Pac-10 Officially Invites Utah, Press Conference Tomorrow
Looks like a done deal:
The Pacific-10 has extended an invitation to the University of Utah to join the Conference. A press conference will take place in the Rice-Eccles Stadium tower at the University of Utah tomorrow at 1 p.m. MT/12 p.m. PT.
almost 2 years ago
Ryan Rosenblatt
60 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
This one is officially on Larry Scott
He had better negotiate one hell of a TV contract this year. The member schools sure gave him enough rope to hang himself. Let’s see if he can get himself (and us) out of this mess.
+1 -- Show Me the Money!!!
Since, from the first moment, this was about nothing but money, Scott better gives us hard numbers, soon, that justify what he has done.
We have not improved the conference in any meaningful way. We’ve added to ordinary schools, so we’ve not improved academically. We’ve added a school with a thin menu of sports played.
We’ve screwed up our scheduling and probably will have to add a stupid “championship game” that none of us care about.
So, Scott, step up and show us hard numbers — not projections or assurances by consultants but real hard numbers.
I still won’t like the expansion but at least some purpose will have been served.
Yuk.
PS. It’s not just on Scott. It’s on our Chancellor and AD; they gave him what appears to be unfettered power to do as he pleased and he did. If this doesn’t generate the money it was supposed to, they are at fault, too.
PPS. And, of course we will never know whether we had to add those two teams to get a better TV deal. As I’ve written here, I think we would have gotten one with the teams we had before expansion. So, I want hard numbers, now, to show what we would have had without them and what we will have with them. No hard numbers to show us, Mr. Scott? I think that proves the point many of us have been making. There was not firm basis upon which to make this decision. If we invested our savings the way you invested the future of our conference, we’d be called fools.
sjh
Just one thing...
We’ve screwed up our scheduling and probably will have to add a stupid "championship game" that none of us care about.
As long as the championship game means we have an excuse for an extra week of college football, as a fan, I don’t think that’s too bad. I like more football :) (if that’s how it works? 12 games + championship + bowl)
the championship game will be a positive
the Pac-10 needed to lose a conference game anyways (which would have wrecked the true round robin)…9 conference games instead of 8 was killing the Pac-10 in terms of national perception by adding too may losses to the league.
Question
You’re obviously in the “no expansion, no title game, leave everything the way it is” camp. Wasn’t that basically the strategy of Tom Hansen over the last 30 plus years? Let me ask you, what did the Pac-10 conference ever gain from that strategy? Do you feel like that strategy was a success for the league?
Whether or not Hansen's moves (or lack thereof)
were wise is irrelevant to 66’s point. There may have been a point in the past where expansion would have helped the image and/or finances of the league. There may not have. Regardless, 66 wants to know if the specific action of adding these two teams now will improve the league’s/UCLA’s now.
In the immortal words of the pin I got while an undergrad: Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
I'm also in the no expansion camp
I understand your argument about Hansen.
However – The problem with Hansen wasn’t that he didn’t actively look to expand the league like Scott is. Hansen didn’t actively look to do anything. He didn’t actively look to expand our TV exposure (VERY Important). He didn’t actively look to secure better bowl bids (Important). He didn’t actively look to expand the conference (I’m just going to label this as controversial). So while I agree Tom Hansen’s overall strategy was not a success, I disagree that Tom Hansen’s overall strategy was not a success SOLELY because he did not pursue expansion.
If you look at all the conference expansions that have happened in the last 30 years:
ACC – added 3 teams about 5 years ago, so far hasn’t improved anything. Failure
Big East – Has had several expansions between 1980-1995. Failure
Big Ten – Penn State in 1991, success. Nebraska 2010, unknown.
Big 12 – Relatively new, no expansions, but almost fell apart.
Pac 10 – None, stable.
SEC – Added Arkansas and SC in 1991, success.
So I’d say 2 conferences have had successful expansions, 2 failed expansions.
The ACC
just signed a $1.86 billion dollar deal with ESPN, so at least in terms of the league’s finances, I’m not sure you can say that ACC expansion has been a “failure”. Financially it was ultimately a windfall for the league.
The Big East only added football in 1991, and I’m not sure that adding Miami and Va Tech football could be termed a failure for that league. The last Big East “expansion” was due to the loss of Miami, BC and Virginia Tech to the ACC… I would say the departures of their three most valuable football “brands” is the real problem with the Big East conference.
As for the Big XII… it was actually founded in 1996 when the Big 8 expanded, adding Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor and Texas Tech. Not sure that conference in any way could be deemed a failure, despite what went down over the last 10 days.
So in my mind, the ACC and Big 8/12 would make it 4 successful league expansions, with the Big East a failure due more to losing teams to the ACC.
As someone with ties to the ACC
I’ll say that the perception within the conference regarding the results of expansion are mixed, at best. As for the Big East, it can be argued whether expansion has made the conference stronger, but it has now barely successful in terms of being a successful football conference (before today, the only thing putting it ahead of the MWC was the BCS auto bid).
formerly bruinhoo
I said the ACC expansion...
was successful from a financial standpoint. One only has to look at the deal they just signed with ESPN.
And the reason the Big East is barely above the MWC isn’t because it expanded. It is because it lost it’s three most valuable football “brands”… Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College.
You don't know that it was successful from a financial standpoint
TV revenues have increased everywhere, regardless of expansion. Can you tell me that the revenue increase the ACC got was from expansion and not the TV revenue explosion everywhere? There’s no way you could say with certainty that revenues increased because of expansion.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jun 16, 2010 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Your analysis
Has flaws. As BillyZoom wrote, the ACC signed a TV deal, so it’s not like they haven’t gotten anything out of it. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if Miami and VaTech and BC have been a big reason their money has flowed in.
The Big East expansions were coupled with major losses of programs. Losing BC, VT, and Miami are going to hurt no matter what – add on the fact that half their league still doesn’t play football, while being locked to their own ancient contract, and they certainly haven’t been a success, but that’s beyond just due to expansion – the fact that they were a basketball only conference until 1991 isn’t easy to get over.
Big Ten – easily a success. Penn State has been a windfall for them, and the Big Ten Network is bringing in lots of money. All their schools are in the top 100 in rankings academically as well.
SEC – stable and successful in athletics and finances.
So that just leaves the Big 12 and the Pac 10. And as I wrote, the geography of being out west makes it hard for both a Pac-10 AND a Big 12 to survive. That being said, if the Big 12 really does get close to as much money as was promised to keep them alive, then the remaining teams have made it out better than before.
You can't look at the Big XII...
when talking about expansion. You have to look at the Big 8, which expanded by adding Texas, A&M, Baylor and Texas Tech. By any definition that league has been a success, despite the events of the last 10 days.
Obviously the Big 8 expansion was a success
because they added Texas and A&m, two high profile schools in huge markets. Had we been able to add those schools to the Pac-10, nobody would doubt a revenue increase, but all expansions are not equal and Texas/A&M and Co. cannot be used to support Colorado/Utah.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jun 16, 2010 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Not using it to support Colorado/Utah
a poster above said of the Big XII… “Relatively new, no expansions, but almost fell apart”
All I’m dong is pointing out that he’s completely ignoring the history of the league, which was actually a successful expansion.
KSBruin Understands -- But, Let Me Ask Again
Specifically, how have we gained financially — by adding CU and UT — that we would not have gained with an effective negotiation for a new TV contract?
One does not have to be a Tom Hansen supporter to be a Scott doubter.
I was never in the Tom Hansen school. Check my past posts. But, just because he was inept with 10 teams does not mean an apt person with 10 teams could not have sold the value of the Pac 10 or negotiated a much better television contract. In fact, a “better” contract was inevitable. So the real question is how much better will it be because we added Utah and CU?
The question was never whether we should follow Tom Hansen’s strategy — because many of us never saw one; and those of us who opposed this expansion gave enough substance in support of our position that you need to do more than simply label us Hansenistas to make a point.
To many of us, the question was whether Scott’s strategy was based on anything more than “projections” or “assurances from consultants”.
I challenge anyone to give me concrete numbers that justify what Scott did. No one will be able to meet that challenge because no concrete numbers, of any kind, have been mentioned.
sjh
Yes and no
Unless people here are part of the negotiations between conferences and networks (or in similar work), we probably won’t have any clue what money figures are actually being thrown around, and what factors are involved… until someone writes a book about it. There have to be no doubt a lot factors to talk about.
For instance:
-Do the networks value viewers, subscriptions, or the size of the market the team is a part of, etc? For example, a lot of readers here were fine with CU… and if we’re talking about the size of the market, then sure. But if we’re talking about viewer ratings etc., then Utah might actually provide more.
-How much of an impact does having control of markets have versus being in markets? Again that’s another issue – being a part of a market is simple, and is that a bigger factor than controlling a market?
-Does having a larger base strengthen your contract negotiations? Some say adding two new states automatically makes our bargaining position stronger, etc.
Those are just a few of the questions that we’d all like to know the answer to, but those are questions everyone wants to know from every school and conference – the sort of magical formula required to see success – and it looks like some conferences have already figured out what’s needed.
All that being said, I don’t think you anyone can easily say “show me numbers or you’re wrong.” That works both ways. Until theres proof what criteria must be met for optimal contracts, I don’t think anyone can conclude definitively one way or the other on expansion yet.
As a general statement about these past few weeks, however, since I spent a lot of time looking at other boards discuss the entire Pac-16 ordeal, I realized something: it’s important we remember to look at it from the other side, from what networks think, from what other conferences deal with, etc.
I love UCLA and the Pac-10, and easily consider ourselves the greatest school to be at in also the best conference in the nation. However, that’s not how everyone feels outside – and seeing what other people have said about the Pac-10 (with regards to realignment and finances), I can also see that point.
We talk about how we can possibly negotiate our new contract without 2 other schools, that CU and Utah become more dead weight than gain… then again, I also look and see how we have dead weight in the form of WSU, OSU, etc. and see how we may not be in that strong of a position.
We talk about how strong we are on the west coast, with the entire west coast basically locked down… then again, I also remember that we play on Pacific Time and a lot of our games have kickoff/tipoff at 10PM on the east coast and we lose viewership even when we have a great quality product.
We always talk about how great the ten team system is, and I truly liked the round robin system. But it’s also easy to see where we’ve been screwed by that system in the past. And I can also see how being the smallest of the big conferences just 1 week ago may inherently put us at a disadvantage. We say we have great locations, and then they counter with dumps like Pullman and Corvallis.
We always talk about waiting for the right opportunity to pick up the schools that fit us… then again, I also have to remind myself that we’re on the west coast and all the good schools that are geographically realistic and fit our profile (academically and athletically) are already members of the Pac-10. And we’ve been fortunate that our state governments haven’t interfered with our conference, whereas Texas (the westernmost school that fits best and is realistic) has the Tech problem (and perhaps even a Baylor problem still).
It was sobering to read about, but it also put a lot of what goes behind the scenes in perspective. It feels like a giant game of Risk, and we’re trying to bust out of Australia…
You are assuming that
there have been negotiations between Scott and the networks. And, that the information is not coming out because it is being held captive. I do not believe there is any basis in fact for that assumption. In fact, there are indications that none have taken place.
The public statements at the time of the Big 12 merger were based upon “projections” and “assurances from consultants” that hypothetical negotiations between “competitive networks” would yield higher contract prices.
The bottom line is that this appears to be a leap based nothing more solid than some assumptions and opinions.
No one has yet to make a solid case that CU and UT add value.
And, if this scheduling report is true, we may lose great value — both in terms of money and more importantly in terms of tradition.
We have been told that this was a business decision. First and foremost, it was all about money.
This is not a game of Risk. We don’t make business decisions the same way we play board games.
I would not invest my money without more solid information. And, I would hope Scott would not do the same with our conference. So, where is the evidence that by adding CU, UT and creating these divisions, we will make more money that we would have made without making any of those moves?
Finally, I will repeat my original position. This should not be about money. There was far more at stake — like tradition and rivalries — maintaining our standards and having some logical nexus between the teams in the league and their schedules. Now we are seeing that those values are being threatened.
Sorry, this merger is an epic fail.
sjh
I agree that traditions and rivalries are being torn down – this is hardly just a Pac-10 issue, and is happening all across college athletics. Look at the proposed Pac-16 – A&M and Texas have a deep rivalry beyond even football, Nebraska and OU may rarely if ever meet again, and those schools were willing to flush it away. Indeed, the success of college athletics has ironically lead to its own downfall, as more media and marketing gets involved – and its pretty sickening.
However, I also see the flip side of the argument – that if we don’t remain competitive, we end up inching towards irrelevancy. And that threatens tradition and rivalries as well – for example, if our rivals decide they value the $ more than we do (well we know one of them certainly does) some day, and our conference ends up being poached, then where are we? We consider ourselves the Conference of Champions, and being a national champion means being nationally relevant – but part of being nationally relevant is making sure we look at what it takes to stay competitive. And financially (which is unfortunately a big part of it) our conference is closer to Big East territory.
No, I don’t know if there have been any talks between Scott and the networks. The Big 12 situation is peculiar in part because supposedly a coalition of powerful people stepped in. Now whether or not that is true I don’t know – it has, however, been corroborated by 2 different persons, so who knows.
Now if Scott’s prior experience, as well as the people he brought in (including the person who formed the Big 10 Network iirc) are to be believed, then I’m more likely to believe Scott’s numbers are better than what Beebe promised to the Big12/10, considering Beebe has got nothing done for them then suddenly pulled it out over a weekend. The Pac-16 talk, on the other hand, has been going on since at least March. I know we’re not big on the good ’ol 3 wealthy alumni bit, but this was almost prophetic (down to even the Tech problem): http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/59394-Spoke-briefly-with-Bill-Powers
So if nothing else, this has been looked at far longer than Beebe had a chance, so the comparison to their “assurances from consultants” doesn’t quite have the same weight. I grant that we don’t know how solid the numbers or even talks are, but if that isn’t what the new leadership was brought in for, then I’d have to wonder what all 10 of the university presidents/chancellors and ADs were thinking this past year.
However the flip side of the question we’re discussing is also worthy: how do you know that staying at 10 is going to help us out business-wise? Fact is, if one side doesn’t know, the other side sure as hell doesn’t either – and we’re fighting assumptions with more assumptions?
As to the last point about this not being a game – no, you’re right, it’s not a game – it’s a business decision. And by no means did I mean to say it should be treated like a board game.
However, the part about Risk I’m talking about is the fact that the conferences ARE fighting over a geographic map for national media coverage, recruits, etc. As in war, as in politics, business has a geographical aspect to it – sometimes you have to strike first and hold a location down, to prevent your possible future competitors from coming in. Sometimes you stand pat, and keep your cards close.
Look at the fast food industry… In N Out is (thankfully) located on the west coast. They have such a hold here that its potential competitors, such as Whataburger and Five Guys, have an uphill if not impossible fight to come into California.
That is, after all, a big reason why the Pac-10 has been stable – we simply don’t have any competition out here to worry about. We haven’t had any expansion since 1978 when every other conference has reshuffled, realigned, some multiple times since then. That’s also why the Big-12 and Big East were/are the weakest – they happened to be sandwiched between all the other stable conferences.
I’m not going to jump to any conclusions regarding expansion yet – at this point, I can just as easily say it’s a good thing as it’s a bad thing, given how few facts anyone actually has since every conference is keeping it secret. And believe me, before all this Pac-16 talk, I was not a big fan of any changes. However, these last two weeks have certainly opened my eyes to a lot of what goes behind the door in these negotiations, and what a lot of the different conferences are saying about their positions in the national picture, and it very much is a national competition with each side jockeying for what ensures their longevity, of which a great part IS financial success.
Were TCU or SMU every options?
seems like we were determined to get into texas somehow….
If SMU joined…would the Trojans stop whining about sanctions?
I know that it no longer works geographically w/o a texas/ok division but SMU is good academic school and they are right next to Dallas.
Southern Methodist
nuff said.
A bruin is good forever, a Trojan is only good... ahh eff it, just use tin foil
Not options, the "C" and the "M" are the reasons
I should be working right now...
I would hope
those aren’t the reasons. While I can’t see any good reasons why those schools are a good fit in the Pac 10, I’d like to think they wouldn’t be excluded merely because of religious affiliation.
I'd like to think the Pac 10+2 has the freedom
to exclude religious schools from consideration if it pleases.
Religious affiliation is a non-starter
for joining the Pac-10. It’s not because any of those universities are poor universities, but the mission statement of a religiously affiliated university is substantially different from that of a land-grant public university.
I would say not substantially different
“SMU seeks to create and impart knowledge that will shape citizens who contribute to their communities and lead their professions in a global society.
Southern Methodist University’s mission is to be a leading private institution of higher learning that expands knowledge through research and teaching. Among its faculty, students, and staff, the University develops skills and cultivates principled thought and wisdom. The University is dedicated to the values of academic freedom and open inquiry and to its United Methodist heritage."
SMU’s, which can be found here
still not happening
If we were going to take a non-secular it would’ve been BYU but that will never happen so lesser schools need not even dream
by nickramz on Jun 16, 2010 4:31 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, I would say SMU
is probably one of the more secular institutions that remains religiously affiliated. Regardless, the Pac-10 won’t invite anyone who hasn’t cut their affiliation with a church. The reason for this? The Board of Trustees.
SMU’s BoT, to wit:
The Board of Trustees is the principal governance authority of Southern Methodist University.
The Board of Trustees is composed of 42 members, including 3 bishops and 9 other trustees recommended by the South Central Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church; 26 trustees recommended by the Board; and 4 ex officio members (the President of the University and one representative each of the Students’ Association, the Faculty Senate, and the Alumni Association). The Board of Trustees meets four times a year (in February, May, September, and December).
What Utah brings to the Pac-10
Might as well get used to it. Here’s an ESPN video by the above title:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/10540/video-what-utah-brings-to-the-pac-10
apparently they bring
a 12th body. Yippee! And some of the ESPN guys think that Utah >> Colorado. Riight…
Football Scheduling
Something that I am not sure has been posted involves the football schedule…
With 2 divisions are we going to go back to 8 conference games?
This could have some benefits to UCLA and the rest of the PAC schools:
1) Each member school can add a 4th OOC game. This most likely will be a home game with a weak WAC, MWC, C-USA or Sun Belt school (or in the case of most of the other schools, someone from the FCS Big Sky, Great West or San Diego). One more home game means increased revenue if the fans show up, right?
2) 1 Less conference game means 1 less in conference loss for 50% of the teams (when it was 10). If we say that 10 out the 12 schools will beat a patsy team as their 4th OOC game, will this increase our SOS in the BCS formula where wins are paramount?
I wish I had more time to expand on this scheduling topic, but I need to get back to work. What are your thoughts fellas?
Also a likely Conference Championship game
that should be a big money maker
RESCUING DANCE MUSIC FROM THE BLAHS
What's the incremental revenue supposed to be?
And how good would it be if we were 12-0, and played 7-6 Utah in the conference championship, but with half of our guys hurting from the previous game. Utah plays the game of its life and beats us 3-2. Now our 12-0 regular season record doesn’t give us a shot at the national championship because it was vital that we have that nifty league championship game in Tempe with 8,000 rabid fans in attendance.
Didn’t Texas come within a heartbeat of getting knocked off by Nebraska recently? How does that sort of championship game help anyone other than the underdog.
I still see NOTHING positive coming from this expansion. I’ve already traded the mythical $20 million for six magic beans. I’ll have as much success climbing the beanstalk and stealing the giant’s treasure as UCLA will have in getting that $20 million.
Yeah
The drop back to 8 conference games is almost guaranteed in this scenario.
The big battle on the divisions will be whether or not the California schools all stay together. The possible divisional options are either:
North:
Oregon
Oregon State
Colorado
Utah
Washington
Washington State
South:
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Arizona
Arizona State
OR….
North:
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Cal
Stanford
South:
UCLA
USC
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
Arizona State
I see option 1 much more likely than option 2. I don’t see how the California schools are split up.
Utah
While Utah does not bring in the money and media attention that a Texas would bring, they do bring one kick ass football team. Just ask Alabama. Don’t be surprised if we see them in Pasadena on New Year’s Day very soon.
Powder to the People
Why? Will they be playing UCLA?
I’d expect Utah to bring many more fans to a Rose Bowl game than UCLA would. Our last trip there was an embarrassment in terms of fan turnout. Not sure as Bruins we can knock another school for traveling or filling up a stadium,
Meh
I’ll knock whomever I want. Part of their entire appeal before was that they were the David against Goliath. That’s gone now. I’ll find something else to do on New Years Day.
You think Utah fans will stop attending because they're now not David?
2004 Fiesta Bowl:
Utah is red, Pitt gold.
Not around here
Doesn’t mean jack here in BruinsNation. I’m bored already just imagining the possibility.
for the 2011-2012 seasons when the Pac-12 will likely start, strength wise i would think...
Somewhere near the top of the conference you’ll see USC and Oregon, toward the middle a mix of UCLA, UW, CAL, OSU, Utah, Stan and near the bottom Zona, WSU, ASU, CO
Playing in the Pac-10 wears you down. At most you will have 2-3 gimmie type games. Utah is used to playing 2-3 tough games a year. If last year’s depleted UCLA squad played Utah’s schedule we would have won 9 games as well. If Utah had played our schedule they probably would have won 6 games as well.
I do think Utah deserves a chance at an auto BCS bid but I doubt Utah will be smelling roses anytime soon…
I'd love that to be the case...
but I see the sanctions having a bigger effect on them down the road esp w/ the appeal. For the 2010-2011 season they still have the most talented freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors in the Conference
In 2011-2012 they will still have the most talented sophomores, juniors and seniors. Since most true freshmen don’t play a reduction of scholarships shouldn’t affect their product on the field. 2012 and beyond they’ll start to lose their depth due to the scholarship reduction and their national brand hurting.
I think the fall of Troy will be gradual…as well as their recovery.
Now if Kiffen just sucks as a coach that will be a different story.
Check the depth at their OL and QB
Everyone talks about depth issue at UCLA QB. They should be taking a hard look at Southern Cal’s QB issues with a overhyped primadonna who was proven to be injury prone last year.
Don't forget the schollie breakdown that has been posted here
2011 – 65 for spring ball + 10 Scholarships in the fall = 75
2012 – 42 spring + 15 summer = 57
2013 – 36+ 15 = 51
Can you imagine running Spring ball with 36 bodies? Local high schools have more than that. Sure there will be some walk ons, but how much quality will you have there? Throw in injuries, other defections yet to come, less talented players coming in because of the sanctions, and they’re not as competitive as you would think. Not to mention, they were average last season! Add to that the the possibilities of having an uneven recruiting year(s); its not as easy as losing a RT and then picking up one in recruiting (see Dorrell, Karl). Of course, he was incompetent, but remember, we’re talking about Lame here too. All this doesn’t look good for ol’ kiffy. Don’t believe his bs about this not really affecting their program. There will be destruction folks. Whether or not they’ll be able to rebuild once the dust settles is the real question, and that won’t be answered for quite some time.
formerly Westwood78
by PhoenixBruin on Jun 16, 2010 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions
The appeal will likely push the scholarship reduction back a year
It is possible, but not likely that the appeals committee could make a decision before LOI day. If sanctions are not made active by that point, I have to assume that SC will be able to offer and accept LOI’s as normal, giving them a chance to engage in some roster management (encourage a few strategically-placed transfers, and load up the signing class as much as possible).
formerly bruinhoo
I see your point with the OL but I don't agree at QB
Barkley was a true freshman and he still has plenty of time to pan out. We have an injury prone QB as well. They still have Mustain for insurance this year. They are bringing in Scroggins who will be a redshirt freshman in the 2011-2012 season and they already have verbals from Kessler and Wittek for this year. To me that looks like decent QB depth.
My main point is USC will remain talented at most positions for the immediate future. With the great job Rick has done recruiting and the upcoming sanctions this will no doubt be a great opportunity for UCLA to take back LA.
Two points...
Supposedly, Mitch Mustain is leaving USC. There also seems to be questions as to whether Scroggins is going to make it into school.
I can kind of sympathize with him
Obviously Arkansas wouldn’t let him punt, so he was going to go someplace that would.
I think I've been reading about Mitch Mustain for more then 10 years
How did this guy stay eligible for this long? He may get tenure before he gets a varsity letter.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
