BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Topic: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Author

Message

Jeff Johnson
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post Count: 176

Status: Offline

Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 8:02:34 AM

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/12/16/one-unive...

Jeff Johnson '67, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Back in the Land of Enchantment

Ohio69
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 2,991

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 8:32:31 AM

Beat that horse Vedder. Beat it!

Can somebody hit a pull up jumper for me?.....

SBH
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,746

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 10:18:48 AM

It's hard to argue with facts. One of those facts is that our society's priorities are hopelessly out of whack.

Paul Graham
General User

Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 12:45:42 PM

Agree with SBH. Its very hard to make a compelling case that spending millions on athletics is worth the ROI. Particularly when most of our students care very little.

Last Edited: 12/17/2014 12:47:50 PM by Paul Graham

D.A.
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,174

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 1:53:55 PM

Paul Graham wrote:

Agree with SBH. Its very hard to make a compelling case that spending millions on athletics is worth the ROI. Particularly when most of our students care very little.

This always makes me think back to this: http://www.ohio.edu/ucm/upload/Economic-Impact_ch9.pdf; and then ask the question: Are we better served having the $17MM to generate the $70MM come from the tuition bucket, the student fee bucket, or direct state appropriations?

Ultimately it was decided long ago that the funds to cover the delta from revenues to expenses be derived from the student fee bucket, and thankfully that is not under shared governance control. However you could always debate that athletics should solely exist under free markets, and forced to exist on their own revenues. (which I think is where Ridpath and Vedder are)

If that were the case, then intercollegiate athletics would look far different today than they do. And by extension one could really go deep down a rabbit hole of how different the demographics of student populations across the US would look if hundreds upon thousands of universities no longer provided athletic scholarships for poor and minority students that simply could not afford to attend college if not for their success on the field of play.

And of course you can also always debate that priorities may be out of whack, but sports sure are popular to a wide cross section of unwashed masses on all levels from pee wee soccer to professional leagues.

Last Edited: 12/17/2014 2:00:54 PM by D.A.

The Few, The Proud, The Bobcats!

And for the record, I hate tOSU, and Ricordati and Torgerson are DB's.

"This isn't just another walkover from the MAC." Kirk Herbstreit, another DB, on College Football Gameday

MedinaCat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Lakewood, OH
Post Count: 740

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 2:00:09 PM

Agreed. I don't like what he says, but it is factual. However, using Harvard and MIT as examples of "another model" to follow is a bit disingenuous.

D.A.
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,174

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 2:04:52 PM

MedinaCat wrote:

Agreed. I don't like what he says, but it is factual. However, using Harvard and MIT as examples of "another model" to follow is a bit disingenuous.

Indeed, considering the student athletes at MIT and Harvard are on academic and athletic scholarships. It is actually a huge part of Tommy Amaker's recruiting pitch to his student athletes. And MIT isn't walking in to the chem lab and announcing: "Hey nerds, we're starting a football program! Wanna' come play?!"

The true cost to attend Harvard or MIT is much lower when you consider how large their endowments are, and by extension how much proportionately higher their scholarship levels are. The out of pocket for those schools is much lower as a percent than it is for the average college student attending state u.

Last Edited: 12/17/2014 2:23:47 PM by D.A.

Paul Graham
General User

Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 4:58:41 PM

D.A. wrote:

If that were the case, then intercollegiate athletics would look far different today than they do. And by extension one could really go deep down a rabbit hole of how different the demographics of student populations across the US would look if hundreds upon thousands of universities no longer provided athletic scholarships for poor and minority students that simply could not afford to attend college if not for their success on the field of play.

One could argue that athletic scholarships is the least effective way to provide college educations to those who could not "afford it." I use quotes there because no one can actually afford college these days.

Its a bad idea because athletic success is not a strong indicator for academic success (and that's being generous). In an ideal (sensible?) world scholarships would go to students based on academic merit. You could pay for several hundred students with $17M.

D.A. wrote:

And of course you can also always debate that priorities may be out of whack, but sports sure are popular to a wide cross section of unwashed masses on all levels from pee wee soccer to professional leagues.

The priorities are totally out of whack. And almost certainly to the detriment of higher education in this country. How much longer can schools like Ohio charge students to 150K to "find themselves?"

D.A.
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,174

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 5:06:45 PM

Paul Graham wrote:

D.A. wrote:

The priorities are totally out of whack. And almost certainly to the detriment of higher education in this country. How much longer can schools like Ohio charge students to 150K to "find themselves?"

Don't disagree with a word you said. Vedder trumpets in several articles that he believes the process of post HS education is broken, so you are both singing the same tune.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,061

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 6:01:39 PM

Paul Graham wrote:

That's exactly what is done with the $17M; you do pay for several hundred students with it. If you don't count the cost of the scholarships, I wonder how much loss, if any, the athletic department actually has? I suspect it has no loss at all, or a very small loss. I suspect that the miscellaneous revenues offset things like coaches' salaries, building expenses, etc, and that all of the loss ends up being attributable to scholarships.

Without considering the source of the money to pay for the scholarships, let's then ask if it is an effective use of scholarship monies. You argue that these are not the most academically qualified students, and, if you look at indicators such as the ACT, that surely is true. However, in my opinion that's the wrong question. I believe that the correct questions should not be addressed to the input, but rather to the output.

How does the graduation rate of student athletes compare to the graduation rate of the general students? How does it compare to the graduation rate of other students that might be admitted under some alternative program? What is the post-graduation success rate of student athletes, and how does it compare to general students? How does it compare to what these same students would have achieved had they not gotten an athletic scholarship?

I don't claim to know the answer to these questions, other than that I'm fairly sure that the graduation rate of student athletes is significantly higher than that of regular students. I would speculate that because the rigor of trying to be both a student and an athlete is so demanding, it adds additional discipline to these people, and that not only is their graduation rate high, but their success rate is much higher than what those people would have experienced without athletic scholarships, and quite possibly higher than success rate of the general student population.

To be honest, I believe that I have argued that the correct solution is totally in the opposite direction than Vedder goes. Rather than eliminating the idea of student-athletes, I have suggested making all students have an athletic requirement. I believe that would enhance their success rate not only in academics, but also after graduation.

The last time I brought this up, I got a lot of flack for it, but I personally have experienced such an environment. In my high school all students were required to compete in 3 sports a year, one in each of fall, winter, and spring. They could participate at the varsity level, or at the club level, but they had to participate. Personally I participated in swimming, water polo, golf, football, and squash. The result did not harm the education in any way. I still believe that by keeping active and fit, you can perform better in all ways, including academically.

Last Edited: 12/17/2014 6:10:32 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 6:23:40 PM

There is something to be said for the DIII model: I remember my freshman year at Wittenberg (I transferred to OHIO for the next year), Bull Edwards, the football coach, was a few players short and came through the freshmen men's dorm to inquire if anyone had played football in high school and would like to come out for the team. It did make the you feel that the team was made up of peers and not a special class of coddled athletes. I would support a movement to make ALL college athletics this way -- no sports scholarships only academic scholarships. But, it's just not appropriate for OHIO to go it alone and go this direction. We do need a major shakeup of college athletics, and the greed that is the P5 may bring the current house of cards crashing down around their collective necks. When that happens, this might be something to do to building back from that ash heap.

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Paul Graham
General User

Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 6:27:15 PM

LC, sorry but I completely disagree.

First, student athletes are given advantages that few other students receive. Yes, their study/free time is greatly constrained...but the use of that study time is maximized by resources that other students could only dream of (and the rich only get richer with the latest development in the arms race). This includes both tutors and more generally mentors like their coaches, athletic dept folks and the even the president himself. With their very livelihood on the line...you better believe coaches are going to make sure their players are passing their courses and graduating.

Second, the majors we've seen our athletes get are not very difficult. Anyone with basic reading/writing skills can get a degree in X as long as they try. And that's why the tutors/coaches are there...to make sure they do.

So yes, if all Ohio students had Solich/Schaus/McDavis and their minions making sure they were at their classes instead of sitting in their dorms watching Duck Dynasty...then of course the graduation rate would be great.

Again, the problem is here you are putting tremendous resources behind a group of students that are academically run-of-the-mill...or worse. And why? So that rich donors will donate millions to the arms race?

EDIT - I don't think your idea about students being forced to do some form of athletics is bad.

Last Edited: 12/17/2014 6:30:19 PM by Paul Graham

colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,155

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 6:42:36 PM

L.C. wrote:

Paul Graham wrote:

A few years back, all Air Force academy cadets had to participate in sports, varsity or inter mural so the idea seems to work there

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,061

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/17/2014 7:10:36 PM

No, problem Paul. Nowhere is it written that we have to agree.

Basically my perspective is very different than Vedder. He seems to view athletics as a total waste, $17m down the drain. I view it as $17m spent on an affirmative action program that is not only effective at lifting the specific athletes who do get college scholarships from their surroundings, but also one that motivates a lot of young people to do better in high school while they are hoping to get one.

Because of my perspective, it is an important question to me what becomes of these athletes after college. Do they go back to where they came from, and pick up where they left off? Or, do they go on to be better than they would have? If, after their 4-5 years in college, they end up with a useless degree, and they end up working for Walmart, or worse, unemployed, back in gangs, etc, then the effort was entirely wasted. I haven't seen any studies, though, dedicated to trying to determine how participating in athletics affects the end lives of the individuals involved, so it is all speculation. My speculation is that it is far more effective than most other affirmative action programs.

I also see athletics from the perspective of D.A. It clearly provides advertising for the school, and an economic benefit to the community, too, and those benefits are substantial. I don't think it's a coincidence that, aside from the super-elite schools like the Ivy League schools, U. of Chicago, M.I.T, etc, most of the universities that do not play sports are struggling to grow their endowments, while schools that do have strong athletic programs are seeing double digit annual growth in endowment. Is that a good thing? No, I think it reflects a misplaced priority on a massive scale, but it is an effect that I believe is real.

As for the tutors, and study facilities, yes, I agree that they have tutors, etc, but I believe that's included in the athletic budget, and if, I'm right, the athletic budget is not in deficit if you exclude the scholarships. Thus, they do get tutors, but the tutors are paid out of the revenue produced by their efforts, and I see nothing unfair about that.

Back to the tutors, though. Let's say that a non-athlete feels he needs a tutor. Wouldn't the University accommodate him? I know I was a TA in Operations Research when I was in graduate school, and I was paid by the school, not the students. Anyone that wanted help was free to ask me for it at any time, and I had help sessions for people individually or in groups. These were not athletes, just regular students. Most students did not request help, though (at least, not until the students who were getting help from me started outperforming the rest of the class. I was pretty shocked when, for my last help session, right before the final exam, the entire class showed up, and rather than tutoring 5-10 students, I had about 80).

Edit - BTW, I would add that, because of my perspective, it is more important to me that the athletes do well in school than that they win a MACC. For some a MAC Championship is everything, but for me I understand why the athletes want it, but I'd rather see a high academic success rate, and a high post education success rate than a championship. For me, I love seeing things like the "Gaige's Gift" thread, and that, to me, is a better indication of the true success of the program.

Last Edited: 12/17/2014 7:18:35 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 4:19:50 AM

SBH wrote:

It's hard to argue with facts. One of those facts is that our society's priorities are hopelessly out of whack.

Saw this graphic the other day, 27 FBS Football coaches make $3 Million or more, and it's already been reported that in 49 of 50 States the highest paid state employee is a coach.

I agree SBH

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 4:24:02 AM

D.A. wrote:

MedinaCat wrote:

Agreed. I don't like what he says, but it is factual. However, using Harvard and MIT as examples of "another model" to follow is a bit disingenuous.

I cannot speak to MIT, but Harvard offers NO Athletic Scholarships, nor do they grant any academic scholarships.

D.A.
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,174

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 8:51:22 AM

BillyTheCat wrote:

D.A. wrote:

MedinaCat wrote:

Agreed. I don't like what he says, but it is factual. However, using Harvard and MIT as examples of "another model" to follow is a bit disingenuous.

I cannot speak to MIT, but Harvard offers NO Athletic Scholarships, nor do they grant any academic scholarships.

https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid

http://web.mit.edu/sfs/financial_aid/

Speaker of Truth
General User

Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 441

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 9:09:32 AM

My biggest problem with their argument is that they are attacking something that does show a positive investment. The numbers are tough to work with because scholarships make up most of the budget and we are essentially paying ourselves. So the real cost is much less.

When you look around at the University and see some of the other areas that could cut some waste....it starts to become a vicious cycle. Is a classics and world religion department worth the investment? Is it worth it to have an auditorium? These things are all very hard to track direct impact because they are a piece of a much bigger picture just like Athletics is.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,061

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 10:00:00 AM

L.C. wrote:

...... I view it as $17m spent on an affirmative action program that is not only effective at lifting the specific athletes who do get college scholarships from their surroundings, but also one that motivates a lot of young people to do better in high school while they are hoping to get one.
...

To continue this thought, let's suppose for a moment that all athletic scholarships were eliminated, not just for football, but for all sports. I would expect that there would be ripple effects:
1. I would expect to see the dropout rate in high school jump. I think a lot of kids hope to get a scholarship, and stay in elementary and high school, and work hard in classes, and put in effort to achieve the academic requirements for the scholarship. With this incentive gone, a lot of kids would think "why bother".
2. I think high school athletics would lose its appeal to a lot of kids for the reason that they can't use it as a stepping stone to get ahead in life.
3. I think a semi-pro farm system would develop, and kids would opt to participate in that instead of going to high school/college. The kids would probably be better off in the short run, since they would be paid, but in the long run, they would have no education to show for their physical efforts, and their prospects post sports would be much smaller.
4. I think there would be an uneven racial impact on universities, and they would have to institute other alternatives to try to achieve a racially diverse student population, and the expenses of those programs would not be much different than they are spending on athletics today, so the savings would, in the end, be illusory.

I don't disagree that there are some serious priority issues, particularly at P5 schools. I agree that coaching salaries have gotten totally out of hand, but a lot of that has to do with the "win-or-else" philosophy. To me the "win or else" attitude is the actual problem, and the facilities wars, coaching salary wars, etc, are just the symptoms. I see this problem getting worse lately, not better. Win, or get fired. Win only 70% of your games, get paid $7m to go away, and then let someone else try, and then repeat 4 years later when the new guy does the same (or worse).

That's where I come down very differently than most fans, I guess. I want to see a program that is run cleanly. I want to see kids getting an education, and doing well in school. I want to see kids learning life skills, such as discipline. I want to see kids excelling outside of the classroom and off the field. I want to see kids doing things for the community. I want to see kids doing well in life after football, whether in sports, in business, or in education. On the field I want to see good effort, and kids being trained in football skills. I want to see them improving, and growing on and off the field. I also want to see coaches and players that are good role models.

Winning? Yes, that's important, too, but for me it's a lower priority than the other things I mentioned. As a result, I just don't understand at all a lot of the things I see going on these days.

Last Edited: 12/18/2014 11:34:33 AM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,277

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 11:20:28 AM

the123kid wrote:

The classics and world religion department epitomizes the purpose of the university. Not just Ohio University, but all universities. Football is a much different thing.

D.A.
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,174

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 11:38:05 AM

http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2014/3/6/5474320/harvard...

So I think the article above does a really great job of showing how a private institution has chosen to creatively fund access to higher education to a tier of students beyond its normally qualified/accepted applicants, and has been supported by most levels of the institution. Clearly Harvard has the advantage of being a private institution with the largest endowment in the world, and that permits them to provide scholarships to students specifically recruited for athletics, but the scholarships being provided to them come from the general academic fund for scholarships, not funds specifically set aside for athletics. It works the same way at MIT, but to a lesser extent for pressure of performance on the field as they are DIII.

However to hear Rich pitch Harvard or MIT as paragons of virtue, you would be led to believe that there are simply open tryouts of the general student population held to field the teams. Poppycock!

Sure, there are clearly some bad PR instances such as the academic cheating scandal with the Harvard basketball team, but the institution remains committed to Amaker and the mission of improving campus, faculty, staff and alumni relations.

Now I believe the issue Vedder has with OHIO and its peers is the funding mechanism for ICA revenue shortfalls, as it is tied directly to the student fee. I argue this is simply an argument about accounting practice, not about ICA not being cash flow neutral. I simply refuse to accept (I have never heard Vedder speak to this point) that Rich is espousing that only cash flow neutral or positive collegiate programs would be permitted to exist. If that were the case, then literally thousands of athletic teams across the country would be forced to cease operation, and only some football and basketball programs would exist at the FBS level. That would be a catastrophic failure of the system, so I would actually like to hear Rich's proposal for how ICA SHOULD BE structured, not simply stating what he dislikes.

Clearly Ohio's legislature has no issue with the method of funding for its ICA programs, or they would have never structured it the way they did. The State is directly responsible for oversight of their institutions, so he is picking the wrong fight by always attempting to use Rod as the scapegoat for the present structure. If the State felt ICA should be funded from the tuition fee, then they should make it so. Direct appropriation of funds from the State to each institution, then do that. Endowment funds to provide the operating capital, then do that. (in OHIO's instance, to cover the $17MM annually you would need roughly a $425MM endowment fund)

I'm not going to argue if the present funding mechanisms are right or wrong, they just are. And I feel that for less than 3% of their annual full cost of attendance, and less than 3% of the University operating budget, it is a good investment of the revenue stream from the student population to engage in ICA. If you feel strongly against the use of State funds regardless of their source to allow a university to participate in intercollegiate athletics, then go here and state your case for reform: http://www.ohiostatehouse.org/.

Last Edited: 12/18/2014 11:41:13 AM by D.A.

D.A.
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,174

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 11:55:08 AM

And one more thing that particularly irks me about Vedder's article: the Academic Center. Do you think he would be pissed if an alumnus wanted to donate funds for a facility for the exclusive use of Economics students? HELL NO!

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,454

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 12:20:27 PM

D.A. wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

D.A. wrote:

MedinaCat wrote:

Agreed. I don't like what he says, but it is factual. However, using Harvard and MIT as examples of "another model" to follow is a bit disingenuous.

I cannot speak to MIT, but Harvard offers NO Athletic Scholarships, nor do they grant any academic scholarships.

Going through the process with Harvard at this very moment, there is NO academic aid nor is their any athletic aid. They use a straight up sliding scale based on earned income. Their packages are absolutely staggering!!! And yes, they are the great exception to the rule when it comes to pricing and aid. But I will state again, they give NO academic aid and they give NO athletic scholarships, nor is their preference given to athletes with that aid. Yale is similar, but not as generous with their amounts as their war chest is 50% of Harvard's

Straight from their literature and application:

We follow two key principles:

Admission to Harvard is need-blind, meaning your financial need will not impede your chances of admission.
Aid is based entirely on need, not merit.

Last Edited: 12/18/2014 12:22:25 PM by BillyTheCat

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 12:53:22 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

. . . Admission to Harvard is need-blind, meaning your financial need will not impede your chances of admission.
Aid is based entirely on need, not merit.

I've been aware of this policy since my youngest daughter was applying to college around the turn of the century. It seems to me that Harvard's move away from giving academic scholarships on the undergraduate level will mean that over time they will admit less and less of the nation's best and brightest because they will be drawn to schools that recognize their academic achievements and reward it appropriately. It seems to me that Harvard is in the process of slowly slitting its own throat, a multi-billion endowment notwithstanding.

P.S. Let me add to show my bias that my extremely well-prepared aforementioned daughter, who was accepted to every school to which she applied, ended up at the University of Michigan on an academic scholarship.

Deciduous Forest Cat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Ohio
Post Count: 4,300

Status: Offline

RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Posted: 12/18/2014 12:58:54 PM

Maybe I'm taking a simplistic view of this here, but why is it done this way? Why go through the song and dance of having higher fees to pay "tuition" for scholarship athletes? Can't they just say the tuition is "free", eliminate the line item and just reduce the expense to room and board and books? Are the classrooms all that full? Tax considerations either way? CPA's, help me out here.

Showing Replies:	1 - 25 of 83 Posts
Jump to Page:	1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 285 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

279 Guests
6 Registered Users:
	74 Cat, shabamon, FJC31, Jonesy1017, RSBobcat, GraffZ06

There are no other users looking at this page.