ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment | Page 405 | Syracusefan.com
.

ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

FloridaCuse said:
www.on3.com

Cody Campbell takes direct shot at Greg Sankey, Tony Petitti after Thursday morning call-out

Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell accused Big Ten and SEC leaders of not caring about the future of college athletics at large on Thursday.
www.on3.com www.on3.com
Expand...
"The memo also argues that such pooling would create centralized scheduling that could negatively impact cross-conference scheduling and the future of longstanding conference rivalries."

HA! Ok B1G/SEC, like you care about preserving rivalries. The expansion that you guys facilitated the last few decades already killed those.
 
sufandu said:
"The memo also argues that such pooling would create centralized scheduling that could negatively impact cross-conference scheduling and the future of longstanding conference rivalries."

HA! Ok B1G/SEC, like you care about preserving rivalries. The expansion that you guys facilitated the last few decades already killed those.
Expand...
Until the leaders of SEC and BT accepted, quite recently, that there was big money in playing OOC games that had history and/or geographic power, etc, those 2 richest leagues scheduled OOC to pack away as many easy Ws as possible. Now they assert that they want ton play each 9ther all the time OOC because that that will make them the most money.

Hence, my view that the ACC must expand to then play 10 league games per season. PSU for example, is never again going to play Pitt, much less Syracuse, more than twice a decade. The BT does not want SC and UCLA playing Calford. The SEC no more wants UT and A&M playing SMU, TTU, TCU, and Baylor than UT and A&M want to play those historic rivals.

Entities end competition precisely because they wish to declare themselves the Victor and never risk that title being lost while stealing all the money possible. BT and SEC are both guilty as all Hell.
 
Oakland said:
And yet, every BB team wants to play in the NCAA and not the NIT.
Expand...
Your recency bias is showing. Now they do because nearly everybody and their uncle from the P4 can get in and it's a sad commentary on your program if you don't. Way Back in the Day, only 1 team was invited to the NCAAs per conference. A lot of really good teams didn't make it and gladly took invites to the NIT. Even Further Back in the Day the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAAs.
 
sufandu said:
"The memo also argues that such pooling would create centralized scheduling that could negatively impact cross-conference scheduling and the future of longstanding conference rivalries."

HA! Ok B1G/SEC, like you care about preserving rivalries. The expansion that you guys facilitated the last few decades already killed those.
Expand...
Perfect example Kansas-Missouri (the Border War). Played 120 times from 1892 to 2011 when Missouri went to the SEC. Only resumed this season after the break. It was the 2nd most played FBS rivalry behind Minnesota-Wisconsin. As a comparison, UVa-UNC, currently tied for the 2nd most played rivalry, played 4 fewer games to that point.
 
WoadBlue said:
As I have said many times the ACC BADLY needs to add Texas Tech because Cody Campbell is worth a fortune to whatever league he fights for.
Expand...
Texas Tech has one billionaire with cash that will only last so long. OkieState is nowhere without their sugar daddy, it does not last. Texas Tech has no fan following except in the panhandle. No significant presence in the other major cities. You can keep dreaming if you like, it won't change the facts. Texas Tech will not benefit the ACC enough to cover a full share. See ESPN's complaints with the last expansion, if TTech was a beneficial as you state, ESPN would have argued to include TTech in the last expansion. ESPN believes they do not add enough value.

Enjoy your sweet dreams about playing in Lubbock. P.S. Everyone I know from the Panhandle count their blessings that they are FROM the panhandle and are no longer there.
 
Hoo's That said:
Your recency bias is showing. Now they do because nearly everybody and their uncle from the P4 can get in and it's a sad commentary on your program if you don't. Way Back in the Day, only 1 team was invited to the NCAAs per conference. A lot of really good teams didn't make it and gladly took invites to the NIT. Even Further Back in the Day the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAAs.
Expand...

With all due respect, why does this matter nowadays? I mean, "back in the day," General Motors had approximately 60% of total market share in the US.

:)
 
HtownOrange said:
Texas Tech has one billionaire with cash that will only last so long. OkieState is nowhere without their sugar daddy, it does not last. Texas Tech has no fan following except in the panhandle. No significant presence in the other major cities. You can keep dreaming if you like, it won't change the facts. Texas Tech will not benefit the ACC enough to cover a full share. See ESPN's complaints with the last expansion, if TTech was a beneficial as you state, ESPN would have argued to include TTech in the last expansion. ESPN believes they do not add enough value.

Enjoy your sweet dreams about playing in Lubbock. P.S. Everyone I know from the Panhandle count their blessings that they are FROM the panhandle and are no longer there.
Expand...
You sound like the old time ACC people who kept repeating Dook basketball coach Vic Bubas on why WVU never should be allowed in the ACC: terrible access to Morgantown, especially from south of the town.

Bubas made the case when there was no inter-state, nor even a 4 lane state highway into Morgantown, and no airport there big enough to handle a plane larger than maybe a dozen seats. But the catch is that what Bubas said was totally out of date by 1970.

As for TTU, first, Lubbock is NOT in the TX panhandle. Second, and much more important, TTU is the most important university, and only significant winner in the 3 most important collegiate sports, in the entirety of western TX. Third, Campbell is far from the only rich alum and/ot west TX native who is a big money booster for TTU sports. Fourth, the TV market with the largest number of TTU alums is DFW - the most important TV market in TX and the entire southwest. TTU alums in DFW greatly outnumber SMU alums there. Fifth, though west TX is too sparsely populated per sq. mile to allow for TTU to fill an 80K football stadium, it routinely sells close to its capacity of 60K. And how many current ACC members can say the same? In the same vein and much more important because TV deals are based on TV viewers drawn, west TX has more passionate CFB fans than all of NY state.
 
HtownOrange said:
Texas Tech has one billionaire with cash that will only last so long. OkieState is nowhere without their sugar daddy, it does not last. Texas Tech has no fan following except in the panhandle. No significant presence in the other major cities. You can keep dreaming if you like, it won't change the facts. Texas Tech will not benefit the ACC enough to cover a full share. See ESPN's complaints with the last expansion, if TTech was a beneficial as you state, ESPN would have argued to include TTech in the last expansion. ESPN believes they do not add enough value.

Enjoy your sweet dreams about playing in Lubbock. P.S. Everyone I know from the Panhandle count their blessings that they are FROM the panhandle and are no longer there.
Expand...
Heck, I'd trade all you guys for a sugar daddy. :p
 
WoadBlue said:
You sound like the old time ACC people who kept repeating Dook basketball coach Vic Bubas on why WVU never should be allowed in the ACC: terrible access to Morgantown, especially from south of the town.

Bubas made the case when there was no inter-state, nor even a 4 lane state highway into Morgantown, and no airport there big enough to handle a plane larger than maybe a dozen seats. But the catch is that what Bubas said was totally out of date by 1970.

As for TTU, first, Lubbock is NOT in the TX panhandle. Second, and much more important, TTU is the most important university, and only significant winner in the 3 most important collegiate sports, in the entirety of western TX. Third, Campbell is far from the only rich alum and/ot west TX native who is a big money booster for TTU sports. Fourth, the TV market with the largest number of TTU alums is DFW - the most important TV market in TX and the entire southwest. TTU alums in DFW greatly outnumber SMU alums there. Fifth, though west TX is too sparsely populated per sq. mile to allow for TTU to fill an 80K football stadium, it routinely sells close to its capacity of 60K. And how many current ACC members can say the same? In the same vein and much more important because TV deals are based on TV viewers drawn, west TX has more passionate CFB fans than all of NY state.
Expand...
Think what you like. ESPN, you know, the ACCN partner, never proposed, sought or suggested TTech. Nor did the ACC seek to bring in TTech. Those two points outweigh any and all of your opinions. Actions mean far more than speculative words.

As to the WVU comparison, immaterial. The two are not true parallels for anything. Ironically, they are on the same conference. TTech is ranked 198th, significantly below WVU, and Cincy, for that matter. houston is a better addition academically, DMA size, more football fans, etc.

Regarding boosters, they don't have as many as you think, much like other schools, they have a few big whales, some big fish and small donors. For the size of its alumni body, you would expect significantly more donations.

Anecdotally, my current boss knew Leach personally for many years, and knew the power and money people at TTech. He still has ties to TTech. He tells me TTech did not have the resources to compete. Sure, appearances may indicate one thing but the financial picture is less rosey when you look into it. See the mess the B1G is 13 schools with ADs in excess of $200M in debt.

Regarding TTech fans in DFW, so? They don't donate the largest sums to TTech, they don't attend games, they are as rabid as you portray. In Houston and Austin, they are silent.

Using your criteria, University of Houston is a far better addition than TTech. Using the ACC and ESPN actions as a guide rejects all of your analysis.

Your true purpose was revealed in your last line. You needed to troll SU. You may be right, you may be wrong. But SU brings in a state with 20 million people, TTech, at best covers 5% of that with divided loyalties. Even your troll-dig fails the economics test you wish to portray.
 
HtownOrange said:
Think what you like. ESPN, you know, the ACCN partner, never proposed, sought or suggested TTech. Nor did the ACC seek to bring in TTech. Those two points outweigh any and all of your opinions. Actions mean far more than speculative words.

As to the WVU comparison, immaterial. The two are not true parallels for anything. Ironically, they are on the same conference. TTech is ranked 198th, significantly below WVU, and Cincy, for that matter. houston is a better addition academically, DMA size, more football fans, etc.

Regarding boosters, they don't have as many as you think, much like other schools, they have a few big whales, some big fish and small donors. For the size of its alumni body, you would expect significantly more donations.

Anecdotally, my current boss knew Leach personally for many years, and knew the power and money people at TTech. He still has ties to TTech. He tells me TTech did not have the resources to compete. Sure, appearances may indicate one thing but the financial picture is less rosey when you look into it. See the mess the B1G is 13 schools with ADs in excess of $200M in debt.

Regarding TTech fans in DFW, so? They don't donate the largest sums to TTech, they don't attend games, they are as rabid as you portray. In Houston and Austin, they are silent.

Using your criteria, University of Houston is a far better addition than TTech. Using the ACC and ESPN actions as a guide rejects all of your analysis.

Your true purpose was revealed in your last line. You needed to troll SU. You may be right, you may be wrong. But SU brings in a state with 20 million people, TTech, at best covers 5% of that with divided loyalties. Even your troll-dig fails the economics test you wish to portray.
Expand...
SU doesn’t bring in NYS. The greater NYC and downstate area are fans of pro sports, not college. (Actually, most don’t care about sports.) Albany doesn’t care about SU, nor does Rochester or Buffalo. By and large, Western NY is far more into the Bills and hockey than SU football and basketball.
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
SU doesn’t bring in NYS. The greater NYC and downstate area are fans of pro sports, not college. (Actually, most don’t care about sports.) Albany doesn’t care about SU, nor does Rochester or Buffalo. By and large, Western NY is far more into the Bills and hockey than SU football and basketball.
Expand...
Reasonable comments for another discussion,* but far from the context of the discussion. SU does bring in the entirety of NY for purposes of households with ESPN and carriage rates. And, because California, Texas and Florida are divided significantly, SU has the most dense carriage per team in college sports.

Again, the context is "What does TTech bring to ESPN and the ACC," not enough. ESPN and the ACC know something that convinces them both that TTech is not worth the addition. Hint: the SEC also passed on TTech, if their fan base was a rabid as claimed and their support was as rabid as claimed, the SEC would have scooped them up.

Can things change? Sure, we can speculate until we bore ourselves to tears. Yet, as it stands, TTech is not worth adding to the ACC. If they were, the ACC would want TTech, ESPN would want TTech.

*I respectfully disagree with the oversimplification of your claims, but you should initiate a separate thread to develop your arguments and present proofs if you wish to convince fellow Orange posters.
 
HtownOrange said:
Reasonable comments for another discussion,* but far from the context of the discussion. SU does bring in the entirety of NY for purposes of households with ESPN and carriage rates. And, because California, Texas and Florida are divided significantly, SU has the most dense carriage per team in college sports.

Again, the context is "What does TTech bring to ESPN and the ACC," not enough. ESPN and the ACC know something that convinces them both that TTech is not worth the addition. Hint: the SEC also passed on TTech, if their fan base was a rabid as claimed and their support was as rabid as claimed, the SEC would have scooped them up.

Can things change? Sure, we can speculate until we bore ourselves to tears. Yet, as it stands, TTech is not worth adding to the ACC. If they were, the ACC would want TTech, ESPN would want TTech.

*I respectfully disagree with the oversimplification of your claims, but you should initiate a separate thread to develop your arguments and present proofs if you wish to convince fellow Orange posters.
Expand...
Relates to the last paragraph of the post to which I responded.
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
SU doesn’t bring in NYS. The greater NYC and downstate area are fans of pro sports, not college. (Actually, most don’t care about sports.) Albany doesn’t care about SU, nor does Rochester or Buffalo. By and large, Western NY is far more into the Bills and hockey than SU football and basketball.
Expand...

I'd mostly agree, except for Rochester. There is very much a large Syracuse following there. Buffalo and Albany on the other hand? They mostly couldn't care less.
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
Relates to the last paragraph of the post to which I responded.
Expand...
Exactly, you offer facts not in evidence to disprove the facts in evidence, (ESPN's and the ACC's actions-Is SU a part of the ACC? Is SU material to the value of the ACCN deal?) that SU brings in the entire state of NY for ESPN's carriage computations, which directly benefits the ACC and ACCN. TTech would do no such thing comparable to SU.

Please recall that ESPN and the ACC have acknowledged the ACCN would not be in place, at least at the level it is at, if SU was not a part of the ACC.

Why do you defend a UNC troll that blatantly hates SU? He routinely posts on the errors and evils of SU in the ACC. If you support him, why do you post here on an SU fansite? He made false arguments to detract from the fact that if TTech made financial sense to the ACC and ESPN they would have been invited. If you wish to support Woad's opinion, provide facts that support that TTech is a financial powerhouse in the Big 12 that makes sense to bring them to the ACC and ESPN. The "facts" presented by Woad and you are not backed up with sources nor do they overcome the simple fact that TTech did NOT get invited to the ACC.

If you think SU should withdraw from the ACC because Woad says so, please start a new thread. You may have legitimate arguments, as may Woad. That issue is separate from whether TTech is worthy of joining the ACC.
 
Last edited:
HtownOrange said:
Think what you like. ESPN, you know, the ACCN partner, never proposed, sought or suggested TTech. Nor did the ACC seek to bring in TTech. Those two points outweigh any and all of your opinions. Actions mean far more than speculative words.

As to the WVU comparison, immaterial. The two are not true parallels for anything. Ironically, they are on the same conference. TTech is ranked 198th, significantly below WVU, and Cincy, for that matter. houston is a better addition academically, DMA size, more football fans, etc.

Regarding boosters, they don't have as many as you think, much like other schools, they have a few big whales, some big fish and small donors. For the size of its alumni body, you would expect significantly more donations.

Anecdotally, my current boss knew Leach personally for many years, and knew the power and money people at TTech. He still has ties to TTech. He tells me TTech did not have the resources to compete. Sure, appearances may indicate one thing but the financial picture is less rosey when you look into it. See the mess the B1G is 13 schools with ADs in excess of $200M in debt.

Regarding TTech fans in DFW, so? They don't donate the largest sums to TTech, they don't attend games, they are as rabid as you portray. In Houston and Austin, they are silent.

Using your criteria, University of Houston is a far better addition than TTech. Using the ACC and ESPN actions as a guide rejects all of your analysis.

Your true purpose was revealed in your last line. You needed to troll SU. You may be right, you may be wrong. But SU brings in a state with 20 million people, TTech, at best covers 5% of that with divided loyalties. Even your troll-dig fails the economics test you wish to portray.
Expand...
Those who refuse to face facts always lose in the long run. My last sentence is the truth. Now you can match that by saying that west TX may have as many rodeo fans as college hoops fans, and I would not argue that point. But I can show you that TTU can fill a decent sized gym game after game in numbers larger than a few ACC schools can do.

So your starting point, in addition to operating off the Big East football sore spot, in assuming that TTU cannot have value is ESPN. The same network that not only is making the SEC absolutely key to all things it does in CFB, but now ESPN also grants SEC basketball many times more top time slots for basketball. ESPN has chosen to make the ACC utterly subservient to the SEC in all sports. `

Is ESPN fiscally ed, or is there a problem with the value of the ACC vis a vis SEC and BT? If the former, then soon ESPN will be out of business and thus any advice ESPN has given the ACC should be rejected anyway. If the latter, what do SEC and BT have that the ACC lacks?

Large state universities with proven large fan bases that both buy tickets and watch games on TV. ACC TV numbers for football games suck totally compared to SEC. Per capita CFB TV viewership sucks to high heaven compared to the entire South and midwest. CBS learned that in the 1990s. BE football was immediately given a TV deal with CBS - just 1 game per Saturday. But that was more national TV exposure than the ACC was getting. Why did CBS not keep BE football dn add more games? Because CBS discovered that even in NY, the SEC game would out draw the BE game the vast majority of times.

There is no guarantee that the ACC can survive at all past 2036, much less survive as a Major conference in whatever is there Top Tier for CFB. TV numbers declare that the ACC sure as Hell better make significant moves if it wishes to do so. Those moves need to make the ACC look much more like the SEC and BT:

1. More large state schools, preferably Flagship and/or Land Grant. 2. More schools located in states with excellent HS football. 3. More schools located in TV markets with proven LARGE CFB audiences. 4. More schools that make up fierce 'area' football rivalries.
 
WoadBlue said:
Those who refuse to face facts always lose in the long run. My last sentence is the truth. Now you can match that by saying that west TX may have as many rodeo fans as college hoops fans, and I would not argue that point. But I can show you that TTU can fill a decent sized gym game after game in numbers larger than a few ACC schools can do.

So your starting point, in addition to operating off the Big East football sore spot, in assuming that TTU cannot have value is ESPN. The same network that not only is making the SEC absolutely key to all things it does in CFB, but now ESPN also grants SEC basketball many times more top time slots for basketball. ESPN has chosen to make the ACC utterly subservient to the SEC in all sports. `

Is ESPN fiscally ed, or is there a problem with the value of the ACC vis a vis SEC and BT? If the former, then soon ESPN will be out of business and thus any advice ESPN has given the ACC should be rejected anyway. If the latter, what do SEC and BT have that the ACC lacks?

Large state universities with proven large fan bases that both buy tickets and watch games on TV. ACC TV numbers for football games suck totally compared to SEC. Per capita CFB TV viewership sucks to high heaven compared to the entire South and midwest. CBS learned that in the 1990s. BE football was immediately given a TV deal with CBS - just 1 game per Saturday. But that was more national TV exposure than the ACC was getting. Why did CBS not keep BE football dn add more games? Because CBS discovered that even in NY, the SEC game would out draw the BE game the vast majority of times.

There is no guarantee that the ACC can survive at all past 2036, much less survive as a Major conference in whatever is there Top Tier for CFB. TV numbers declare that the ACC sure as Hell better make significant moves if it wishes to do so. Those moves need to make the ACC look much more like the SEC and BT:

1. More large state schools, preferably Flagship and/or Land Grant. 2. More schools located in states with excellent HS football. 3. More schools located in TV markets with proven LARGE CFB audiences. 4. More schools that make up fierce 'area' football rivalries.
Expand...
You falsely portray my argument as TTech has no value, my argument is that ESPN and the ACC do not consider TTech as valuable enough for consideration. To get to that point or the point of invitation, there are deep analyses performed, TTech fell short, they are not in the discussion. Please show where ESPN and/the ACC has promoted TTech for addition to the ACC. Does TTech have some value, the Big 12 believes they do. ESPN and the ACC say not enough.

I never mentioned the Big East, you are bringing it into this argument. That is in the past. ESPN rejected the Big East and advised SU be one of new additions especially if the ACC wanted a network. History proves this point, several Big East schools were not invited, including Rutgers and UConn, both closer to NYC than SU.

We are not discussing SEC v. ACC as ESPN properties. If we were, it would have no bearing on the point that the ACC has not invited TTech. If ESPN thought TTech were beneficial to either conference, ESPN would recommend their addition accordingly. The fact is, ESPN has not recommended TTech to either conference rendering your point moot.

You are free to create a new thread to discuss ESPN's favoritism of SEC over ACC, which may get large support on this site.

No one is disputing the general consensus that land grant schools are generally best choices. Big state universities may have value, see TAMU. However, the seventh at best - school is not where the ACC should start.

Who said the ACC has a guarantee beyond 2036? Again, a red herring argument intended to distract from the fundamental principal that is a school does not add sufficient value, they will not get an invite. Is Wyoming getting an invite as it is the largest Wyoming state university? No, the do not bring sufficient value. If Wyoming suddenly did could they get an invite? Sure.

TTech is neither a land grant nor flagship school. No one disputes schools with better HS football should factor into the equation. TV markets with large fan bases is a reasonable argument, Lubbock is the 145th DMA, far behind many others, say, Houston (6th)? Should growth potential count? Should Houston be disposed of because Lubbock has 3% of the population and a higher percentage of fans? I would argue Houston has much greater potential, significant that they should be considered before TTech, but Houston does not meet the requirements established by the ACC and ESPN. Neither gets the invite. TTech has no natural rivalries. Nobody truly cares about them.

I am not opposed to expansion. I am against willy nilly expansion. If a team does not add sufficient value to the ACC and ESPN , there must be another compelling reason to invite them. TTech falls short of an invite. As does Houston, Baylor, TCU, and many more.

Whether any of us like it, the ACC is the third best conference, essentially the top 55 schools. Sure, we can debate individual schools' value, start a new thread if you wants schools kicked out. It is not easy to move into the top 50.
 
WoadBlue said:
Those who refuse to face facts always lose in the long run. My last sentence is the truth. Now you can match that by saying that west TX may have as many rodeo fans as college hoops fans, and I would not argue that point. But I can show you that TTU can fill a decent sized gym game after game in numbers larger than a few ACC schools can do.

So your starting point, in addition to operating off the Big East football sore spot, in assuming that TTU cannot have value is ESPN. The same network that not only is making the SEC absolutely key to all things it does in CFB, but now ESPN also grants SEC basketball many times more top time slots for basketball. ESPN has chosen to make the ACC utterly subservient to the SEC in all sports. `

Is ESPN fiscally ed, or is there a problem with the value of the ACC vis a vis SEC and BT? If the former, then soon ESPN will be out of business and thus any advice ESPN has given the ACC should be rejected anyway. If the latter, what do SEC and BT have that the ACC lacks?

Large state universities with proven large fan bases that both buy tickets and watch games on TV. ACC TV numbers for football games suck totally compared to SEC. Per capita CFB TV viewership sucks to high heaven compared to the entire South and midwest. CBS learned that in the 1990s. BE football was immediately given a TV deal with CBS - just 1 game per Saturday. But that was more national TV exposure than the ACC was getting. Why did CBS not keep BE football dn add more games? Because CBS discovered that even in NY, the SEC game would out draw the BE game the vast majority of times.

There is no guarantee that the ACC can survive at all past 2036, much less survive as a Major conference in whatever is there Top Tier for CFB. TV numbers declare that the ACC sure as Hell better make significant moves if it wishes to do so. Those moves need to make the ACC look much more like the SEC and BT:

1. More large state schools, preferably Flagship and/or Land Grant. 2. More schools located in states with excellent HS football. 3. More schools located in TV markets with proven LARGE CFB audiences. 4. More schools that make up fierce 'area' football rivalries.
Expand...
Woad, I'm reminded of when I was a grad student at Duke. One of the famed Cameron Crazies put a notice in the Chapel Hill paper that read "Carolina Blue is the past tense of Carolina sucks." :p
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
SU doesn’t bring in NYS. The greater NYC and downstate area are fans of pro sports, not college. (Actually, most don’t care about sports.) Albany doesn’t care about SU, nor does Rochester or Buffalo. By and large, Western NY is far more into the Bills and hockey than SU football and basketball.
Expand...
SU has a strong ring 90 miles around. Outside of that...it drops off at a big rate
 

Similar threads

OrangeXtreme
LAX TV/Streaming for Apr 10-12
Replies
14
Views
837
JeremyCuse
JeremyCuse
CorduroyG
    • Like
    • Dislike
    • Haha
We need to go back to the big east
6 7 8
Replies
195
Views
14K
OrangeXtreme
OrangeXtreme
B
    • Dislike
ACC falling apart will cause B1G and SEC to poach ACC
Replies
3
Views
782
OrangeXtreme
OrangeXtreme
Powellfan
    • Like
Georgetown Game Preview (3/22/26)
Replies
8
Views
925
FloridaCuse
FloridaCuse

Forum statistics

Threads
175,349
Messages
5,351,521
Members
6,236
Latest member
SaltyCity

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
6,738
Total visitors
6,879
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom