RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

How many schools can afford this?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/14 2:49 pm    ::: How many schools can afford this? Reply Reply with quote

Texas's AD says they are prepared to pay every athlete an additional $10,000 per year. $6 Million per year total.

So if you're making $20 Million/year or more in TV revenue, that's one thing. But if you're not? Where is that $6M/yr supposed to come from for schools whose athletic departments are already operating well into the red.

Are schools going to continue to fund gymnastics and rowing and fencing and field hockey and the like if they have to cough up that much extra money?

There are 351 Div 1 women's basketball teams. Only 65 of those are in the big dollar conferences.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20141021-texas-athletic-director-with-new-rules-longhorns-will-pay-each-player-10000.ece


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/14 2:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think what we'll start to see is market forces at work in a big-money industry. It wouldn't surprise me if we had a lot fewer "Division I" programs down the road, and more programs that are truer to the student-athlete concept that's supposed to be in place.

Or, to put it another way, we'll have a lot more schools at the D2 and D3 levels, investing a lot less money but still delivering the athletic experience to their athletes and their communities.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
dtrain34



Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 409
Location: Lacey, Washington


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/14 3:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It always sounds great to say schools will drop out of the arms race and become more true to the ideals of pure sport.

The problem is, and I never knew this until becoming connecting to such a program over the last two or three years, the whole D-I spectacle is something each area craves and limiting it to the Big 5 conferences and forcing the rest down to some sort of D2 would be a huge disappointment to the Fresnos, New Mexicos and Dakotas -- both SD and ND state universities were D2 for a long time before realizing their citizens wanted something bigger -- of the world.

On the other hand, there's something people don't factor when discussing how Texas giving 10k to players will wipe everyone else out. Look at it this way: The best 85 football players from the state are likely to wind up in Austin anyway, the best 15 WBB players. Texas State, UT-San Antonio take whats left after UT, TTU and TAMU select their recruits NOW. The amount of PSAs who will turn down Texas State to go to UT BECAUSE OF THE STIPEND will be exceedingly small. Most would make that choice anyway.

There are already a million advantages one school has over another: Oregon State WBB has training table, Fresno State does not. In the WAC, NMSU has a 12,000-seat arena, a weight training facility designed for D-I football and great weather; Seattle does not -- but has a metro area which NMSU does not.

In short, if cash is available the power programs all it will do is reinforce their advantages not create something tremendously new.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/14 10:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ironically, the most cost-effective solution for a lot of non-P5 schools would be to cut football. In a lot of those places, football loses money already. Cutting would avoid the additional cost of paying $10k (or more) a year to 85 students and cutting it also would free up money for other programs.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/14 10:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
Ironically, the most cost-effective solution for a lot of non-P5 schools would be to cut football. In a lot of those places, football loses money already. Cutting would avoid the additional cost of paying $10k (or more) a year to 85 students and cutting it also would free up money for other programs.


Non-starter.

They would lose general applications, alumni support, contributions, etc.

Can't do it.

It's why Temple cut other sports just to be able to pour money into football.

When TCU spent $175 Million to rebuild their football stadium and got into the Big 12, applications went up by 5,000 - a 35% increase.

The other sports are extracurricular activities. Football is basic to the university's identity and support.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 9:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
The other sports are extracurricular activities. Football is basic to the university's identity and support.


Very true, as is the point about where recruits go.

Still, I do think that the chances of players 75-85, who might now think about going to Texas State, taking the money at Texas are pretty good.

I guess it's possible some semblance of the status quo will survive the next five or so years, but my feeling is there are some major structural changes right around the corner.

Given Title IX, though, there may not be much impact on women's basketball.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 12:54 pm    ::: Re: How many schools can afford this? Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Texas's AD says they are prepared to pay every athlete an additional $10,000 per year. $6 Million per year total.

So if you're making $20 Million/year or more in TV revenue, that's one thing. But if you're not? Where is that $6M/yr supposed to come from for schools whose athletic departments are already operating well into the red.

Are schools going to continue to fund gymnastics and rowing and fencing and field hockey and the like if they have to cough up that much extra money?

