Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Bobby Burton

 

Most of the national college football news made yesterday did not originate from the SEC meetings. Rather, it came from reactions to the SEC meetings by the brass at the Big 12 and Big 10.

The Big 12 announced it is in favor of a 5-11 CFP format. That means just five conference champions would receive automatic bids to a 16-team college football playoff.

The Big 10, meanwhile, said they were not in favor of the 5-11 format unless the SEC adds a ninth conference game.

What was SEC commissioner Greg Sankey’s response to all the hubbub?

Essentially, he said we don’t tell other conferences what to do, so why should any one presume they can tell us.

And he’s right.

The SEC is not going to be brought to heel by the Big 10, the Big 12 or whoever. If worse comes to worse, we’ll just have a 12-team playoff for the next five years instead of expansion.

My sense is that there are a lot of conferences over-playing their hand. While the outside world may disagree with me, I don’t believe the SEC is one of them.

From what I witnessed in Destin this week, the SEC and Greg Sankey are only going to make decisions that protect and cement the SEC as the nation’s premier athletic conference. There’s absolutely no reason to risk doing otherwise.

Posted

Why would SEC be against 5-11? SEC would get the majority of those 11 every year. Big 10 is probably against it because they want the 4 guaranteed spots, there will likely be years they get less than 4 if everything is at large. I’m surprised Yormark favors it because the other proposal gives them 2 guaranteed spots and there will likely be years that only the champ gets in if everything is at large. Am I missing something? Also nobody is “telling SEC what to do,” these are negotiations leading to agreement and SEC will probably get its way eventually because they’ll have support of the networks. Maybe he’s referring to Big 10 saying they wanted to see SEC play 9 game conference schedule? I think there are plenty of others in favor of that including the networks paying for all of this stuff.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
52 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Why would SEC be against 5-11? SEC would get the majority of those 11 every year. Big 10 is probably against it because they want the 4 guaranteed spots, there will likely be years they get less than 4 if everything is at large. I’m surprised Yormark favors it because the other proposal gives them 2 guaranteed spots and there will likely be years that only the champ gets in if everything is at large. Am I missing something? Also nobody is “telling SEC what to do,” these are negotiations leading to agreement and SEC will probably get its way eventually because they’ll have support of the networks. Maybe he’s referring to Big 10 saying they wanted to see SEC play 9 game conference schedule? I think there are plenty of others in favor of that including the networks paying for all of this stuff.

Sankey’s just lying to establish his justification to blow everything up and act like he had no choice.

By the time the actual financial fallout of alienating a large chunk of college sports fans hits, he’ll be retired.

Squeeze max profits for next quarter, who gives a fuck about 10 years from now, fuck you you poor loser who has less say than me.  The American way.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Sort of realignment related. OKST @ Oregon at 2:30 pm on CBS. It's a nice slot for us in the non-con schedule. I don't think I recall us ever playing on CBS (for obvious reasons). We had a really good portal haul this offseason and will be a lot better but will be breaking in a new QB and immediate turnarounds aren't to be expected. I just hope we can compete and avoid a blowout.

 

image.png.1788f3b1ea9cfe24ff743beba0539226.png

 

Posted
2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Why would SEC be against 5-11? SEC would get the majority of those 11 every year. Big 10 is probably against it because they want the 4 guaranteed spots, there will likely be years they get less than 4 if everything is at large. I’m surprised Yormark favors it because the other proposal gives them 2 guaranteed spots and there will likely be years that only the champ gets in if everything is at large. Am I missing something? Also nobody is “telling SEC what to do,” these are negotiations leading to agreement and SEC will probably get its way eventually because they’ll have support of the networks. Maybe he’s referring to Big 10 saying they wanted to see SEC play 9 game conference schedule? I think there are plenty of others in favor of that including the networks paying for all of this stuff.

5-11 doesn’t allow for them to sell play-in games.

The Big 12 thinks being codified as a lesser conference than the B1G/SEC is worse than only getting a single bid to the playoff each year.

I don’t particularly care either way but find this whole scenario fascinating.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)

Bobby Burton

 

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said the quiet part out loud yesterday afternoon.

The SEC and the general quality of its teams, thereby the strengths of its schedules, are different than every other conference. He even provided media a 7-page document explaining exactly why. Only two of the conferences 16 schools have averaged being outside of the top 50 teams in college football over the past 10 years. Meanwhile, every other conference has at least twice as many, if not three times as many.

What’s the net of all of it?

While the Big 10 is trying to force the SEC into a 9-game conference schedule, I just don’t think it’s in the cards. The coaches simply don’t want it and the commissioner can’t push it through without guarantees and/or concessions from the College Football Playoff.

The Big 10 and Big 12 both play nine game conference schedules while the ACC and SEC play eight conference games. Unless there is a fundamental change in thinking between now and the first of December, I don’t see the SEC going to a 9-game conference schedule next year.

As a result, I’m not sure if the CFP will expand beyond 12 teams for next season either.

 

 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted

Lol as if anyone needed any more proof of the incestuous SEC/ESPN relationship that has created the shitshow, Sankey presents "proof" using 5 metrics, 4 of which are published by ESPN using unpublished algorithms.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Big/ sec scheduling alliance in the works

Alabama or Georgia at Columbus in November?

Sweet.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 5/29/2025 at 5:57 PM, TKthunder2 said:

5-11 doesn’t allow for them to sell play-in games.

The Big 12 thinks being codified as a lesser conference than the B1G/SEC is worse than only getting a single bid to the playoff each year.

this and this

astute

Posted
3 hours ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Big/ sec scheduling alliance in the works

yormark thinks he has agency in the negotiation of this topic

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/big-12-commish-shoots-down-scheduling-change-adopted-by-big-ten-sec/ar-AA1FNZDI

....

The Big 12 has been busy with spring meetings this weeks, and commissioner Brett Yormark was asked about the scheduling partnership between the Big Ten and SEC. Right now, it doesn’t sound like the conference is working on anything similar.

“No. We’re fine. We love our out-of-conference schedule,” Brett Yormark said, according to an article from Front Office Sports. “We don’t necessarily have an alliance with any particular conference. We play them all.”

There is nothing offical between the Big Ten and SEC, but things seem to be trending in that direction. One thing that the Big Ten wants to see before it signs off on anything is the SEC adding a ninth conference game. Right now, each team only plays eight.

Scheduling partnership or not, the Ben Ten and the SEC are the two big dogs of college football. They have been calling the shots in terms College Football Playoff expansion models, and they have the power over the Big 12 and ACC. Still, Yormark trusts that they will do the right things for the sport.

“Well, I wouldn’t say they have complete decision-making,” he said. “They need to have meaningful consultation with us. Yes, they have the pen. But with that pen comes responsibility to do the right thing. It’s not written anywhere in the Memorandum of Understanding that they can take the CFP and create a format or make a decision that only benefits their two conferences. So, yes, they have the pen. And with that, again, comes the responsibility to lead and lead responsibly. And I’m hopeful that that’s what will happen.”

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

yormark thinks he has agency in the negotiation of this topic

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/big-12-commish-shoots-down-scheduling-change-adopted-by-big-ten-sec/ar-AA1FNZDI

....

The Big 12 has been busy with spring meetings this weeks, and commissioner Brett Yormark was asked about the scheduling partnership between the Big Ten and SEC. Right now, it doesn’t sound like the conference is working on anything similar.

“No. We’re fine. We love our out-of-conference schedule,” Brett Yormark said, according to an article from Front Office Sports. “We don’t necessarily have an alliance with any particular conference. We play them all.”

There is nothing offical between the Big Ten and SEC, but things seem to be trending in that direction. One thing that the Big Ten wants to see before it signs off on anything is the SEC adding a ninth conference game. Right now, each team only plays eight.

Scheduling partnership or not, the Ben Ten and the SEC are the two big dogs of college football. They have been calling the shots in terms College Football Playoff expansion models, and they have the power over the Big 12 and ACC. Still, Yormark trusts that they will do the right things for the sport.

