Arbs--Can we get an ACC Network Update? | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

Arbs--Can we get an ACC Network Update?

reedny said:
I agree with TC that media rights need to be sold at the conference level. This is the same model conferences have used for bowl revenue and other rights, and sharing spreads the risks, costs and benefits in a balanced way.
Expand...

I'm not so sure. I think a conference made up of similar schools (large public universities), sharing probably makes sense. But a conference made up of a mixed group of schools (large and small, public and private), it may not. Why? An over the top (or ala carte) business model would clearly identify conference free loaders. It would be hard to justify paying some schools a full share. It really brings into question if a conference would be better off with a smaller number of schools.
 
Last edited:
gobigorange said:
Exactly and it's never going to get better. What we need is a new commissioner...one that isn't affiliated with any of the member schools. No other major conference does that.
Expand...
I understand this guy is available
1251680163.jpg
 
reedny said:
I agree with TC that media rights need to be sold at the conference level. This is the same model conferences have used for bowl revenue and other rights, and sharing spreads the risks, costs and benefits in a balanced way.

However, I wouldn't trust Raycom to sort my laundry. This outfit could care less about upstate NY fans or sports. They have proven to me that they are untrustworthy by routinely peddling the rights to SU games to media outlets that can't or won't air the games in the prime viewing area. If Raycom pulled the same nonsense with F-State as they do with SU, seminole fans would burn down their building in Charlotte or Montgomery, or wherever they are. Terrible.

The ACC can and must do better than Raycom. And while I'm on a roll, I think cable TV, not the internet, is the future of 3rd tier programming. There are so many problems with internet broadcasts I can't count them ... signal quality, issues with ads, dropped or interrupted coverage. Folks ... we all have beautiful TV's, with reliable HD cable signals. Leave the computer stuff to the millennials -- they can "catch" the games on their I-phones. No thank you.
Expand...

You are hoping that the inevitable doesn't happen. Good Luck.

The number of cord cutters are growing and millennials don't give a rats ass about cable TV. "Cord Cutters" are older folks like myself that are sick of paying $200 a month to get 1500 channels when I watch about 15.

Millennials will just be non subscribers and as the older folks cut the cord the cable TV customer base is eroding faster than they can raise prices.

You will see at first the 3rd tier sports programming go to the internet for carriage then in about 10 more years you will see 2nd tier there as well followed by prime programming because that will be where the audience is.

As Howard Stern has said and proven, "Content Is King, and where there is good content, there will be plenty of consumers to follow and consume it".

The people that create the good content are finally realizing that THEY are the most important link in the chain, not the cable company that provides the cord into your house. People nowdays don't need the cord.
 
CuseOnly said:
You are hoping that the inevitable doesn't happen. Good Luck.

The number of cord cutters are growing and millennials don't give a rats ass about cable TV. "Cord Cutters" are older folks like myself that are sick of paying $200 a month to get 1500 channels when I watch about 15.

Millennials will just be non subscribers and as the older folks cut the cord the cable TV customer base is eroding faster than they can raise prices.

You will see at first the 3rd tier sports programming go to the internet for carriage then in about 10 more years you will see 2nd tier there as well followed by prime programming because that will be where the audience is.

As Howard Stern has said and proven, "Content Is King, and where there is good content, there will be plenty of consumers to follow and consume it".

The people that create the good content are finally realizing that THEY are the most important link in the chain, not the cable company that provides the cord into your house. People nowdays don't need the cord.
Expand...
If this is true, then the "future" makes no sense, since the internet requires a monthly fee that is constantly going up. Cable rates go up too, but cable is everywhere. There are a gazillion TV's out there. Everyone's got one in his family room. Why on earth would I want to watch a game on a computer ... or try to "stream" a crappy, intermittent signal with repeated glitches to my TV when I can view a perfectly stable HD image from cable. Streaming a movie from netflicks .. ok. I get that (if it works). But watching live sports events off an internet signal is asking for trouble. It'd be safer watching the neighbors big screen from my house.

Remember the SU-Bonnies game? Bonnies have a good team this year ... the game was supposed to be good (it was). I pay TWC for an ESPN "game pass". It's 8$ per month .. just so I can see one or two SU games. When I turned the game on, guess what .. it was "blacked out", even though I paid for the station. Amazing. It turns out that the carolina fans at Raycom peddled the rights to MSG3, which (of course) isn't carried here in NY -- the prime viewing area. Raycom can go to hell.
 
Last edited:
reedny said:
If this is true, then the "future" makes no sense, since the internet requires a monthly fee that is constantly going up. Cable rates go up too, but cable is everywhere. There are a gazillion TV's out there. Everyone's got one in his family room. Why on earth would I want to watch a game on a computer ... or try to "stream" a crappy, intermittent signal with repeated glitches to my TV when I can view a perfectly stable HD image from cable. Streaming a movie from netflicks .. ok. I get that (if it works). But watching live sports events off an internet signal is asking for trouble. It'd be safer watching the neighbors big screen from my house.

Remember the SU-Bonnies game? Bonnies have a good team this year ... the game was supposed to be good (it was). I pay TWC for an ESPN "game pass". It's 8$ per month .. just so I can see one or two SU games. When I turned the game on, guess what .. it was "blacked out", even though I paid for the station. Amazing. It turns out that the carolina fans at Raycom peddled the rights to MSG3, which (of course) isn't carried here in NY -- the prime viewing area. Raycom can go to hell.
Expand...

Point is, cable won't be everywhere and affordable shortly, internet is everywhere including your phone and is more affordable.

I pay right now over $200 for Verizon Phone, Internet and Cable TV.

Eventually I will be cutting the cable cord with them and paying only for the 50/50 Mbps internet which will support over 7 devices simultaneously streaming video, phone over the internet and live streaming TV which will be offered shortly by several services. There is no crappy stream and doing that I will pay $54.95 plus taxes and getting my phone and TV over the internet. That and an OTA antennae for local channels and I will be set.

Sounds like a savings to me, how about you?

Get away from crappy TWC and learn what fast internet is like. I had TWC's best service, switched to Verizon DSL before FIOS and it was faster, now I have FIOS and it is at whole different level. With TWC you are on a grid with everybody else in your area and when everybody is on, the "speed" they promise is barely better that dial up.

My daughter streams video from Netflix at the same time I am watching a movie and downloading one from Amazon Prime in HD and everything is perfect, no buffering or anything.
 
CuseOnly sounds like you figured it out. Unfortunately not everyone can get realistic Internet options other than TWC. For the Cuse fan it really helps if you are either outside the Blacked Out window for the ACC Network or located close enough in a metro to the TV channel broadcasting the ACC Network (view with HD Antenna). Otherwise you might have to do an IP address Spoofing service. This allows you to trick WatchESPN that you are located outside the blacked out area.

Also, I don't recommend to try to get over the air (OTA) HD Broadcasts on every TV for some folks...it might be too much trouble. Sure you might have 3+ TVs but do you need OTA on every TV?
Unless you live very close to the TV Towers...stay away from most of the antenna junk at WalMart.

I like buying from these guys www.solidsignal.com
Lots of daily specials
 
TexanMark said:
And this to chew on:
A good discussion about the ACC/Network/Future

http://csnbbs.com/thread-774252.html

Apparently ACC teams will each net another $3M per year starting this summer if the ACC Network isn't launched. As each year passes...Raycom and FOX have less of a hold over the ACC.

This link throws some water on the ACC Network.

http://gridironnow.com/the-conference-tv-network-as-we-know-it-is-dead/

h/t: Omniorange
Expand...
Interesting links, esp. the second one. Seems to be a rift between conferences and the networks. The conferences obviously like the NW's and are making money. Even the Pac12 made $23M per year for its NW. I don't know the numbers, but that certainly seems like a business case for an ACC NW.

We'll know soon enough ... b/c ESPN is going to have to pay the ACC $45M by July if it doesn't start the ACC NW. This was interesting:

A tidbit found at the bottom an article by CBSSports.com’s Dennis Dodd seems to give the idea of this “clause” further credibility: “Each Big 12 school receives $23 million annually in media rights revenue. That’s at least behind the SEC and Big Ten among the Power Five conferences. It will soon be behind the ACC, according to a high-ranking source intimately involved in the process, whether the league adds a network or not.”
 
CuseOnly said:
Point is, cable won't be everywhere and affordable shortly, internet is everywhere including your phone and is more affordable.

I pay right now over $200 for Verizon Phone, Internet and Cable TV.

Eventually I will be cutting the cable cord with them and paying only for the 50/50 Mbps internet which will support over 7 devices simultaneously streaming video, phone over the internet and live streaming TV which will be offered shortly by several services. There is no crappy stream and doing that I will pay $54.95 plus taxes and getting my phone and TV over the internet. That and an OTA antennae for local channels and I will be set.

Sounds like a savings to me, how about you?

Get away from crappy TWC and learn what fast internet is like. I had TWC's best service, switched to Verizon DSL before FIOS and it was faster, now I have FIOS and it is at whole different level. With TWC you are on a grid with everybody else in your area and when everybody is on, the "speed" they promise is barely better that dial up.

My daughter streams video from Netflix at the same time I am watching a movie and downloading one from Amazon Prime in HD and everything is perfect, no buffering or anything.
Expand...
I would try FIOS but we can't get it here (Rochester). I wonder if TWC has something to do with that? hmm. Anyway, internet options outside of TWC are minimal .. I've been hearing great things about Google internet. Can't get it.

My wife likes to stream (or Chomecast) stuff to the TV. We started watching House of Cards .. which is very good .. but we had lots of problems getting an HD signal upstairs (we had to buy a repeater). And now even with the repeater, about 1/3 of the time, the signal drops in the middle of the show. Maybe I'm just skittish about the internet b/c of TWC. But when I watch an SU game ... the last thing I need to worry about, with everything else going on with SU, is technical "issues".
 
reedny said:
Interesting links, esp. the second one. Seems to be a rift between conferences and the networks. The conferences obviously like the NW's and are making money. Even the Pac12 made $23M per year for its NW. I don't know the numbers, but that certainly seems like a business case for an ACC NW.

We'll know soon enough ... b/c ESPN is going to have to pay the ACC $45M by July if it doesn't start the ACC NW. This was interesting:

A tidbit found at the bottom an article by CBSSports.com’s Dennis Dodd seems to give the idea of this “clause” further credibility: “Each Big 12 school receives $23 million annually in media rights revenue. That’s at least behind the SEC and Big Ten among the Power Five conferences. It will soon be behind the ACC, according to a high-ranking source intimately involved in the process, whether the league adds a network or not.”
Expand...
So this seems to imply that although the ACC will get a bump without a network, the ACC will have reached it's revenue ceiling without any promise of a future network on the horizon. Is that correct?
 
Orijinal said:
So this seems to imply that although the ACC will get a bump without a network, the ACC will have reached it's revenue ceiling without any promise of a future network on the horizon. Is that correct?
Expand...
I think so...of course the contract will escalate up over time.
 
FWIW, here is a link to an article that states if ESPN doesn't offer the ACC a network by July 1, 2016, they owe the conference $45M. Within this article is a podcast of a Louisville Sports Live radio show that conducts an interview with Wes Durham of Raycom Sports. In the interview Durham said he thought a potential ACC Channel wouldn't essentially be a certain channel. He thought it would be a multiple platform channel which would involve ESPN, Raycom, and some online distribution. This multiple channel platform would all broadcast under the "ACC Network" moniker. Isn't this what we have now, pretty much in that ESPN and Raycom both broadcast ACC football and basketball games? I guess the only difference would be we would see more games. Here's the link: http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2016...at-network-by-july-1-2016-ht-lvillesprtslive/
 
Cable is dead it just doesnt know it yet. I see our network being what is described above vs a single channel concept.
 
KBOrange23 said:
FWIW, here is a link to an article that states if ESPN doesn't offer the ACC a network by July 1, 2016, they owe the conference $45M. Within this article is a podcast of a Louisville Sports Live radio show that conducts an interview with Wes Durham of Raycom Sports. In the interview Durham said he thought a potential ACC Channel wouldn't essentially be a certain channel. He thought it would be a multiple platform channel which would involve ESPN, Raycom, and some online distribution. This multiple channel platform would all broadcast under the "ACC Network" moniker. Isn't this what we have now, pretty much in that ESPN and Raycom both broadcast ACC football and basketball games? I guess the only difference would be we would see more games. Here's the link: http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2016...at-network-by-july-1-2016-ht-lvillesprtslive/
Expand...
This is a worst-case scenario. Why would we want Raycom involved again since, as you point out, that would repeat the same problems we've been having getting games, having the games blacked out, poor production and signal quality, etc...?

Let me repeat ... Raycom doesn't care about SU. It's not our friend. It's carolina-based ... and can't seem to understand why Northern ACC members would actually want to WATCH our teams play.

I mean... are you kidding me .. the guys' name is "WES DURHAM"? Amazing irony.
 
reedny said:
This is a worst-case scenario. Why would we want Raycom involved again since, as you point out, that would repeat the same problems we've been having getting games, having the games blacked out, poor production and signal quality, etc...?

Let me repeat ... Raycom doesn't care about SU. It's not our friend. It's carolina-based ... and can't seem to understand why Northern ACC members would actually want to WATCH our teams play.

I mean... are you kidding me .. the guys' name is "WES DURHAM"? Amazing irony.
Expand...
The boys from Mayberry need to disappear ASAP.
 
Orijinal said:
So this seems to imply that although the ACC will get a bump without a network, the ACC will have reached it's revenue ceiling without any promise of a future network on the horizon. Is that correct?
Expand...
There are a couple different things going on here. I think the most recent ESPN-ACC deal (post-addition of SU/Pitt) was made around 2012 or so, and approved in 2013. It started out at $17M per school, then went to $20M with ND and that figure may be $23M or so with 3d tier rights figured in. http://espn.go.com/college-football...media-rights-deal-lock-schools-okd-presidents

The deal includes a clause requiring ESPN either: 1) to set up an ACC NW by July 1st (not sure how that's defined); or 2) pay league members $45m ($3M per team). I think that would be on top of the contract price.

Since ESPN retains the 1st tier rights (all nationally televised games), it spreads out its coverage of "regional" games through Raycom (2d tier). Raycom then has the right to broadcast the games (with ESPN production assistance) or sell the rights to other carriers. For these games, I suspect that the revenue is shared with conference members according to a 2-T revenue-sharing formula.

Unfortunately for SU fans, many games not broadcasted nationally by ESPN have been problematic. Sometimes, ESPN holds onto the rights and relegates the games to the internet (which not only limits exposure but also subjects viewers to all the usual internet-related issues).

Remaining games are released to Raycom. This results in even more problems. First of all, RC's broadcasts are 1980 - Zenith TV quality. They're in SD, not HD, so you can't even discern the numbers on the player's uniforms. Second, Raycom is not an honest player in the process. When it peddles SU game rights to a 3d party carrier, it gets paid whether SU fans can actually WATCH the game or not. As a result, SU broadcasts can be pre-empted by blackouts, scheduling conflicts and other issues --- or just used as bait to leverage another cable channel like MSG3 does with TWC.

Where I live, our local carrier (TWC) is a competitor of Raycoms. TWC is a 3d tier provider, but isn't always willing to pony up to buy the 2d tier game rights. Fans here can buy an ESPN "game pass" to see the games PPV, but even those games can be "blacked out" (e.g., SU v St. Bonnies). This is obviously fraudulent since viewers are paying for the games and can't see the broadcast.

From my seat, the current system is a mess and any "solution" that involves Raycom, or the current system of shot-gunning SU to the "marketplace" without proper controls, is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
reedny said:
There are a couple different things going on here. I think the most recent ESPN-ACC deal (post-addition of SU/Pitt) was made around 2012 or so, and approved in 2013. It started out at $17M per school, then went to $20M with ND and that figure may be $23M or so with 3d tier rights figured in. http://espn.go.com/college-football...media-rights-deal-lock-schools-okd-presidents

The deal includes a clause requiring ESPN either: 1) to set up an ACC NW by July 1st (not sure how that's defined); or 2) pay league members $45m ($3M per team). I think that would be on top of the contract price.

Since ESPN retains the 1st tier rights (all nationally televised games), it spreads out its coverage of "regional" games through Raycom (3d tier). Due to the greedy little media game, Raycom then has the right to broadcast the games (perhaps with ESPN production assistance) or sell the rights to other carriers. I suspect that some of this revenue is shared with conference members according to a 3-T revenue formula.

Unfortunately for SU fans, many games not broadcast nationally by ESPN have been problematic. Sometimes, ESPN keeps the rights and relegates the games to the internet (which absolutely sucks, IMO).

Other times, they release the games to Raycom (3d tier rights). Again, there are problems. RC's broadcasts are 1980 - Zenith TV quality. And when RC decides to peddle the game rights, it doesn't care whether SU fans actually SEE the game. Raycom just wants its cut of the money. So SU broadcasts can be pre-empted by blackouts, licensing and other issues.

Where I live, our local carrier (TWC)is a competitor of Raycoms. TWC isn't always willing to poney up to buy the rights. Fans here can buy an ESPN "game pass" to see the games PPV, but even those games can be "blacked out" (e.g., SU v St. Bonnies). This is obviously fraudulent since viewers are paying for the games and can't see the broadcast.

The current system is a mess and any "solution" that involves Raycom and the current system of shot-gunning SU to the "marketplace" is unacceptable.
Expand...
I think that Orange Bowl - other bowls and NCAAT credits provide in the neighborhood of an additional $5M per school.
 
Toga said:
I think that Orange Bowl - other bowls and NCAAT credits provide in the neighborhood of an additional $5M per school.
Expand...
Yah I didn't count post-season tourney/bowl revenue. That's additional.
 
If ESPN is paying the ACC better...they need to protect their investment...could be better news for us on Saturdays.
 
reedny said:
There are a couple different things going on here. I think the most recent ESPN-ACC deal (post-addition of SU/Pitt) was made around 2012 or so, and approved in 2013. It started out at $17M per school, then went to $20M with ND and that figure may be $23M or so with 3d tier rights figured in. http://espn.go.com/college-football...media-rights-deal-lock-schools-okd-presidents

The deal includes a clause requiring ESPN either: 1) to set up an ACC NW by July 1st (not sure how that's defined); or 2) pay league members $45m ($3M per team). I think that would be on top of the contract price.

Since ESPN retains the 1st tier rights (all nationally televised games), it spreads out its coverage of "regional" games through Raycom (3d tier). Raycom then has the right to broadcast the games (perhaps with ESPN production assistance) or sell the rights to other carriers. For these games, I suspect that the revenue is shared with conference members according to a 3-T revenue-sharing formula.

Unfortunately for SU fans, many games not broadcast nationally by ESPN have been problematic. Sometimes, ESPN holds onto the rights and relegates the games to the internet (which not only limits exposure but also subjects viewers too all the usual internet-related "broadcast" issues).

Remaining games are released to Raycom. This results in even more problems. First of all, RC's broadcasts are 1980 - Zenith TV quality. They're in SD, not HD, so you can't even discern the numbers on the player's uniforms. Second, Raycom is not an honest player in the process. When it peddles SU game rights to a 3d party carrier, it gets paid whether SU fans can actually WATCH the game or not. As a result, SU broadcasts can be pre-empted by blackouts, scheduling conflicts and other issues --- or just used as bait to leverage another cable channel like MSG3 does with TWC.

Where I live, our local carrier (TWC) is a competitor of Raycoms. TWC isn't always willing to poney up to buy the rights. Fans here can buy an ESPN "game pass" to see the games PPV, but even those games can be "blacked out" (e.g., SU v St. Bonnies). This is obviously fraudulent since viewers are paying for the games and can't see the broadcast.

From my seat, the current system is a mess and any "solution" that involves Raycom, or the current system of shot-gunning SU to the "marketplace" without proper controls, is unacceptable.
Expand...

Make no mistake, ESPN doesn't just spread out games to Raycom Sports like it's their preference. The ACC mandated as part of the contract that ESPN subleases games to Raycom. Raycom is an outdated business model, and once one of the biggest players in college sports television, it is totally obsolete in the modern era. It would not exist had the ACC not requested (required) it's television partner to agree to sublease a certain amount of games for Raycom to produce and distribute. It is a handout. ESPN has the means and ability to do everything that Raycom does. ESPN produces and distributes games on local OTA (how do those SEC games get on local tv at 12:30 without Raycom I wonder), and ESPN subleases content they can't distribute to Fox Sports and other outlets.

The fact Raycom Sports is even a business right now is solely because the ACC insisted they be given this handout, or else they would have gone out of business. That's not remotely disputable, it's acknowledged by everyone. Everyone else left Raycom, only the ACC acted like a charity rather than a business.

And it's not without consequence...if Raycom Sports is making enough money to employ 50 people and stay alive as a company, that means they're monetizing well above what they're paying for their subleased content. Without that Raycom stipulation, that revenue would be going directly to ESPN without the Raycom middleman taking their cut. So that middleman takes money out of ESPN's pocket, and it reduces the value of the ACC to ESPN. Which affects what the ACC gets paid. How much? Who knows. $1M per team? $4M per team? Is there a point where it is worth it at all to prop up Raycom for anybody other than the grey haired Carolina country club crowd?

But the ACC did it, either because Swofford's son works at Raycom Sports, or for "old times sake". I think his son working there is more a symptom than a cause. It's the kind of loyalty thing that lets Swofford slap backs and sip mint juleps at Charlotte country clubs and get invited to cotillions by old important families. But it does nothing positive for anyone outside Tobacco road, which is now a major portion of the league, and it's a bad example of the ACC acting like something other than a business with a directive to maximize value to it's members. There was a time that was all conferences, but the ACC clung to it long past anyone else, and we're paying for it.
 
Lou_C said:
Make no mistake, ESPN doesn't just spread out games to Raycom Sports like it's their preference. The ACC mandated as part of the contract that ESPN subleases games to Raycom. Raycom is an outdated business model, and once one of the biggest players in college sports television, it is totally obsolete in the modern era. It would not exist had the ACC not requested (required) it's television partner to agree to sublease a certain amount of games for Raycom to produce and distribute. It is a handout. ESPN has the means and ability to do everything that Raycom does. ESPN produces and distributes games on local OTA (how do those SEC games get on local tv at 12:30 without Raycom I wonder), and ESPN subleases content they can't distribute to Fox Sports and other outlets.

The fact Raycom Sports is even a business right now is solely because the ACC insisted they be given this handout, or else they would have gone out of business. That's not remotely disputable, it's acknowledged by everyone. Everyone else left Raycom, only the ACC acted like a charity rather than a business.

And it's not without consequence...if Raycom Sports is making enough money to employ 50 people and stay alive as a company, that means they're monetizing well above what they're paying for their subleased content. Without that Raycom stipulation, that revenue would be going directly to ESPN without the Raycom middleman taking their cut. So that middleman takes money out of ESPN's pocket, and it reduces the value of the ACC to ESPN. Which affects what the ACC gets paid. How much? Who knows. $1M per team? $4M per team? Is there a point where it is worth it at all to prop up Raycom for anybody other than the grey haired Carolina country club crowd?

But the ACC did it, either because Swofford's son works at Raycom Sports, or for "old times sake". I think his son working there is more a symptom than a cause. It's the kind of loyalty thing that lets Swofford slap backs and sip mint juleps at Charlotte country clubs and get invited to cotillions by old important families. But it does nothing positive for anyone outside Tobacco road, which is now a major portion of the league, and it's a bad example of the ACC acting like something other than a business with a directive to maximize value to it's members. There was a time that was all conferences, but the ACC clung to it long past anyone else, and we're paying for it.
Expand...
I agree, and this is a good explanation of how Raycom became involved even though it brings no "value" whatsoever to the conference media rights table. I think the league, and specifically SU (and other members North of carolina) need to be much more careful in negotiating the terms of these media agreements. Not only could Northern ACC schools increase their 3d tier revenues by eliminating unnecessary "distributors" like Raycom, they could also expand their brand exposure to recruits, alums and fans. These viewers support the program but get shafted every time Raycom sells SU games to sleezy outfits like FOX that have no actual plans to air the games in the prime viewing areas.

ESPN brings lots of cash to the table, but it's also part of the problem. ESPN3, for example, is the media equivalent of an emergency parachute. It's fine as a backup, but as the primary broadcast it's no fun to use and offers little to anyone outside SU's existing fan base. Even for diehards, it's a PIA to use and half the controls don't work -- if the signal doesn't drop first. So ESPN should either or get off the pot - if it's not going to air a game on a real channel, then it should be released to regional carriers that are contractually committed to televise the game. No more "blackouts", scheduling conflicts and excuses. We're in the best BB conference in the nation ... there's no reason on earth why SU fans should be scrambling around to see their team play.

I hope Coyle is aware of these problems because the Raycom/ESPN3 media circus needs to stop.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sutomcat
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
5
Views
628
liljoe
L
BillSU
    • Like
My Reply to Rob Konrad
Replies
9
Views
2K
JKinPhilly
JKinPhilly

Forum statistics

Threads
167,753
Messages
4,724,782
Members
5,918
Latest member
RDembowski

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
337
Guests online
1,945
Total visitors
2,282
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom