MIZZOUEXPANSIONAPALOOZA 2011™: The ACC (!) Makes the First Move
by D-Sing on Sep 18, 2011 1:55 AM CDT
in MIZZOUEXPANSIONAPALOOZA 2011™
Email
Print
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
During my freshman year, living in Schurz Hall, one of the more popular games on my floor (1st) was "RISK." I lived with the Engineering FIG (don't ask how) and this was a game that they played. A lot. I never actually played, I just watched. I didn't quite get it.
It feels, with EXPANSIONAPALOOZA, that all of these presidents and conference commissionners are just playing a huge game of RISK.
Well, the ACC apparently grabbed the three red dice and decided to attack the Big East, a maneuver that they successfully pulled off in 2004 by grabbing Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech. Granted the on-field outcome has not been as successful as the coup was.
ACC presidents officially accepted Syracuse and Pitt into the conference, with an announcement to come later today, according to USA Today. Also in that USA Today article, it mentions that the ACC wants to go to 16, and that the teams on the radar are...UConn...and Rutgers?
Oh, and Texas also made a pitch to the ACC. Can't forget about that.
Again, I refer to the Vince Lombardi clip above: What the hell is going on here?
My major bone of contention with all of this is that it is taking place during the season. Even on a weekend where there were lots of lackluster games, I'm frustrated that I had to spend as much time looking down at the crawl as I did looking up at the action on the field.
That's inexcuseable. It's appalling to me that the egos involved in the leadership of these leagues, some of the people claiming that they try to do things "for the kids" are now allowing their dick swinging to block out the achievements of those same "kids."
Make no mistake about it: all this is rich old men puffing out their chests and trying to one up each other. There is absolutely no reason for the ACC to go after Syracuse and Pitt and UConn and Rutgers. Not if the aim is to improve the league on the field. If it was about the on field product, why wouldn't you invite West Virginia and South Florida-probably the two best programs in the Big East right now?
But this whole expansion thing has never been about this, has it? It's only about the money from football, and bringing in Pittsburgh's market and the NYC Metro area (with Syracuse, and UConn and Rutgers if that is the case).
I'll admit I don't even know what the end game is right now; Monday, Oklahoma and Texas's boards of regents are supposed to meet to discuss conference affiliation.
Let's just say that if panic time wasn't already here, it's here now.
61 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Maybe the Big 12 will survive in the end
Add TCU and Louisville once the Big East (football) officially folds. Cincinnati if they are interested in what would be a real and stable new Big 12. Really not sure what happens to South Florida to be honest.
Or maybe as a KC resident I am just hoping that the Big 12 can stay together.
Add wv to that list.
If the big east does disappear, does ND finally join the big 10? Can Mizzou get the 14th invite assuming UT doesn’t take it?
A lot of questions. There will be several teams left out if we move to a 4 16 team superconference alignment. Fortunately, Mizzou won’t be one of them.
I’d love to be in a B10 with KU, ND, and UT. That’s my dream scenario. I think right now the UT is shopping themselves to try to find a conference that will agree to let them have their cake and eat it too with the Longhorn Network. I don’t think they’ll find it in any of the 4 superconferences. If they feel like they have to align I think the B10 would be the most attractive because of the revenue from the B10 network, with the PAC-whatever being a close second (but probably better from a travel aspect with OU and OSU presumably there as well).
ND could still be independent even if the Big east loses all their football schools I suppose. I’m not sure what the Olympic sports at schools like Marquette and St johns are like, but maybe they are good enough.
The ACC has to be banking on a playoff system because it doesn’t make sense to expand if you can’t get 2 guaranteed BCS bids. If there is a 4 team playoff then they keep the bowl system in place with a guaranteed playoff slot plus a guaranteed BCS bid, I guess.
So assuming those 4 head to the ACC and no ACC schools defect the top remaining teams in play are:
Notre Dame
Texas
OU/OSU
Mizzou
West Virginia
KU
Texas Tech
Louisville
Iowa St
Baylor
K-State
Cincinatti
You would LOVE to be in a conference with Texas?
I wouldn’t. Hell, I’d love to be in a conference with Iowa State a million times before Texas.
"When among evil companions, try to fit in." - Wild Bill Donovan
Under equal revenue sharing, no question. I want recruiting inroads to TX and TX money.
The problem isn’t with Texas, it’s with allowing Texas to run things. I’d love to be in any conference with Texas if revenue is distributed equally and teams have to pool their nonconference tv rights.
you can't change texas.
even if they won’t be allowed to run things, they’ll want to run things, hence creating tension among the other members, etc. you know the rest. texas is cancer, plain and simple.
"Fleshy-headed mutant, are you friendly?"
"No way,eh."
by threadkiller on Sep 18, 2011 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Where's Boise State?
:)
The key is not the "will to win" - everybody has that. It is the will to prepare to win that is important. ~ Bobby Knight
by Please Spay and Neuter Your Pets on Sep 18, 2011 3:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Idaho
Which sums up the problem they have
by jschooltiger on Sep 18, 2011 7:43 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
That's the way I'd bet
Disappointed that there won’t be the Mizzou / KU / K-State + (as of last week) 2012 BE football conference I was kind hoping for, but understand why SU made the move.
What it does mean, though, is that the ‘Big SOL’ conference (BE football leftovers + B12 leftovers) probably ends up operating as the Big 12, I think. And hanging on to its AQ spot for at least a little while.
by drothgery on Sep 18, 2011 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
I got it from Voodoo 5
He got it from some Cinci blog.
Anyone else see this?
So BE is losing Syr and Ptt, eh?
As a possibility, the ACC takes Rutgers, Connecticut to complete 16, the SEC takes South Florida (if UF allows it) for 14 and Big 12 (OU, OSU, UT TT stays) gets stronger by gobbling up remaining members West Virginia, Louisville, and Cincinnati?? TCU can come in as well while we boot cancer UT out!
by tigerinredland on Sep 18, 2011 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions
The ACC may end up taking WVA or South Florida
because whose to say they won’t get poached by the Big 10 or SEC and have to backfill slots.
"When among evil companions, try to fit in." - Wild Bill Donovan
I have seen a lot say no WVU to ACC because of academics and that makes sense; I would think the same applies for the BIG with regard to WVU
Bold move for the ACC, they take away likely targets for the BIG expansion and also make it more difficult for SEC or other conferences to poach by increasing buyout to 20 million.
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
Keep in mind the buyout vote was unanimous.
So the ACC members may not jump if offered to the SEC. I think this really blocks both the Big Ten and SEC in, expansion wise.
"When among evil companions, try to fit in." - Wild Bill Donovan
I agree, FSU officials were thrilled about the additions and Va Tech has already made public statements about being very happy in the SEC (two of the schools I have seen rumors about with regard to the SEC)...
for the SEC, it may get very tough to get beyond 14—WVU and Mizzou seem to me the best targets to get to 14 with A&M and to get to 16, I’m not sure what schools would be on the list—maybe TCU and Texas Tech would be on that list.
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
I think you mean ACC in your header, but I know what you mean.
SEC might have to waive the gentlemen’s agreement and go after Louisville. WVA, Mizzou, Louisville and A&M.
"When among evil companions, try to fit in." - Wild Bill Donovan
oops, yeah
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
In either case, if the ACC pulls this off and adds those 4 teams.
Suddenly the cupboard just got very bare for the B1G and SEC. Might have to take a “lesser school” in order to get to 16.
"When among evil companions, try to fit in." - Wild Bill Donovan
Yeah I think the concept of taking lesser teams to get to 16 is overblown tho
I really believe KState, Iowa St, Baylor, TCU, etc get left out completely.
Mizzou could get left out, but I don’t see it.
Just saw that the ACC may be looking at two more Big East/East Coast schools possibly?
“Pittsburgh and Syracuse, who have applied, these are solid academic schools, and the ACC is a truly academic conference,” Barron said. "Certainly great basketball teams, a good history of football.
“I’m sure consideration will be very fast. I’ll be surprised if it’s not tomorrow (Sunday).”
But USA Today reported early Sunday that the ACC presidents had already voted on Saturday morning to accept Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the league. Citing an anonymous source, the newspaper said the ACC was still considering adding two other East Coast teams and that Connecticut and Rutgers would be the candidates.
Was not thinking of that one with all the rumors out there but could make sense although, I’m not sure how FSU football fans would feel about that one.
I wonder if adding Pitt and Syracuse is part of getting UT and another team say KU to come over—I have seen the rumors because of the ACC taking the LHN as is, but for UT it makes little sense to me to play a bunch of teams on the East coast and up North and playing very few teams in their region—it would hurt there recruiting I think; the Pac for them seems so right for them if the Big 12 can’t be salvaged.
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
UConn and Rutgers
Are in ‘wait and see’ mode. That’s a lot of bad football to swallow for the sake of definitively nailing down the East Coast.
It’s not like UConn and Rutgers are not going to be there in a few years. The only longshot Rutgers has is the B1G, and that ain’t happening without ND and possibly Syracuse.
It’s best to hedge their bets and see what comes out of blowing up the Big East.
Syracuse was an original member of the Big East
I am pretty sure everyone (B10 included) thought they would surely be there when it came time to potentially make a decision. You can no longer make that statement and believe it is an effective strategy for building your conference. The B10, if in fact their desire is to eventually get to 16 like others seem to be, can no longer wait to until they are ready because they believe their teams will be there.
Advocating for the "Spreadbone" since 2010
Rock M Nation
I think the Big 10 is in a unique position to do so
Any team they add would have to add the same incremental value as a Nebraska (which wasn’t even given a full share upon confirmation). The B1G will only move for Texas, ND or another football king. They may take an ancillary team to nab a big fish, but they aren’t in the business of hitting singles or doubles right now.
Look for the B1G to make a move on UT or ND this round, or a power play move right before their contract is up for renewal (2015 or 16, I believe).
That’s a lot of bad football to swallow for the sake of definitively nailing down the East Coast.
Absolutely, that is why I think FSU fans can’t like the idea of it, but for b-ball, UCONN would be a great pick-up and then you add Pitt and ’Cuse also.
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
OU and OSU make sense in the SEC if we’re talking 16.
I don’t think Texas Tech has any allure except as a package deal with TX.
TCU has no allure whatsoever.
West Virginia is a good fit. Then the Oklahomas and Texas, Mizzou. If Texas is forced to accept equal revenue sharing they might lobby to bring a tag along or two as well.
Texas, TAMU, Texas Tech, and West Virginia makes sense. If no Texas, then I predict no Tech either and they try for OU/OSU. If no OK schools then they try for Missouri (who’s a B10 lock if offered).
They could hang at 14, really.
Half the teams you mentioned have no link whatsoever to the SEC.
Oklahoma has not ever been interested in the SEC. The SEC is not interested in any Texas team besides A&M.
"When among evil companions, try to fit in." - Wild Bill Donovan
"West Virginia and South Florida-probably the two best programs in the Big East right now?"
Well, the “right now” is obviously the key part of that sentence.
South Fla has not been good very long, and I don’t know that there’s any reason to think that in, say, 2016, Pitt or Syracuse wouldn’t be better—certainly both those schools have a far more illustrious distant history, and even a better recent history (Pitt actually won a share of the conference title last year—who knew?—and while Syracuse has stunk lately, the McNabb years weren’t that long ago). Also, South Fla is awful at basketball, and certainly part of the appeal for the ACC of adding Pitt and Syracuse is that they now just have an amazing b-ball conference.
West Va would be a good addition for sure, but, as you say, media markets, and I also suspect that WVU is holding out for the SEC, where they will finally be able to reunite with the Confederacy after breaking free a century and a half ago. But WVU to the ACC probably could still happen.
I agree, though, that the motives in all this don’t always make a ton of sense. I get why the Big 10 would want to add Nebraska—name program, gain title game money—and I get why Nebraska would join them—more money—but most of the later moves don’t make a ton of sense to me. Do Syracuse and Pitt really bring enough new viewers to the ACC to justify the fact that they are two new mouths to feed? Does aTm really want to give SEC schools better recruiting inroads into Texas? Why, exactly, is 16 an inherently more profitable number than 12? I mean, presumably there is an optimal number where generating revenue through additional media markets and champ game possibilities is not undercut by having to spread the wealth in too many directions or losing a sense of conference cohesion, and I suspect that number is more than 8 and less than 3,000, but why 16? I still haven’t heard a good argument for it other than ZOMG everyone’s going to 16 so everyone has to!!!!! For instance, I hear people saying that if all the other conferences go to 16 the Big 10 will have to as well. Well, why? I mean, seriously, if the ACC goes to 16, why should the Big 10 give a rip? Is Ohio St.-Michigan suddenly a less marketable game because Syracuse and Wake Forest are playing on ESPN47?
by Professor Chaos on Sep 18, 2011 2:42 AM CDT reply actions 5 recs
The Big Ten doesn't subscribe to conventional wisdom
How many years did they have 11 teams while the rest of the country said that 11 made no sense.
I am the racoon that has been living in your attic for a week
by Mizzoufarmer on Sep 18, 2011 9:08 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
16 isn't a hard and fast number
What happened was, a writer (I think for the Orlando paper) made up a scenario with 4 leagues with 16 teams to set up a football playoff. A year later, the Pac 10 was set to invite 6 members to go to sixteen. There are difficulties with 14 teams in scheduling: 6 divisional, 2 or three cross?
Despite the numerical obsession, there is NO reason to go to 16 for the sake of going to 16. It makes sense for the Pac, which needs time zones and tv sets (a land grab), but not for the other 3 emerging leagues. The B1G will only expand for quality brands (it has tv markets). The SEC decided to expand because a great brand fell into its lap; now it needs to balance the league. The ACC was being proactive and decided to position itself as the de facto East Coast league (reinforcing their walls). We’re not likely to see 4 16 team leagues.
Why the ACC move makes sense: Think long term, because this isn’t a football play. There are two viable leagues on the East coast. The SEC will expand by an additional team. There has been some flirtation between the ACC and UT. By (1) Raising the exit penalties (2) Making the Big East poachable (WVU) (3) Taking two slots off the table, the ACC (1) Reaffirmed its ranks (2) Deflected the SEC’s attention to WVU from FSU, & (3) Eliminated any UT or Texas politician’s fantasy about bringing all its Texan friends. It was a play to strengthen their long term position as a viable conference, not their strength in terms of football prestege.
I've been screaming these questions since this whole mess began.
What is so special about 16? Why not 15? Why not 22? Why does everybody have to have the same number of teams when for a CENTURY conferences have not had the same number of teams?
by MizzouRah04 on Sep 18, 2011 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions
This is why I heard that BCS conferences are shooting for 16 teams…
A BCS conference must have at least 8 teams, and if that conference retains AQ status, the conference will get 1 automatic bid into the BCS. So the thought is that if at least 8 teams will get you 1 automatic bid into the BCS, then BCS conferences that have 16 teams will petition for 2 automatic bids into the BCS, which means… more money. Hope that makes sense.
I am a Rock M, I am a Nation... and a Rock M feels no pain, and a Nation never cries.
Truman the Tiger says, "We're Grrrrreat!"
by GimmeSomeMO on Sep 18, 2011 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
If that is true then the number 16 would make sense.
But has this been confirmed by the BCS?
by MizzouRah04 on Sep 18, 2011 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
I’m not sure if there is confirmation from the BCS
But I couldn’t imagine that conference commissioners would go through all this trouble if they didn’t think that would be the case.
Also, having 2 automatic bids into the BCS would work out logistically. Instead of 6 BCS conferences, you would now have 4 BCS conferences as the Big 12 will dissolve and the Big East will either dissolve or lose AQ status having lost their best programs, so that leaves you with the PAC-16, ACC, SEC, and B1G. With those 4 BCS conferences, and with 4 BCS bowls (Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl) not counting the National Championship game, those 4 conferences would each get 2 teams into the 4 BCS bowls. Then 2 BCS conferences will have a 3rd team in the BCS as they would match up in the National Championship game… There are also rumors that a 5th BCS bowl could be added (e.g., Cotton Bowl, Capital One Bowl, etc.), and again the reason for that is… more money.
I am a Rock M, I am a Nation... and a Rock M feels no pain, and a Nation never cries.
Truman the Tiger says, "We're Grrrrreat!"
by GimmeSomeMO on Sep 18, 2011 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I have been wondering the same questions
I guess that 16 teams makes sense because if you have less than 16, you run the risk of being poachable. And 16 teams allows for two divisions of 8 teams. That’s a pretty convenient number for football scheduling
all I know is that the phrase "end game" is overused.
what that means, I can tell you not.
"Show me the prettiest girl you can find, and I'll show you at least one guy that's tired of dealing with her $#&#"
Yeah, the whole thing is reminiscent of a game of Risk
That was my favorite game for a while when I was younger. I’m pretty sure the ACC is trying to conquer North America and get some extra armies. The luck of the “rolls” determines all!!!
yeah, loved Risk back in the day...
my cousin used to play “The Ride of the Valkyries” when beginning an attack sometimes Apocalypse Now style—sometimes I would play “Thunderstruck”, “Aces High” or “The Shortest Straw” when beginning an attack lol.
North America is a good position to get in to win—love being the quick strike approach when dug in deep in Australia (we were liberal with how many men you could keep on a territory but if you rolled a 666 on attack, it was a nuclear bomb that blew away the opposing armies so you took your chances if you loaded up. The Big 12 is looking like the European territories which is hard to hold together as it can be attacked from many places and once you get it, the territories get picked off by the opposing armies.
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
Pretty much.
And the Big East is like Asia. It was always way too big to ever hold together. It’s just not worth the effort.
PORKCHOP SANDWICHES!!!
That is, I don’t think anyone knows for certain WTF is going on or how it will end up. I do believe Mizzou will end up in the SEC or Biggie1G. Of course, the Big 12 could take teams from the disintegrating Big Least as well.
Whatever happens, as long as Texa$$ is left out in the cold like the conference-killing cancer they are, I’ll be happy. I doubt this will happen. ESPN won’t let it happen, as they are more into making news than reporting it.
P.S. I played Axis & Allies rather than Risk growing up.
"during the season"
You do realize the NCAA athletic off-season lasts about 7 weeks, from the close of the College World Series to the first of the late August soccer games? That’s a pretty narrow window to allow administrators to do business. Or were you being atypical football-centric fan?
http://www.SimmonsField.com
by trripleplay on Sep 18, 2011 7:19 AM CDT via iPhone app reply actions
In defense of the "typical football-centric fan" argument.
Keep in mind that the realignment issue is being drven by football, for better or worse. Additionally football is the economic driving force for most college athletic departments. As far as D-Sing’s actual complaint about the timing goes I’ll summarize by adding to an old quote:
“There are three things you never want let the consumer see being produced: Sausages, law and conference realignment.”
I’ve now seen all three of these and I still like sausage, hate our legislative process and worry about how everyone else is going to feel about college football after all of this.
by GreenRipper on Sep 18, 2011 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Since this is a football driven decision
yes, I was being a football centric.
For the purposes of expansion under these parameters, that is what matters.
Don’t impugn my negligence of considering baseball and other olympic sports, but to be honest, even basketball has been rendered irreleveant under the circumstances.
Expansion has nothing to do with the other sports, because if they did, they would give them some consideration. But this is all about football money.
Pigskin Punditry
Rock M Nation
Follow me on Twitter
"All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch." ~ Sterling Archer
It all comes back to Schurz and the Bingham Group doesn't it D-Sig?
Prior to your arrival at Mizzou, the residents of Schurz and hatch applied for, and were granted admission to other Conferenc… err, Residence Halls. Then, a few years later, when there was discussion of Super Res Hall alignments, some enterprising young go getters with a dream and some fresh ideas reestablished Schurz and then Hatch.
What does this have to do with our present situation? I like Risk.
Well That Took Two Whole Days!!!
Amazing to me that the Big XII schools act like blind mice in a maze regarding this big game of Expansion Poker. The ACC took two, maybe three days. Wham, bam , thank you maam. It’s like we all got hit by an asteroid….
We are the Heartland, and football is our life...
One thing to note
Here’s the Louisville AD saying he’s shocked at the events. Mark Nordenberg is chancellor of Pittsburgh and on the CEO Executive committee of the Big East. He’s roughly analogous to our Brady Deaton in this respect, and Nordenberg just bailed on the conference while recently urging members that the Big East should stick together. Think about that for a bit. While I don’t wish for us to be seen as back-stabbers I sure as heck am going to be mad if we’re left holding the bag because Deaton is committed to a Big 12 and we are left standing around when the music stops.
Another level to that story is ESPN's financial position in this move
ESPN’s offer to the Big East was going to dwarf their current contract and net them much more than the ACC. Pitt’s Chancellor put the brakes to that deal. ESPN now gets (1) To renegotiate the Big East deal with two big properties off the table and the threat of the league disintegrating; (2) Add two of the Big East’s biggest properties to ESPN’s current contract with the ACC, which is woefully under fair market value.
This brings into question whether Pitt and Cuse had extra incentive to change leagues. This move was worth close to $100mm/yr to ESPN; it should be interesting to see what adjustments were made to the ACC.
I think the important thing everyone is ignoring
is that this probably takes Pitt off the table for the when the Big XII-II-I-II?-II? expands. Of course we still have ND and Arkansas as options but we will need one more to really balance things out. I hope Beebe will show the strong leadership we have come to expect from him and think outside th box and target Illinois or Ohio State.
You're being sarcastic, right?
I have to ask b/c your sarcasm font didn’t show up on my laptop.
by MizzouRah04 on Sep 18, 2011 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions
yes that was sarcasm
obviously Beebe will target USC or Alabama
The Big East absolutely dropped the ball on this one.
They tried to play ESPN’s hand with a lucrative TV contract and now they are losing 2 teams (maybe 3).
I don’t think KU, KSU, Mizzou, ISU and Baylor are enough to offset losing Pitt, SU and (WVU?).
The Big East was convinced to reject the offer by a few members on the Exec committee
The main opponent to the deal? Pitt.
Here's a question
If the Big 12 were to land BYU, TCU, and Louisville to get back to 12, are they really that much worse as a competitive football conference? They’d be worse off in terms of TV negotiations, but in terms of on field product, I think it’d be more “different” than “worse”.
by Transmogrified Tiger on Sep 18, 2011 1:50 PM CDT reply actions
Naturally
That question is asking more of a BYU/TCU/Louisville v. aTm/Nebraska/Colorado comparison.
by Transmogrified Tiger on Sep 19, 2011 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions
So.... I know that hoops is not the gas that drives the car
but, is there any question that the ACC is now the premier basketball conference, or does the Big East still hold onto that title?
Rational Mizzou Talk, whether you like us or not.
My immediate reaction after hearing about ACC expansion
is that this may force the B1G to expand
Hey, I don’t know how much I like all this expansion stuff…but if Missouri ends up in the B1G at the end of this mess, I’m all for it
meh. gimme the sec any day.
"Fleshy-headed mutant, are you friendly?"
"No way,eh."
by threadkiller on Sep 19, 2011 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Rock M Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