“Well, I wouldn’t say they have complete decision-making,” he said. “They need to have meaningful consultation with us. Yes, they have the pen. But with that pen comes responsibility to do the right thing. It’s not written anywhere in the Memorandum of Understanding that they can take the CFP and create a format or make a decision that only benefits their two conferences. So, yes, they have the pen. And with that, again, comes the responsibility to lead and lead responsibly. And I’m hopeful that that’s what will happen.”

Yes. It’s the big three not the big two

Posted
1 hour ago, mdmost said:

I'd love us to have a home and home with Washington, Oregon, USC, and UCLA. 

Lol...I keep forgetting those 4 are in the B1G - senior moment.

Good call. I'd be on board with that. Just no to the Rust Belt teams; Iowa, WI, IL, NE, etc.

Posted
26 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Lol...I keep forgetting those 4 are in the B1G - senior moment.

Good call. I'd be on board with that. Just no to the Rust Belt teams; Iowa, WI, IL, NE, etc.

Right. No bullshit games with any of the Rust Belt. There’s a reason we didn’t go to the Big 10. Minnesota and Northwestern is fine since those are decent cities.

Posted (edited)

Iowa and Nebraska aren't really Rust Belt, but I don't blame you for not wanting to play those games.  Iowa fans throw beer and urine at you.  Nebraska fans condescend and hide it behind "aw shucks" Midwest Nice.

And if there's a scheduling deal, all either conference will really care about is creating marquee matchups.  Texas/Bama/UGA/etc will not be going to the Big 10 West.  That will be Mizzou, Kentucky, Arkansas, Miss St.  They'll make all the "lucky to be here" schools play each other.  And they might not even care enough to do that because games like the Palmetto Bowl and CyHawk generate better ratings than Iowa vs South Carolina would.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, mdmost said:

I'd love us to have a home and home with Washington, Oregon, USC, and UCLA

Triggered...

 

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

Lol...I keep forgetting those 4 are in the B1G - senior moment.

Good call. I'd be on board with that. Just no to the Rust Belt teams; Iowa, WI, IL, NE, etc.

Wisky would be ok.

Here is my complete list of eligible schools for our "premiere opponent" slots:

Notre Dame

Michigan

Ohio State

USC

UCLA 

Washington 

Oregon

Wisconsin

Penn State

Florida State

North Carolina 

Clemson

Miami

 

Others acceptable for various reasons, would prefer they be in a season with one of the above:

Utah, Stanford, Army, Navy

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Wisconsin - Great college town

Here is my complete list of eligible schools for our "premiere opponent" slots:

Notre Dame

Michigan

Ohio State

USC

UCLA 

Washington 

Oregon

Wisconsin

Penn State

Florida State

North Carolina 

Clemson

Miami

 

Others acceptable for various reasons, would prefer they be in a season with one of the above:

Utah, Stanford, Army, Navy

The military academies would clearly only need to be a 1 off home game for us because it is cool playing military academy and I would not schedule Stanford at all. 

As far as home/home opponents I agree with most of your list. I'd add the following which aren't "premier" but would be good home/home candidates:

Nebraska
Boise State
Arizona State - Which I think we already have setup, right?
Arizona
Colorado
Georgia Tech - Recruiting standpoint in the state of Georgia
BYU
Kansas State


 

Posted
4 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The military academies would clearly only need to be a 1 off home game for us because it is cool playing military academy and I would not schedule Stanford at all. 

As far as home/home opponents I agree with most of your list. I'd add the following which aren't "premier" but would be good home/home candidates:

Nebraska
Boise State
Arizona State - Which I think we already have setup, right?
Arizona
Colorado
Georgia Tech - Recruiting standpoint in the state of Georgia
BYU
Kansas State


 

Boise, BYU, K State?

No Way Reaction GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

TXST to the PAC8(?) to be announced soon?  I think our deadline to be in/out of the Sun Belt is end of month.

We also got a letter from the AD today, mostly rah-rahing us (w/ a donation link), but also talking about how we're all in, going to be expanding scholarships/paying players via the House Settlement deal, and those of us who have been paying attention know we're not writing all these checks w/ SBC money.  President has been consistently subtweeting that we're going to the PAC as well as dropping hints in person.

 

  • Like 1
Posted

We all assume so. I think the league might have preferred UNLV but Texas State seems to be the best realistic candidate with the MWC locked up and the AAC teams turning them down. These are the only real remaining options:

Texas State
NMSU
Sac State
other FCS (think Montana or NDSU)

Posted

Will be nice to finally know if Texas State is leaving for the new PAC after all these months of speculation. Dunno if it's just the maroon-colored glasses but idk who else PAC is going to add to get to 8 full time football playing members for 2026 unless something drastic changed in their mediation with the MWC or their media deal comes in way higher than expected...

Posted

I do like for football that the PAC is setup with nothing but state schools. 

Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Oregon State
San Diego State
Texas State*
Utah State
Washington State


Getting Gonzaga for basketball was smart. 

* Potentially

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I do like for football that the PAC is setup with nothing but state schools

Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Oregon State
San Diego State
Texas State*
Utah State
Washington State


Getting Gonzaga for basketball was smart. 

* Potentially

If the PAC12 doesn't at least call Allstate to hit them up for a sponsorship opportunity of the All-state Football Conference they are just being lazy...

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

 

two texas state football players stand in a locker room with the words " we needs to par-tay " above them

I don't get the continuing discussion of Memphis. The PAC having WSU and ORST has some appeal but I don't see how PAC is supposed be considered better than AAC overall. Even if there was some marginal difference, or if they manage to get more money per program in media dollars, the travel would still put them at a monetary negative. Memphis is finally upgrading the Liberty Bowl but still have issues. It's Big XII or ACC for them if they move up, not the zombie PAC.

Posted
3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't get the continuing discussion of Memphis. The PAC having WSU and ORST has some appeal but I don't see how PAC is supposed be considered better than AAC overall. Even if there was some marginal difference, or if they manage to get more money per program in media dollars, the travel would still put them at a monetary negative. Memphis is finally upgrading the Liberty Bowl but still have issues. It's Big XII or ACC for them if they move up, not the zombie PAC.

I don't understand how "restocking" the PAC does anything in regards to stabilizing the conference going forward and I don't see how the Big XII or the ACC adding new teams does anything for either conference.

The argument that adding teams is adding markets really doesn't mean much when you already have a clusterfuck situation with your schedule and the networks don't want to pay you as much as the Big 10 and the SEC.  Seriously, if the Big XII adds Memphis will that suddenly make them appealing enough to ESPN and/or Fox that the networks want to pay them the same?  Will all of a sudden the Big XII be viewed on the same competitive level as the Big 10 and the SEC and the discussion now be how the Big XII deserves as many guaranteed slots as the SEC and the Big 10?

Of course not and there is no reason to add any more teams.  What needs to happen is fix the damn scheduling mess inside conference play that came from all the uncontrolled and impulsive growth and the schools in the conference needs to step the fuck up and raise their level of play.  

I truly believe that ultimately we will see consolidation and culling of teams instead of adding more and more teams.  The networks have already shown their down have the appetite for more and more teams,  ESPN has shown they would rather broadcast axe throwing, dodge ball, and kick ball on their "free network" and broadcast more and more college sports via they pay app.  

The only real questions to me are what form does the new group take,  who ultimately acts as the head of this new group, and who gets culled out in the process.  

Posted
Just now, PGFrog said:

I don't understand how "restocking" the PAC does anything in regards to stabilizing the conference going forward and I don't see how the Big XII or the ACC adding new teams does anything for either conference.

The argument that adding teams is adding markets really doesn't mean much when you already have a clusterfuck situation with your schedule and the networks don't want to pay you as much as the Big 10 and the SEC.  Seriously, if the Big XII adds Memphis will that suddenly make them appealing enough to ESPN and/or Fox that the networks want to pay them the same?  Will all of a sudden the Big XII be viewed on the same competitive level as the Big 10 and the SEC and the discussion now be how the Big XII deserves as many guaranteed slots as the SEC and the Big 10?

