS aspirations, but will likely play in the Southland (FCS) once they can squeeze into the other tems schedules). I heard a rumor that they would play their first game against Georgia State (of the CAA, also starting up in 2010).

2) Texas State - San Marcos - seems to definitely be moving ahead, and have made statements that their long term goal is FBS football (much to the chagrin of the Southland Conference), they would start-up as an FCS team, however.

3) UT - San Antonio - football likely, I think the administration / students voted to fund it and move ahead. This will take a few years, and they have not done any hiring or stated any target dates yet that I have seen.

Where will they ultimately end up ? hard to say, but I think the general consensus is that the FBS lndscape will change by maybe 2015, at which point there will be some openings for a few FCS -> FBS move-ups.

There are currently no openings in CUSA - there could be if CUSA split and the Texas / Louisiana teams from a new SWC, but that is pure speculation right now, and there is NOTHING in the works YET.

The WAC (9 schools and ever-fearful of being cherry-picked by the MWC or, less likely the PAC-10, OR losing a school via FBS -> FCS forced downgrade due to failure to meet NCAA FBS attendance criteria) might welcome a Texas school or 2 that can generate 15,000 + fans for FBS football. Realistically, none of these 3 schools are likely to get sufficiently established to jump to FBS before maybe 2015 or so.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:41 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:07 pm
Posts: 38
The UT board of regents still haven't approved football for UTSA but I heard they should in July or August. They probably won't play their first game until 2011.

Lamar will play their first game in 2010 at McNeese State, their long time rival. Texas State San Marcus currently plays FCS football but they have the approval of the board of regents to go FBS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:29 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:53 pm
Posts: 309
Texas State - San Marcos is already playing FCS. Texas st has annouced plans to move to FBS. The question is which conference will take them unless the Southland moves to FBS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:57 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 42

tute79 wrote:
Here's what I've seen -

There are 3 Southland schools that seem to be moving ahead with starting up football.

1) Lamar - scheduled to start up in 2010 (may have FBS aspirations, but will likely play in the Southland (FCS) once they can squeeze into the other tems schedules). I heard a rumor that they would play their first game against Georgia State (of the CAA, also starting up in 2010).

2) Texas State - San Marcos - seems to definitely be moving ahead, and have made statements that their long term goal is FBS football (much to the chagrin of the Southland Conference), they would start-up as an FCS team, however.

3) UT - San Antonio - football likely, I think the administration / students voted to fund it and move ahead. This will take a few years, and they have not done any hiring or stated any target dates yet that I have seen.

Where will they ultimately end up ? hard to say, but I think the general consensus is that the FBS lndscape will change by maybe 2015, at which point there will be some openings for a few FCS -> FBS move-ups.

There are currently no openings in CUSA - there could be if CUSA split and the Texas / Louisiana teams from a new SWC, but that is pure speculation right now, and there is NOTHING in the works YET.

The WAC (9 schools and ever-fearful of being cherry-picked by the MWC or, less likely the PAC-10, OR losing a school via FBS -> FCS forced downgrade due to failure to meet NCAA FBS attendance criteria) might welcome a Texas school or 2 that can generate 15,000 + fans for FBS football. Realistically, none of these 3 schools are likely to get sufficiently established to jump to FBS before maybe 2015 or so.



Agreed with most of what you said, but I think it's possible [even likely] that either Rice or Tulane drops football in a few years. I don't think that any of these schools [sans UT-San Antonio] could beat out Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana Tech or North Texas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:30 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
found this letter a UTSA alum got in response to what is taking so long to get UT system approval.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2707426


Quote:
"Sent: Thu 7/31/2008 10:49 AM

Dear Mr. *******;

Your e-mail was forwarded to me for a response to your question regarding UTSA football. There was no decision by the Board of Regents on this question because the issue was not before them. Staff members at UTSA are putting the finishing touches on a report to the UT System outlining our business plan for the growth of UTSA Athletics including football. Once that plan has been reviewed and approved, we will be able to announce our fundraising campaign for football. Assuming fundraising goes as we anticipate, we should be able to move forward with our plans in the near future.

Thank you for your support of our efforts to bring Division I football to San Antonio. If you would like me to, I’ll be glad to forward your name and address information to our Athletic Department so you can be added to our list of Roadrunner fans. Please let me know your preference on that and again, thank you for your inquiry and support of UTSA Athletics.


Sincerely,


Gage E. Paine

Vice President for Student Affairs

The University of Texas at San Antonio

One UTSA Circle

San Antonio, Texas 78249-0615


210-458-4136

gage.paine@utsa.edu


I was under the under the impression that the BOR was going to vote on the program at last month's meeting. But I guess not. Maybe the issue will come up at the next meeting."


Last edited by finiteman on Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:35 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
Recall the timeline for UTSA:

http://www.utsa.edu/today/2007/09/feeqa.cfm


Quote:
"Q. When will UTSA start playing football?

A. The best-case timeline published in the recent UTSA Athletics Feasibility Study has UTSA playing its first game three years after the decision is made to begin a football program. If and when the decision is made to play football depends on several factors.

In addition to passing the Sept. 11-12 student referendum, UTSA football must be approved by the UTSA administration and the UT System Board of Regents. The Athletics Department also must raise several million dollars to help fund football; significant community support would be required to support a football program . As soon as students approve the referendum, the UTSA president would ask the board of regents to approve the increases, donations must be secured and then a coach would be hired to establish the program. "


Remember UTSA has the alamodome. They do not have to refit it in any way. Their adding football is actually COMPARITIVELY simple.

According to the FAQ's schedule, if the UT board approves UTSA football by say 10/08, they could be playing by 8/2011. Assuming fundraising takes 2 years, I think 2013 or so is possible if not probable although I'd agree 2015 is a good conservative date if the schools wait for SHSU.

I think Lamar and Texas State are trying to make certain UTSA does not beat them to FBS, so the UTSA schedule will likely be the schedule all 3 follow. I could see both schools moving up a year before UTSA to try to help them get established first.

The real question to me is, "will Sam Houston State chicken out entirely? Will they fail to move up at the same time as the other 3?...Basically where is their committment level?"


Last edited by finiteman on Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1275
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
UTSA doesn't need the Alamodome and the rent. Alamo Stadium would seem to be available. Seats 23,000, currently run by the local school district.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:34 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:07 pm
Posts: 38

Pounder wrote:
UTSA doesn't need the Alamodome and the rent. Alamo Stadium would seem to be available. Seats 23,000, currently run by the local school district.


I think UTSA will probably get a sweet deal to rent the Alamodome. Since they want to go FBS as soon as they can I doubt they'll use a high school stadium.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:07 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
I did consider whether they would look at alamo stadium, but everything I have read suggests UTSA is pretty myopic about the Alamodome.

I do agree that alamo stadium might be a better home for a start up program as --- considering San Antonio's lack of football options and the size of UTSA --- you could probably get to a point where you are selling that out fairly regularly and then move to the alamodome with momentum...

but.

What if you can't sell out alamo stadium fairly regularly? It isn't exactly on campus either. Off campus stadiums are generally struggles. Games at Alamo Stadium don't say to the locals that this is a big deal, like games at the Alamodome would. At Alamo Stadium attendance might be more reliant on the college(s) crowd(s). What happens if they were to falter at Alamo Stadium? Doesn't that kind of short out a move to the alamodome and put the program on the verge of collapse?

Additionally, some of the forces pushing UTSA football are people who pushed the alamodome and want a regular tenant, specifically city government and local business. If UTSA plays football in the alamodome, UT and A&M will want to play in San Antonio. They will sell out the Alamodome.

The alamodome seats 65k and is expandable to 72K. If UT played UTSA on the road at the alamodome, they would sell it out at 72K. Working the math, UTSA would need to average 3.6K per game for their other 5 games at the dome to hit 15K.

UT would be crazy not to play them. UTSA could pay them more than any other Texas team not named A&M on the basis of UT's travelling fans. The travel costs would be miniscule. Imagine UT travelling to TCU to play in front of 45K or UT travelling to San Antonio to play in front of 72K. More revenue, less expenses.

If UT won't do it, A&M will and their alumni are a lot more fervant fans. I think in San Antonio there are probably 60K Aggies who will buy tickets for a game every 2 years. I think for that reason alone, UT is likely. They don't want A&M getting the upper hand in San Antonio recruiting.

In recruiting terms it makes a world of sense for one or both to play in Texas's 4th largest city every other year.

Baylor would probably be all over playing UTSA at the alamodome for at least a few years. I think they might look at San Antonio as an "in play" recruiting area. They might be able to combine with UTSA to draw 35K to the stadium. (I could also see Baylor playing at Texas State --- if TSU gets Bobcat Stadium to 25-30K--- to aid Baylor recruiting/exposure in the region.)

I expect that UTSA will have a lot of nights where the alamodome seems cavernous and problematic, but at the end of the day, if you assume 1 big sellout every 2 years and 10K attendance otherwise --- IMO an absolute worse case scenario --- you still end up with 10K, then 20K the following year which puts you in safe territory albeit undistinguished territory with the NCAA. Frankly I think you would at minimum average another 5K from the non-affiliated rabid football fans in the community.

But all that said, those teams won't come for Alamo Stadium. And I think there is a good chance that the community in general in San Antonio would blow off UTSA playing at Alamo Stadium as mickey mouse level football. I think there is a reason why UTSA does not play FCS ball. Same reason UTA doesn't. Big city folk ignore small time sports options.

UTSA playing football there---leading to UT and A&M playing there --- is the business equivilant of San Antonio adding another San Antonio bowl game every year .... and a series of smaller trade conventions. Unlike a lot of the other upgrade candidates we have discussed, a lot of people have financial interests not only in UTSA playing FBS ball, but playing it at the Alamodome.

The deal will be pretty sweet to get UTSA in the door and to retain them. Remember the Alamodome was built for pro football. If UTSA falters badly or is charged too much inhibiting the program's ability to at least hit .500 with some regularity, the viability of SA as a sports town comes into question --- ala Richmond --- and the Alamodome remains mostly wasted money. There are a LOT of people in positions of power who need to see UTSA do well in the Alamodome.

UTSA HAS to do things on a large scale to get the appropriate community support they need to succeed in FBS football.

I know that some people read this and the image that comes into their head is UTSA would be Temple. In a worst case scenario, that is possible. But would that be better or worse than where they are today? Today they are a non-football program meaning basketball is their money winner. They have a wretchedly supported BB team and are in a football first and last FCS conference? Like the old SWC, the football culture in the Southland retards basketball programs. UTSA (and UTA) are cutting their throats in the Southland. (Even if some of them weren't considering upgrading, UTSA, UTA, Lamar, and TAMU-CC would be smart to try to pry off Texas State and another Southland school for 6/5 to become a mid-major BB conference. Maybe add in Oral Roberts for 7 members and more basketball legitimacy. LU, ORU, & TMAU-CC would give you 3 good, well supported BB programs out of 7. That is enough to allow the other 4 to grow. Texas could use more good basketball programs.)

Adding FBS is a huge upgrade that allows them to escape the Southland for a more pro-basketball conference. Frankly UTSA will have rough going early like startup FAU, but could blossom in a very similar way based on no competition in a pretty large DMA that likes football. Additionally, it is a convenient and nearby opponent to a lot of big programs who have legitimate reason to play them---unlike FAU.

(Looking even further down the road.... 15-20+ years down the road, a 35K expandable stadium on the UTSA campus ---like what UNT is trying to get built --- might make sense, especially if a pro football option comes to SA as part of this. Then they really would be Temple and in dire need of an on campus stadium of appropriate size to prevent the erosion of their program. If the NCAA rules allowed it, UTSA could play A&M at the alamodome in even years and UT in odd years. A 35K stadium on campus would be fine for the rest of the schedule.)


Last edited by finiteman on Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:48 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:07 pm
Posts: 38
Good analysis FiniteMan. UTSA will have the help of the local sports authority and will probably get a very nice athletic complex built to go along with football. A lot of people laugh of the thought of UTSA jumping to CUSA or similar conference, but being a large school in San Antonio with no other Div I school to compete with, they will be attractive to these conferences if they do things right.

I think the AD of Lamar, Billy Tubbs, is working behind the scenes to either get a group of SLC schools to move up or will try to get Lamar into a better conference. Lamar is currently in a $100 million capital campaign with a lot of that going towards athletics. They are upgrading all thei athletic facilities and in five years they should have some of the best facilities in the conference and be ready to move up. Their 17K football stadium can be expanded to 30K with maybe only 6-7K of endzone seats, although if and when they will is yet to be determined.

When Lamar, UL-L, UNT, La Tech and Ark State broke away from the SLC in the 80's they were trying to be the next mid-major basketball conference, but they lost their autobid for a few years and the conference floundered. This time they could do it the right way by keeping their autobid in all the sports and competing as a FBS football conference. If they can grab some schools like La Tech, Oral Roberts, maybe UALR or UNO, their new conference could be located in some good sized media markets plus have some legitimate FBS football teams and good basketball teams from the get-go.


Last edited by centexguy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:38 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1275
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
Austin is less than 100 miles away and is engaged in stadium expansion. They don't need to play in the Alamodome.

You might be right otherwise... except UTSA is going to be 1-AA, no? It's at least beaten into my brain that 1-A schools don't like to travel to 1-AA schools. This might be a compelling exception... if you're Baylor or Texas Tech. UT and aTm, um, really?

What if UTSA uses both? If they can host Big 12 schools, may as well rent the Dome. Otherwise, I'd be surprised if they fill Alamo Stadium regularly (and, BTW, calling that a HS stadium is slightly ignorant given a bit of history and the configuration of the place).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:08 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:53 pm
Posts: 309
UTSA hunting coaching candidates
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/UTSA_hunting_coaching_candidates.html

Texas st is already taking steps to go FBS.
UTSA says its goal is go FBS.
Lamar's AD Billy Tubbs mentioned FBS.
Sam Houston st is researching FBS.




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:25 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas

Pounder wrote:
Austin is less than 100 miles away and is engaged in stadium expansion. They don't need to play in the Alamodome.

You might be right otherwise... except UTSA is going to be 1-AA, no? It's at least beaten into my brain that 1-A schools don't like to travel to 1-AA schools. This might be a compelling exception... if you're Baylor or Texas Tech. UT and aTm, um, really?

What if UTSA uses both? If they can host Big 12 schools, may as well rent the Dome. Otherwise, I'd be surprised if they fill Alamo Stadium regularly (and, BTW, calling that a HS stadium is slightly ignorant given a bit of history and the configuration of the place).


Again, UT can make more money playing an away game at the Alamodome than they can playing an away game anywhere else. The bottom line with it really is that if they don't play UTSA, TAMU probably will. The math works for them too. TAMU would additionally better recruiting exposure in San Antonio, UT's backyard.

Add in that UT is the flagship of the UT system and internal pressure that could be put on UT to make this happen and I think it would happen.

Regarding IAA...that really doesn't matter. Lamar, UTSA, and Texas State are going to FBS. FCS is a way station to their athletic departments, not a comfortable home that they have to stress over leaving behind, like Sam Houston State.

Regarding using both, there is community support/pressure to use the Alamodome. The feeling in the community is to push UTSA up to a point where the alamodome makes sense, not to casually wait for growth like at other schools. I could see 1 or maybe 2 games a year at alamo stadium if UTSA is playing FCS schools, but I'd doubt it beyond that. There is a real desire in the community to build at least 1 first rate football program.

Concerning Alamo Stadium being a high school stadium, It IS a high school stadium. That is who uses it today. Regarding it's past as a home for pro teams like the San Antonio Gunslingers, even then it was considered very much unsuited for even that level of pro football and was often cited as one of the biggest problems for the Gunslingers in staying financially solvent.

I LIKE Alamo Stadium, but lets not go crazy here. It is a very nice stadium if you are getting a FCS level program going. It is mostly irrelevant if you are UTSA going to FBS. It is in a great location for schools like UIW and Trinity, not so much for UTSA.

If I were Trinity, I would totally play FCS football in Alamo Stadium and try to catch on with the Southland for football --- filling say TAMU-CC's slot. Trinity is a mini-me version of Rice in terms of esteem and finances. In time, Alamo Stadium with an expansion/redesign could get them into an affiliation with the other top regional religious privates. Right now, it appears Trinity is content to let UIW's and UTSA's upgrade efforts block any chance Trinity has of ever achieiving that type of national reputation via association with schools like SMU, TCU, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, etc. It is disgustingly shortsighted, IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: UTSA football
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:37 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas

davids wrote:
Lets not forget other schools. What about Central Arkansas? Would they make a move with them as well? They seem to have a much better football program NOW who can compete with the likes of conference USA. CA is the best team in the Southland confernce right now. They played Tulsa very close this year.

Nicholls State? They been playing more 1-A teams lately.

NW Louisiana State is another one that played FBS teams as well.

Also Missouri State is a good candidate as well.

If these teams go forward, would other teams also make the same move in the same area?

New Mexico Highlands
Eastern New Mexico
South East Missouri State
Murray State
Prairie View A&M (I remember them and Lamar had some short of rivalry in football years ago)
Grambling State
Southern U.
Texas Southern



Competitiveness is actually one of the lesser things in terms of moving up. Having the potential to generate TV revenue, having a large endowment, being academically well respected, having good fan support....Those factors have as much if not more to do with whether a school moves up conferences at the FBS level.

Central Arkansas could legitimately have a decent FBS future, but there is nothing that suggests they are looking to make that jump any time soon. They seem quite pleased with themselves to be at the FCS level. Additionally as a recent upgrade from DII, they won't satisfy all the 7/6/5 rule things until 2015-2018 or so. (Haven't counted the years out.) That diminishes how much value they would have for say the breakaway southland 4 (SHSU, Texas St, UTSA, and Lamar) ---their likely avenue for an FBS jump. Texas State, UTSA, and Lamar hope to jump in the 2011-2016 time frame. (Before anyone jumps me, I am not saying that a FCS to FBS jump takes a year, in the recent past it has been about a long drawn out multi-year process. The point I am making is that the breakaway southland schools have expressed a commitment to doing it. It is likely that as soon as the moritorium is lifted at least 3 of them will immediately put in their paperwork to move up. Will they be content to hemm and haww around for years waiting for C. Arky to make up their mind to submit their paperwork and then additional years waiting for them to go though the upgrade process? I tend to doubt it.)

(Could UCA be admitted as a non-football member of a new western southland FBS conference, with the understanding that football will come one day down the road? Sure, but again due to the 7/6/5 rule their status as a recent DII upgrade makes them less valuable than say TAMU-CC, SFA, or UTA to the breakaway 4.)

Nicholls State has no FBS potential, IMO. They could be another ULM. For a lot of schools that would not be worth upgrading.

NW Lousiana is more interesting, but still is likely at the right level for now. Even though there are much better candidates, a move by them might make some sense.

Missouri State is very interesting. I think at some point we did a thread on them as a potential FBS upgrade.

New Mexico Highlands - no chance. Even FCS is probably beyond their reach due to geography, enrollment, and a number of other factors.
Eastern New Mexico - " "
South East Missouri State - Has potential as an FBS school, but likely at least 20 years away from realizing it.
Murray State - At the right level. No legit FBS hopes.

Prairie View A&M (I remember them and Lamar had some short of rivalry in football years ago)
Grambling State
Southern U.
Texas Southern

I took my lumps on another board praising the potential of Texas Southern as an FBS school over that of some of the more prominant Southland Lousianna schools. I still feel Texas Southern has more potential at the FBS level, but it is, frankly, faint praise. Texas Southern, Houston, and Rice are right under the Texans NFL Killzone and the NBA Rocket's Killzone, in addition to competing with each other. None of these schools will draw well in the forseeable future. That means FBS survival will be difficult. I think Texas Southern gets that.

I think I could see all 4 of these HBCUs in a shared HBCU FBS conference, but given the trouble schools like Texas Southern could have at the FBS level, I cannot see them making the jump without a HBCU FBS conference to call home.

Really unless 7-8 top FCS HBCUs breakaway to create a FBS HBCU conference, you won't see any of the 4 move up. IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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