There are 351 Div 1 women's basketball teams. Only 65 of those are in the big dollar conferences.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20141021-texas-athletic-director-with-new-rules-longhorns-will-pay-each-player-10000.ece


I think there are several schools within the Power 5 Conferences that would struggle mightily trying to pay that much to each student-athlete. The money/revenue stream at Texas, Alabama, Florida State is probably a lot different than that at Purdue, Washington State, Vanderbilt, etc.

Ohio State, the nation's largest athletic department, may even have to downgrade a little bit as they have over 900 student-athletes that represent their 16 men, 17 women and 3 co-ed sports. My guess is it could be difficult even for them to figure out a way to re-allocate between $9,000,000 - $10,000,000.




Last edited by purduefanatic on 10/23/14 1:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 1:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Considering that Cal, a power 5 school, cut some sports just a couple of years ago due to budget shortfalls it seems unlikely that very many schools would be able to match this offer.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Beemer



Joined: 19 Jul 2014
Posts: 483
Location: Connecticut


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 2:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This is going to raise hell with less well endowed athletic departments.

Texas is starting out at 10 grand. It won't be long before someone else tops that by offering 20 grand and so on & so on. A financial arms race so to speak.

You're going to see a lot more financial shenanigans once this gets rolling. Colleges that lack huge TV contracts are going to be even more at the mercy of wealthy boosters than they are now, if they want to keep up with the Texases of this world.



_________________
Go Huskies! Go Sun!
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 2:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Beemer wrote:
This is going to raise hell with less well endowed athletic departments.

Texas is starting out at 10 grand. It won't be long before someone else tops that by offering 20 grand and so on & so on. A financial arms race so to speak.

You're going to see a lot more financial shenanigans once this gets rolling. Colleges that lack huge TV contracts are going to be even more at the mercy of wealthy boosters than they are now, if they want to keep up with the Texases of this world.



Even the O'Bannon decision allows limits to be set. I don't think Texas intends to do this unilaterally. I think that they are saying that's what they are prepared to do and believe will happen as part of the Power 5 autonomy rules. I don't believe there will be a bidding war. This number, or the cap, will be set together by the Power 5 conferences. I expect all the 65 teams to pay that amount. The big question will be whether any other conference follows suit. I think the Big East might (and they don't have football and generally sponsor a lot fewer sports so the cost will be far less), but I don't see how any FBS football-playing conference can match it.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 4:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Beemer wrote:
This is going to raise hell with less well endowed athletic departments.

Texas is starting out at 10 grand. It won't be long before someone else tops that by offering 20 grand and so on & so on. A financial arms race so to speak.

You're going to see a lot more financial shenanigans once this gets rolling. Colleges that lack huge TV contracts are going to be even more at the mercy of wealthy boosters than they are now, if they want to keep up with the Texases of this world.



Even the O'Bannon decision allows limits to be set. I don't think Texas intends to do this unilaterally. I think that they are saying that's what they are prepared to do and believe will happen as part of the Power 5 autonomy rules. I don't believe there will be a bidding war. This number, or the cap, will be set together by the Power 5 conferences. I expect all the 65 teams to pay that amount. The big question will be whether any other conference follows suit. I think the Big East might (and they don't have football and generally sponsor a lot fewer sports so the cost will be far less), but I don't see how any FBS football-playing conference can match it.


Good point about the Power 5 all agreeing ... I wonder if they'll get hit with an antitrust suit.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PeachBasket



Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 768



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 7:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

"Bidding war" is simply a perjorative term for a free market. I don't believe you can simultaneously adopt the legal principle of the free market and immediately turn around and engage in collusion to set maximum rates of compensation. One thing or the other has to give, and in our times of the sanctity of markets, I know which way I'd wager.


scfastpitch



Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 616



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 7:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Beemer wrote:
This is going to raise hell with less well endowed athletic departments.

Texas is starting out at 10 grand. It won't be long before someone else tops that by offering 20 grand and so on & so on. A financial arms race so to speak.

You're going to see a lot more financial shenanigans once this gets rolling. Colleges that lack huge TV contracts are going to be even more at the mercy of wealthy boosters than they are now, if they want to keep up with the Texases of this world.



Even the O'Bannon decision allows limits to be set. I don't think Texas intends to do this unilaterally. I think that they are saying that's what they are prepared to do and believe will happen as part of the Power 5 autonomy rules. I don't believe there will be a bidding war. This number, or the cap, will be set together by the Power 5 conferences. I expect all the 65 teams to pay that amount. The big question will be whether any other conference follows suit. I think the Big East might (and they don't have football and generally sponsor a lot fewer sports so the cost will be far less), but I don't see how any FBS football-playing conference can match it.


Good point about the Power 5 all agreeing ... I wonder if they'll get hit with an antitrust suit.


Antitrust ? I'm confused . Aren't we still talking about non-profit enterprises ? Or did the Power 5 finally admit they are running these multi-million dollar businesses on the side and start paying taxes on the profits ?


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 8:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PeachBasket wrote:
"Bidding war" is simply a perjorative term for a free market. I don't believe you can simultaneously adopt the legal principle of the free market and immediately turn around and engage in collusion to set maximum rates of compensation. One thing or the other has to give, and in our times of the sanctity of markets, I know which way I'd wager.


That's part of the absurdity of the O'Bannon decision. She said schools can't cap it at zero but can cap it at $5000. If zero is an antitrust violation, so is $5000. It's not her job to set some totally arbitrary permissible ceiling. It's completely illogical. In the end I think Justice Steven's discussion of the NCAA's appropriate role in setting rules to maintain competitive balance will prevail, even if that number is zero. But public pressure and perception will force a certain level of payments like the $10,000 mentioned by the Texas AD. College athletics are never going to become a "free market". Heck, even pro sports aren't "free markets". There are drafts, restricted free agency, rookie contracts, salary caps, luxury taxes, etc., etc., etc.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 8:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scfastpitch wrote:
ClayK wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Beemer wrote:
This is going to raise hell with less well endowed athletic departments.

Texas is starting out at 10 grand. It won't be long before someone else tops that by offering 20 grand and so on & so on. A financial arms race so to speak.

You're going to see a lot more financial shenanigans once this gets rolling. Colleges that lack huge TV contracts are going to be even more at the mercy of wealthy boosters than they are now, if they want to keep up with the Texases of this world.



Even the O'Bannon decision allows limits to be set. I don't think Texas intends to do this unilaterally. I think that they are saying that's what they are prepared to do and believe will happen as part of the Power 5 autonomy rules. I don't believe there will be a bidding war. This number, or the cap, will be set together by the Power 5 conferences. I expect all the 65 teams to pay that amount. The big question will be whether any other conference follows suit. I think the Big East might (and they don't have football and generally sponsor a lot fewer sports so the cost will be far less), but I don't see how any FBS football-playing conference can match it.


Good point about the Power 5 all agreeing ... I wonder if they'll get hit with an antitrust suit.


Antitrust ? I'm confused . Aren't we still talking about non-profit enterprises ? Or did the Power 5 finally admit they are running these multi-million dollar businesses on the side and start paying taxes on the profits ?


The anti-trust laws aren't dependant in any way on the tax status of the competing organizations. There's no relationsjip and it's been clear for decades that certain activites such as football TV contracts are subject to the anti-trust laws. But the Supreme Court has also said that NCAA rules governing recruiting and competitive balance are PRO-competitive, not anti-competitive.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 8:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Ironically, the most cost-effective solution for a lot of non-P5 schools would be to cut football. In a lot of those places, football loses money already. Cutting would avoid the additional cost of paying $10k (or more) a year to 85 students and cutting it also would free up money for other programs.


Non-starter.

They would lose general applications, alumni support, contributions, etc.

Can't do it.

It's why Temple cut other sports just to be able to pour money into football.

When TCU spent $175 Million to rebuild their football stadium and got into the Big 12, applications went up by 5,000 - a 35% increase.

The other sports are extracurricular activities. Football is basic to the university's identity and support.


I didn't say they'd do it.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if some marginal programs at non-P5 conferences thought about it seriously. (Think about New Mexico, which hasn't had a winning record in the MWC for years - the team's last bowl game was in 2007.)