Of course not and there is no reason to add any more teams.  What needs to happen is fix the damn scheduling mess inside conference play that came from all the uncontrolled and impulsive growth and the schools in the conference needs to step the fuck up and raise their level of play.  

I truly believe that ultimately we will see consolidation and culling of teams instead of adding more and more teams.  The networks have already shown their down have the appetite for more and more teams,  ESPN has shown they would rather broadcast axe throwing, dodge ball, and kick ball on their "free network" and broadcast more and more college sports via they pay app.  

The only real questions to me are what form does the new group take,  who ultimately acts as the head of this new group, and who gets culled out in the process.  

I'm not saying the Big XII should add Memphis, I'm saying that Memphis is as high as they can get currently in G5 and they aren't going anywhere unless a Big XII or ACC opportunity arises. I also think the Big XII would be 12 teams now if the PAC had collapsed a year earlier. They would have added UU, UC, AU, and ASU only. There's a chance BYU and UH would get considered but not right away. No way UCF of Cincy get a call. 

Posted
56 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I do like for football that the PAC is setup with nothing but state schools. 

Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Oregon State
San Diego State
Texas State*
Utah State
Washington State


Getting Gonzaga for basketball was smart. 

* Potentially

Looking at that,  is that a better basketball conference than the current conference for Gonzaga?  

They have lost ground to St. Mary's and a few of the other schools don't have football programs which means in theory they can throw assets at basketball and other sports. 

The other big issue on Gonzaga is the sustainability of Gonzaga as a national brand.  Few is 63, their international and US recruiting has fallen off since Lloyd left for Az, and they have been hit and miss in the transfer market.  They are getting very close to being a basketball version of Boise and not a west coast version of Villanova.  

Posted
9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm not saying the Big XII should add Memphis, I'm saying that Memphis is as high as they can get currently in G5 and they aren't going anywhere unless a Big XII or ACC opportunity arises. I also think the Big XII would be 12 teams now if the PAC had collapsed a year earlier. They would have added UU, UC, AU, and ASU only. There's a chance BYU and UH would get considered but not right away. No way UCF of Cincy get a call. 

AAC is the highest level non p4 conference....If PAC could poach 2-4 members from around the country to join I think it could put them above the AAC and right at a BIG 12/ACC in terms of top to bottom conference.

1-2 from AAC:
Memphis
Tulane
UTSA
East Carolina
USF

Mountain West:
UNLV

Sun Belt:
Marshall
Louisiana

 

As said above 2-4 teams from that list could make it a pretty salty conference. 

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, PGFrog said:

I don't understand how "restocking" the PAC does anything in regards to stabilizing the conference going forward and I don't see how the Big XII or the ACC adding new teams does anything for either conference.

The argument that adding teams is adding markets really doesn't mean much when you already have a clusterfuck situation with your schedule and the networks don't want to pay you as much as the Big 10 and the SEC.  Seriously, if the Big XII adds Memphis will that suddenly make them appealing enough to ESPN and/or Fox that the networks want to pay them the same?  Will all of a sudden the Big XII be viewed on the same competitive level as the Big 10 and the SEC and the discussion now be how the Big XII deserves as many guaranteed slots as the SEC and the Big 10?

Of course not and there is no reason to add any more teams.  What needs to happen is fix the damn scheduling mess inside conference play that came from all the uncontrolled and impulsive growth and the schools in the conference needs to step the fuck up and raise their level of play.  

I truly believe that ultimately we will see consolidation and culling of teams instead of adding more and more teams.  The networks have already shown their down have the appetite for more and more teams,  ESPN has shown they would rather broadcast axe throwing, dodge ball, and kick ball on their "free network" and broadcast more and more college sports via they pay app.  

The only real questions to me are what form does the new group take,  who ultimately acts as the head of this new group, and who gets culled out in the process.  

My guess is that the SEC and Big 10 take maybe 4 schools currently in the ACC, and maintain their position of power and financial top level status.  The Big 12 and remaining ACC merge into something.  Perhaps the ACC schools that aren't really that committed to big time college athletics (BC, Wake) drop down a level to like an AAC or whatever.

A playoff that's majority SEC and Big 10 with a handful of spots for the next tier and maybe 1 of the current G5 results in this aftermath.  This gives the Big 10 and SEC all the power and money they want, with enough access to everyone to prevent anti-trust suits.

Within the Big 10 and SEC, there will be a re-arranging of finances.  The Purdues and Rutgers of the world won't be culled per se, but they'll no longer be paid as much as Ohio State and Michigan.  They'll be given the choice of being paid to associate with those schools and take losses, or attempt a more competitive but less lucrative existence in the BigACC or whatever that entity goes by.

The tiers that are obvious today will become more cemented in a de facto sense, but probably not formally.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
Posted
9 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

My guess is that the SEC and Big 10 take maybe 4 schools currently in the ACC, and maintain their position of power and financial top level status.  The Big 12 and remaining ACC merge into something.  Perhaps the ACC schools that aren't really that committed to big time college athletics (BC, Wake) drop down a level to like an AAC or whatever.

A playoff that's majority SEC and Big 10 with a handful of spots for the next tier and maybe 1 of the current G5 results in this aftermath.  This gives the Big 10 and SEC all the power and money they want, with enough access to everyone to prevent anti-trust suits.

Within the Big 10 and SEC, there will be a re-arranging of finances.  The Purdues and Rutgers of the world won't be culled per se, but they'll no longer be paid as much as Ohio State and Michigan.  They'll be given the choice of being paid to associate with those schools and take losses, or attempt a more competitive but less lucrative existence in the BigACC or whatever that entity goes by.

The tiers that are obvious today will become more cemented in a de facto sense, but probably not formally.

I agree with much of what you are saying, but I don't think in the end the driver of all these decisions will be the conferences.  

If you are the networks, why pay for schools that don't bring market shares when you know that the big schools have already shown a willingness to jump for the money.  

I understand that the SEC and Big 10 will say they are subject to the same rules and temptations as what caused other schools to jump, but my response is simply not yet.  

Said it before on this board, but I don't see the networks willing to pay for 60 schools for example when they can get consolidate down and in the end they are the ones who are going to drive these changes yet again and not the schools. 

Posted
25 minutes ago, PGFrog said:

I agree with much of what you are saying, but I don't think in the end the driver of all these decisions will be the conferences.  

If you are the networks, why pay for schools that don't bring market shares when you know that the big schools have already shown a willingness to jump for the money.  

I understand that the SEC and Big 10 will say they are subject to the same rules and temptations as what caused other schools to jump, but my response is simply not yet.  

Said it before on this board, but I don't see the networks willing to pay for 60 schools for example when they can get consolidate down and in the end they are the ones who are going to drive these changes yet again and not the schools. 

Yeah, it’s definitely the networks running the show, but they want more inventory than the top 15-20 schools provide.

They already have most of the sport at a price point that works really well, and that’s why I think the Big 10/SEC remoras will be paid less, but not formally relegated.  Like what the Big 12 and ACC are currently experiencing.

Posted

I know it would never happen, but the original Big12 South could flip the sport on its head overnight by re-forming some sort of Southwest Centric Conference. Texas and OU packing the prestige, Tech and A&M outbidding the field for Texas/Louisiana talent. The T Boone Foundation is still pumping dollars into OSU athletics, I think they could easily be an Ole Miss type in the portal lane if they wanted to. I wouldn’t invite Baylor. 
 

I’d start at 12. Maybe:

Texas, A&M, OU, Oklahoma State, Arizona, Kansas

Other Division: 

Arizona State, SMU, Colorado, Utah, Kansas State, Texas Tech 

 

Obviously you’re betting on Tech, SMU, Colorado, and ASU to pop off in NIL. If you wanted to go to 14, there is some intriguing regional options. College Sports will wither and die if national conference structures aren’t combatted. 
 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...