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/24/14 9:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

A couple thoughts:

*We are a free-market, capitalist economy regulated by government, which of course means no markets are truly free. But until regulations are in place that are approved by the courts, anti-trust laws will apply.

If there are limits put on compensation to college athletes, some institutions will find ways around those limits, just as some schools get around the rules today. In the long run, the fairest way is to simply let the market rule: If some booster wants to donate $250 million to endow football stipends at Oklahoma State, let him -- to me, that's better than it happening under the table.

*So the Power-5 schools all start paying and kids in the bottom tier of the scholarship ladder opt to go to USC, say, because they can earn $40,000 there and nothing at Fresno State.

But Fresno State decides it will pay $15,000 a year, even though it's not in a big conference. First, it will get some players; second, all of a sudden it has a huge advantage over its competitors.

And what if some schools decide they'll pay women's basketball players, and others don't?

It just seems to me the landscape is going to be very different in five or ten years, and that's a good thing.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/24/14 10:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In NCAA v. Bd. of Regents, the Supreme Court found the NCAA's control of broadcast TV contracts to be an unreasonable restraint of trade and thus in violation of the antitrust laws. But the Court also made a very clear distinction between that, and the NCAA's rules governing amateurism and competition:

"[W]hat is critical is that this case involves an industry in which horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all.

As Judge Bork has noted:

"[S]ome activities can only be carried out jointly. Perhaps the leading example is league sports. When a league of professional lacrosse teams is formed, it would be pointless to declare their cooperation illegal on the ground that there are no other professional lacrosse teams."

R. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox 278 (1978). What the NCAA and its member institutions market in this case is competition itself -- contests between competing institutions. Of course, this would be completely ineffective if there were no rules on which the competitors agreed to create and define the competition to be marketed. A myriad of rules affecting such matters as the size of the field, the number of players on a team, and the extent to which physical violence is to be encouraged or proscribed, all must be agreed upon, and all restrain the manner in which institutions compete. Moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football -- college football. The identification of this "product" with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the "product," athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like. And the integrity of the "product" cannot be preserved except by mutual agreement; if an institution adopted such restrictions unilaterally, its effectiveness as a competitor on the playing field might soon be destroyed. Thus, the NCAA plays a vital role in enabling college football to preserve its character, and as a result enables a product to be marketed which might otherwise be unavailable. In performing this role, its actions widen consumer choice -- not only the choices available to sports fans but also those available to athletes -- and hence can be viewed as procompetitive."


468 U.S at 101.

The O'Bannon judge basically brushed off this clear guidance from the Supreme Court and decreed that amateurism does not justify restraints under the rule of reason. But then in a remarkable feat of legal gymnastics, she concluded that while paying $0 was unreasonable, a $5,000 ceiling was not. It's ridiculous and illogical. I expect that the O'Bannon decision will not hold up on appeal and what comes out eventually will be a lot closer to Justice Steven's explanation than to judge Wilkin's.


shadowboxer



Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 2126



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/28/14 8:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://www.mac-sports.com/news/2014/10/28/FB_1028140954.aspx


The above MAC announcement suggests they will support the redefinition of grants in aid to include total cost of attendance if autonomous legislation passed at NCAA meeting in January.

Whatever that would shake out to be.

OT-Also waiting for the MAC to announce MAC WBB picks
etc... tomorrow,10/29 at 10:00 am.




Last edited by shadowboxer on 10/30/14 2:39 am; edited 1 time in total
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/14 9:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Pac-12 made a very interesting move: Instead of punishing kids for transferring within the conference, it will reward them -- transfers will be immediately eligible, I believe, if they move from one Pac-12 school to another.

This is surprisingly rational, as it keeps the conference strong even if it has a negative impact on a particular school.

I'm curious to see how this plays out, as it may be that the Power 5 conferences all only allow intra-conference transfers to be penalty free. Still, it's a big step forward, I think, and I'm sure it will be imitated by the other big schools.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
scfastpitch



Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 616



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/14 9:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
The Pac-12 made a very interesting move: Instead of punishing kids for transferring within the conference, it will reward them -- transfers will be immediately eligible, I believe, if they move from one Pac-12 school to another.

This is surprisingly rational, as it keeps the conference strong even if it has a negative impact on a particular school.

I'm curious to see how this plays out, as it may be that the Power 5 conferences all only allow intra-conference transfers to be penalty free. Still, it's a big step forward, I think, and I'm sure it will be imitated by the other big schools.


But the NCAA still has a one-year sit-out rule for division one women's basketball . That hasn't changed , has it ?


GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/29/14 11:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
The Pac-12 made a very interesting move: Instead of punishing kids for transferring within the conference, it will reward them -- transfers will be immediately eligible, I believe, if they move from one Pac-12 school to another.

This is surprisingly rational, as it keeps the conference strong even if it has a negative impact on a particular school.

I'm curious to see how this plays out, as it may be that the Power 5 conferences all only allow intra-conference transfers to be penalty free. Still, it's a big step forward, I think, and I'm sure it will be imitated by the other big schools.


I think the change is transfers are immediately eligible to receive a scholarship, not immediately eligible to play.


purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/30/14 8:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GEF34 wrote:
ClayK wrote:
The Pac-12 made a very interesting move: Instead of punishing kids for transferring within the conference, it will reward them -- transfers will be immediately eligible, I believe, if they move from one Pac-12 school to another.

This is surprisingly rational, as it keeps the conference strong even if it has a negative impact on a particular school.

I'm curious to see how this plays out, as it may be that the Power 5 conferences all only allow intra-conference transfers to be penalty free. Still, it's a big step forward, I think, and I'm sure it will be imitated by the other big schools.


I think the change is transfers are immediately eligible to receive a scholarship, not immediately eligible to play.


That's what I read as well.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/30/14 9:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

purduefanatic wrote:
GEF34 wrote:
ClayK wrote:
The Pac-12 made a very interesting move: Instead of punishing kids for transferring within the conference, it will reward them -- transfers will be immediately eligible, I believe, if they move from one Pac-12 school to another.

This is surprisingly rational, as it keeps the conference strong even if it has a negative impact on a particular school.

I'm curious to see how this plays out, as it may be that the Power 5 conferences all only allow intra-conference transfers to be penalty free. Still, it's a big step forward, I think, and I'm sure it will be imitated by the other big schools.


I think the change is transfers are immediately eligible to receive a scholarship, not immediately eligible to play.


That's what I read as well.


I stand corrected -- it was too much to hope that colleges would give players the same opportunities they give administrators in the same business.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/30/14 10:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
purduefanatic wrote:
GEF34 wrote:
ClayK wrote:
The Pac-12 made a very interesting move: Instead of punishing kids for transferring within the conference, it will reward them -- transfers will be immediately eligible, I believe, if they move from one Pac-12 school to another.

This is surprisingly rational, as it keeps the conference strong even if it has a negative impact on a particular school.

I'm curious to see how this plays out, as it may be that the Power 5 conferences all only allow intra-conference transfers to be penalty free. Still, it's a big step forward, I think, and I'm sure it will be imitated by the other big schools.


I think the change is transfers are immediately eligible to receive a scholarship, not immediately eligible to play.


That's what I read as well.


I stand corrected -- it was too much to hope that colleges would give players the same opportunities they give administrators in the same business.


I still am amazed at your stubborn refusal to acknowledge any difference between people who are working a job for pay as coaches, trainers, administrators, or whatever, and students who are playing sports while getting a free, or even not free education.

The people who run the USGA get paid for doing a job, the winners of the US Amateur or US Public Links championships don't get paid. The local golf pro and groundskeepers get paid, the players on the golf course don't. The football, swimming, basketball, baseball, and other coaches from grade school, middle school, high school, and college get paid, the players don't. Why do you hate amateur athletics so?

What the PAC is doing is the right answer. The one year sit-out rule is necessary to prevent chaos. And that rule should be black and white - no waivers, no exceptions. But there has never been a justification for conferences to deny a player a scholarship for a year.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin