Fair Pay to Play Act

D1 Mens Lacrosse
a fan
Posts: 19610
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by a fan »

LandM wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:20 pm A PSU football program eats more in a month then the $1.5 million these small schools are living on for ALL sports combined - so please let me know where the players are not benefiting from the free market.
If this is a serious question, I already gave you the answer. Just because YOU think the kids have gotten some nice things, doesn't meant these kids have availed themselves of the true market value for their work.

What you keep describing is "the LandM market", not the "Free Market". ;)

But to give that answer again: you're describing all these ridiculously rich Penn St. alums throwing money at the football program.


If you had to take a wild guess, do you think these same boosters would throw those millions at recruits and players if it was allowed by the NCAA?


Of course they would. So there's your answer.
wgdsr
Posts: 9997
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:00 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by wgdsr »

a fan wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:58 pm
wgdsr wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:29 pm what's the outrage, again? that some people are making too much money? that young adults that are given an opportunity to play a sport and earn an education and are given a platform that was built for them through no previous workload of their doing --- they need to be paid (handsomely?) because now there's some real dough flying around?
I have never once said that the Universities MUST pay athletes. What I have said several times now, is that if there is some higher or nobler purpose that NCAA athletics needs to reach? Great. Then this limiting of free market money should be applied to everyone involved. Otherwise, it's exploitative and immoral.

Otherwise, let the kids get paid for their talents, just as a music major could playing a gig at a local club.

So what I am advocating is: if an athlete wants to work somewhere, just like everyone else, they should be allowed to do that. That might mean as a football player Dj'ing a dance club for $500, or a softball player getting a $100K endorsement from Nike or STX. Anything the free market wants from them.

If someone wants to pay an athlete for a video game, or to run a summer lax camp, or to pitch the latest Warrior Dstick? Great! Let 'em do that.
wgdsr wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:29 pm i do hope the folks that are all in on the free market yada so some guys can get paid are ok with what comes out the other end.
I am. It might be the end of NCAA lacrosse. But the NCAA and all those College Presidents got greedy, and did this to themselves. All I'm giving is my opinion here. My opinion holds zero weight in this matter.

So cite the obvious example, what the F were they thinking when the allowed EA Sports to use a kid's likeness in their freaking video game? In what world is that ok, and not fiendishly greedy?

Dissolving the NCAA might be a great thing, in the end. Impossible to know.

this particular convo was in regard to players being paid out of the athletic budget. not for likeness, other jobs, etc.

your tune about every other actor earning the same amount is not grounded in any other example of amateur sports that i can think of. high school coaches making $1,000 - $200,000 for coaching their teams while players pay a fee to play, club coaches being paid (or owning a club) while the players pay-to-play. on and on. back when the olympics were amateur, were many (any?) of the coaches or ioc heads doing all their jobs for free, or for room and board? your take on this is very confusing, equating amateur athletics to mean everyone involved. amateur athletics, like it or not (and always in a bastard form), is always in re: athletes.

anyway, i agree the nc$$ has consistently shot themselves in the foot. there's no excuse for much of it. maybe their reasoning has always been if we give an inch, they'll take a yard... so the stronger we hold tight the better our case for "amateurism" and anti-trust protection lives on. they're at about the end of the road on that, and may no longer control the outcome.

when i got scholly $$ way back in the day, by rule i wasn't allowed to work doing anything for the 9 months of the school year. the temptation was there to go around that, as by year end i was dirt poor. and actually pretty much had to stretch all year. it sucked, we had a family scenario going and the nc$$ could care less about that. no doubt there were people in far more dire straights than me. it wasn't worth the risk for me, and i'm certainly all in if athletes get a green light to be able to earn some dough through work or likeness, etc.
LandM
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:51 am

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by LandM »

afan,
Had to take a walking break. So here we go:
1. 80% of the people who we sit with including myself are NOT alumni - they are people who grew up on PSU football or have grand kids, nieces or nephews who go to school there - most live within 1 to 2 hours away from PSU, we are the anomaly. They are NOT rich alumni - they are people who worked or still work hard and enjoy a Saturday of fun - ever watch ND football on a Sunday morning as a kid? There you go - you stereotyped without the facts. Btw - there are only 2,500 in the Club Seats not the 5,000 I had originally mentioned;
2. You are MISSING MY POINT COMPLETELY - the number 105 guy who puts in the same amount of work, watches film, mimics the o and d of the opposing team, gets to be a practice dummy for the starters week-in and week-out, does the same reps and THEN has to possibly go work a job while number 1 gets to sit in a cushy coach and eat bon-bons because he does not have to work to pay for his education is JUST AS IMPORTANT and some coaches would say is more important than number 1. It is about the team - AIN'T NO I IN TEAM. If that makes me telling the NCAA what LandM amateurism is then call me guilty. Finally your tax dollars put me in some really bad situations as a young adult, I would take the gritty 105 player before the number 1 player unless it was McSorley or McGloin - would take those two in any situation - notice I did not say Barkley?
3. What playing college ball at the level of a PSU gets you is a possible chance at Sunday and a means to actually eat your Wheaties with milk - although that is provided free of charge to a PSU athlete assuming they qualify under their diet program;
4. XFL is a bunch of washed up has-beens - they all were given a chance and none made it for whatever reason, thankfully Johnny did not put his hat in the ring - talk about a drama queen;
5. As an FYI, NDA's and C&I Agreements are very valid in NY and I have used that twice and won - hard to do yes, no regrets. Further I paid my employees anywhere from 130 to 150% of prevailing wages, full benefits including same sex benefits (one of the first in Upstate NY), 8 days for Holiday and 2 floating days; 20 days vacation to start; matching 401k - there were more then a few people who retired working for me and I was ALWAYS THE LAST GUY TO GET PAID and endured allot of bitc$ing from my spouse about that - then when the companies were sold - became the hero to her :D . SO PLEASE STOP the banter about how I treat people as you have NO clue how I ran my companies.
6. Finally, if the snot nosed players that retain the ranks of 1 - 5 do not want to play, I as a fan have the choice of not paying - lots of stray animals that money could feed - I and 90% of the people in stands would probably opt for that option. There is NO leverage for a player against a fan IMHO. And, I would love to here snot nose tell a prospective NFL coach why he opted not to play in a game because he was not getting paid for his likeness. There is a reason Colin K is still NOT in the NFL. He has the right to kneel and he has the right to make his points - but no owner or coach wants poison in a locker room.

You take IMHO many of us who played at a decent level, I would choose my teammates over money.....maybe I was taught different values BUT stop telling me what I think - I would appreciate that courtesy.
Best
a fan
Posts: 19610
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by a fan »

wgdsr wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:02 pm back when the olympics were amateur, were many (any?) of the coaches or ioc heads doing all their jobs for free, or for room and board? your take on this is very confusing, equating amateur athletics to mean everyone involved.
:lol: I agree my take is a different take. I find it silly to hold the athletes to some noble standard, while everyone else involved can make as much as they like. It's weird, and doesn't make logical sense.

All you have to do is walk through the reasoning given for WHY amateur athletes should not be paid. Once you do that, it makes zero sense to not hold judges, coaches, administrators, etc. to the same noble standard. It simply doesn't make sense to allow everyone else involved to make bank, while the actual athletes have to take some monastic oath. It's plain silly to think that makes even a little sense.

Anyway. Agree to disagree, and move on, right?
tech37 wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:35 am when i got scholly $$ way back in the day, by rule i wasn't allowed to work doing anything for the 9 months of the school year. the temptation was there to go around that, as by year end i was dirt poor. and actually pretty much had to stretch all year. it sucked, we had a family scenario going and the nc$$ could care less about that. no doubt there were people in far more dire straights than me. it wasn't worth the risk for me, and i'm certainly all in if athletes get a green light to be able to earn some dough through work or likeness, etc.
Agree completely.

And i got news for you: you could have made some nice coin coming to Colorado to coach a summer camp if you were marketed as a current NCAA player for your team. Not millions. But I'd imagine you'd agree that $500 would go a long way back then.
a fan
Posts: 19610
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by a fan »

LandM wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:10 pm afan,
Had to take a walking break. So here we go:
1. 80% of the people who we sit with including myself are NOT alumni - they are people who grew up on PSU football or have grand kids, nieces or nephews who go to school there - most live within 1 to 2 hours away from PSU, we are the anomaly. They are NOT rich alumni - they are people who worked or still work hard and enjoy a Saturday of fun - ever watch ND football on a Sunday morning as a kid? There you go - you stereotyped without the facts. Btw - there are only 2,500 in the Club Seats not the 5,000 I had originally mentioned
Um. I didn't stereotype anything. And YOU gave me the facts.

Here's what you told me.
LandM wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:10 pm We sit in club seats - about 5,000 others sit with us - our avg ticket price per game is almost $600 per head that does not include the "donation"
I don't know a whole lot of non-rich people who can drop $600 per ticket to see a football game. If "rich" is the wrong word here, I apologize.
LandM wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:10 pm 5. As an FYI, NDA's and C&I Agreements are very valid in NY and I have used that twice and won - hard to do yes, no regrets. Further I paid my employees anywhere from 130 to 150% of prevailing wages, full benefits including same sex benefits (one of the first in Upstate NY), 8 days for Holiday and 2 floating days; 20 days vacation to start; matching 401k - there were more then a few people who retired working for me and I was ALWAYS THE LAST GUY TO GET PAID and endured allot of bitc$ing from my spouse about that - then when the companies were sold - became the hero to her :D . SO PLEASE STOP the banter about how I treat people as you have NO clue how I ran my companies.
I never once wrote one word about how you ran your companies. Why would I do that? I would NEVER tell another man how to run their business. It's hard enough as it is. But for the record, what you have described to me is impressive, and no easy feat.

All i wrote was, you are making a personal judgement that these NCAA players are getting their fair share. That's it. That's all I've written.

I disagree, and think they should be allowed to make as much as the market will bear. We disagree with each other! No big deal. No harm, no foul!

And as I said before, we're talking past each other at this point...and nowhere am I telling you what you think----this would be a far, far easier conversation over beers!! So let's drop it until we can do that, eh? I'll buy. ;)
LandM
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:51 am

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by LandM »

afan,
Heading to house in Telluride early March next year for a few months. Always stop by the Academy to see my best friend even though he cannot speak to me. Will stop in Denver as we have friends in Golden and have a few pops - would be fun, I will buy and take some to Telluride with me :D . I hope for the benefit of the players this cloud gets resolved.
best
wgdsr
Posts: 9997
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:00 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by wgdsr »

a fan wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:16 pm
wgdsr wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:02 pm back when the olympics were amateur, were many (any?) of the coaches or ioc heads doing all their jobs for free, or for room and board? your take on this is very confusing, equating amateur athletics to mean everyone involved.
:lol: I agree my take is a different take. I find it silly to hold the athletes to some noble standard, while everyone else involved can make as much as they like. It's weird, and doesn't make logical sense.

All you have to do is walk through the reasoning given for WHY amateur athletes should not be paid. Once you do that, it makes zero sense to not hold judges, coaches, administrators, etc. to the same noble standard. It simply doesn't make sense to allow everyone else involved to make bank, while the actual athletes have to take some monastic oath. It's plain silly to think that makes even a little sense.

as you're a reasonable debate partner, i'll insert the unwritten IMO here in my head and not believe the literal implication that a dissenting opinion is off the wall crazy and thoughtless.

Anyway. Agree to disagree, and move on, right?
tech37 wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:35 am when i got scholly $$ way back in the day, by rule i wasn't allowed to work doing anything for the 9 months of the school year. the temptation was there to go around that, as by year end i was dirt poor. and actually pretty much had to stretch all year. it sucked, we had a family scenario going and the nc$$ could care less about that. no doubt there were people in far more dire straights than me. it wasn't worth the risk for me, and i'm certainly all in if athletes get a green light to be able to earn some dough through work or likeness, etc.
Agree completely.

And i got news for you: you could have made some nice coin coming to Colorado to coach a summer camp if you were marketed as a current NCAA player for your team. Not millions. But I'd imagine you'd agree that $500 would go a long way back then.
indeed.
meanwhile, in an update -- several sourced articles have come out of a tech conference that EA is chomping to get back in the college video game market, and at least with this reporting:
https://www.businessinsider.com/electro ... ll-2019-10
the nc$$ is expected later this month to come out with initial rules that address the new law and new currents while they still can (maybe).
a fan
Posts: 19610
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by a fan »

wgdsr wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:17 pm as you're a reasonable debate partner, i'll insert the unwritten IMO here in my head and not believe the literal implication that a dissenting opinion is off the wall crazy and thoughtless
Sure! Imo. Yes, that's implied.
Wheels
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:40 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by Wheels »

Hey there everyone! How's it going? What did I miss?!!
User avatar
Dip&Dunk
Posts: 801
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:30 am

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by Dip&Dunk »

As of the beginning of this month (Oct 2019), PA, GA, KY, NV, IL, SC, MN, NY & CO all have active legislation or Bills sponsored and submitted along the lines of CA's Fair Pay to Play. In addition, at least two Congressmen have indicated they will submit national legislation again along the same lines.

Here is a representative article: https://www.si.com/college/2019/10/02/t ... eness-laws

The horses are out of the barn. Feel free to continue arguing shutting the doors.
wgdsr
Posts: 9997
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:00 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by wgdsr »

Dip&Dunk wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:23 pm As of the beginning of this month (Oct 2019), PA, GA, KY, NV, IL, SC, MN, NY & CO all have active legislation or Bills sponsored and submitted along the lines of CA's Fair Pay to Play. In addition, at least two Congressmen have indicated they will submit national legislation again along the same lines.

Here is a representative article: https://www.si.com/college/2019/10/02/t ... eness-laws

The horses are out of the barn. Feel free to continue arguing shutting the doors.
thanks for the invite. it's been mentioned about all the pending legislation. the nc$$ has already "lost" 2 court cases. but if the entirety of college education cost of attendance is a pittance for some, then what they've put to them so far is crumbs.
the nc$$ juggernaut still has friends in high places. and with that the ability to influence how wide doors are cracked open.
california legislation won't pick up until 2023, supposedly. 4 years is a long time.

personally, i believe this wave between now and then is gonna lead to a compromise that both sides can live with. for now.
User avatar
ChairmanOfTheBoard
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:40 pm
Location: Having a beer with CWBJ in Helsinki, Finland

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by ChairmanOfTheBoard »

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... e-changes/
NCAA working group to deliver preliminary suggestions for name, image and likeness rule changes

A "set of principles" regarding the name, image and likeness rights for college athletes will be presented Tuesday by a working group to the NCAA Board of Governors. Details of those principles were not shared by Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, a member of that high-profile working group, who spoke to CBS Sports.
There are 29,413,039 corporations in America; but only one Chairman of the Board.
wgdsr
Posts: 9997
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:00 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by wgdsr »

User avatar
QuakerSouth
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:32 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by QuakerSouth »

Hypothetically...

What if a team's apparel/shoe deal is with say, Nike.

But then Under Armour wants to pay the star player X dollars to be the poster child for their apparel/shoes.

Anyone care to opine on how something like that might play out?
User avatar
Dip&Dunk
Posts: 801
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:30 am

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by Dip&Dunk »

Wow one I know (for the NFL). When the player is acting in their official capacity as a member of the team (game, practice, press conference, etc) they cannot represent a team or league sponsored competing product. They also cannot represent banned or specifically prohibited products (think gambling or booze or pot).

The NCAA will have some learning curves as NFL rights are negotiated rights (who represents the NCAA players?). I would also add amateur rules matter, but who am I kidding.
User avatar
QuakerSouth
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:32 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by QuakerSouth »

So the Nike sponsored team's star player is walking around campus the week before the big game. He is wearing his Under Armour shoes and apparel because he is getting paid to do so. He is with a teammate who is wearing his Nike team gear. Because its the big game, reporters are everywhere on campus. The ESPN people spot them, and go over to them with their camera and want to interview them. Both are speaking as representatives of the team, but one is wearing his Under Armour swag, the other his Nike swag. Now what? This would not be an unusual situation.

This whole thing is ridiculous. The NCAA has no idea how to deal with all this without ending its "patrol" over student athletes.
wgdsr
Posts: 9997
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:00 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by wgdsr »

just in the past week, we have:
chase young, maybe the most marketable (for the nc$$, anyway) football player going and a possible #1 overall pick -- ruled ineligible temporarily for taking a small loan from a family friend (don't know the whole association) so his family could go out to a bowl game. and it was paid back.

jahvon quinerly -- ruled he has to sit a year on new hardship transfer rules, no waiver granted as he had to deal with a cloud of suspicion the entirety of his freshman year re: basketball fbi fishnet, only to eventually have none of his involvement amount to any charge and be walked back by the coach in question ---transfers to alabama for fresh start, villanova is cool with it --- but nc$$ says no go, sit a year.

memphis star freshman james wiseman ruled ineligible (also, maybe the best freshman in the country) because his then high school/club coach penny hardaway gave him moving expenses, over 2 years ago. all fine. but penny is now the memphis coach (and was considered a booster from a donation 10+ years ago), and after a hard fought recruiting win vs kentucky for his services, wiseman gets to be ruled ineligible. lmao. you couldn't make this up. hardaway is taking a stand against the wounded nc$$ and playing him anyway, looking for a ruling outside the nc$$.

one week. 3 instances of the nc$$ holding fast to b.s. minutiae and their iron, illogical grip. ironically, that hubris will ultimately be their ruling power's downfall.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34170
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

wgdsr wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:20 pm just in the past week, we have:
chase young, maybe the most marketable (for the nc$$, anyway) football player going and a possible #1 overall pick -- ruled ineligible temporarily for taking a small loan from a family friend (don't know the whole association) so his family could go out to a bowl game. and it was paid back.

jahvon quinerly -- ruled he has to sit a year on new hardship transfer rules, no waiver granted as he had to deal with a cloud of suspicion the entirety of his freshman year re: basketball fbi fishnet, only to eventually have none of his involvement amount to any charge and be walked back by the coach in question ---transfers to alabama for fresh start, villanova is cool with it --- but nc$$ says no go, sit a year.

memphis star freshman james wiseman ruled ineligible (also, maybe the best freshman in the country) because his then high school/club coach penny hardaway gave him moving expenses, over 2 years ago. all fine. but penny is now the memphis coach (and was considered a booster from a donation 10+ years ago), and after a hard fought recruiting win vs kentucky for his services, wiseman gets to be ruled ineligible. lmao. you couldn't make this up. hardaway is taking a stand against the wounded nc$$ and playing him anyway, looking for a ruling outside the nc$$.

one week. 3 instances of the nc$$ holding fast to b.s. minutiae and their iron, illogical grip. ironically, that hubris will ultimately be their ruling power's downfall.
Penny Hardaway should have known better. He should have went to the AD and the NCAA when he was vying for the job and then recruiting the player. IMHO, Penny put the kid in a tough spot. How he though this was not an extra benefit is beyond me. Hopefully Wiseman gets to come back but Hardaway should have known better. Ego. Guy gave $1MM to the school and provided extra benefits to what became a recruit. Penny should have cleared it or sent the kid on to UK.
“I wish you would!”
User avatar
Dip&Dunk
Posts: 801
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:30 am

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by Dip&Dunk »

wgdsr wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:20 pm just in the past week, we have:
chase young, maybe the most marketable (for the nc$$, anyway) football player going and a possible #1 overall pick -- ruled ineligible temporarily for taking a small loan from a family friend (don't know the whole association) so his family could go out to a bowl game. and it was paid back.

jahvon quinerly -- ruled he has to sit a year on new hardship transfer rules, no waiver granted as he had to deal with a cloud of suspicion the entirety of his freshman year re: basketball fbi fishnet, only to eventually have none of his involvement amount to any charge and be walked back by the coach in question ---transfers to alabama for fresh start, villanova is cool with it --- but nc$$ says no go, sit a year.

memphis star freshman james wiseman ruled ineligible (also, maybe the best freshman in the country) because his then high school/club coach penny hardaway gave him moving expenses, over 2 years ago. all fine. but penny is now the memphis coach (and was considered a booster from a donation 10+ years ago), and after a hard fought recruiting win vs kentucky for his services, wiseman gets to be ruled ineligible. lmao. you couldn't make this up. hardaway is taking a stand against the wounded nc$$ and playing him anyway, looking for a ruling outside the nc$$.

one week. 3 instances of the nc$$ holding fast to b.s. minutiae and their iron, illogical grip. ironically, that hubris will ultimately be their ruling power's downfall.
Two quite possible future number one picks in one week. NCAA going out in a blaze of (ignominious) glory.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34170
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Fair Pay to Play Act

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

Dip&Dunk wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:10 pm
wgdsr wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:20 pm just in the past week, we have:
chase young, maybe the most marketable (for the nc$$, anyway) football player going and a possible #1 overall pick -- ruled ineligible temporarily for taking a small loan from a family friend (don't know the whole association) so his family could go out to a bowl game. and it was paid back.

jahvon quinerly -- ruled he has to sit a year on new hardship transfer rules, no waiver granted as he had to deal with a cloud of suspicion the entirety of his freshman year re: basketball fbi fishnet, only to eventually have none of his involvement amount to any charge and be walked back by the coach in question ---transfers to alabama for fresh start, villanova is cool with it --- but nc$$ says no go, sit a year.

memphis star freshman james wiseman ruled ineligible (also, maybe the best freshman in the country) because his then high school/club coach penny hardaway gave him moving expenses, over 2 years ago. all fine. but penny is now the memphis coach (and was considered a booster from a donation 10+ years ago), and after a hard fought recruiting win vs kentucky for his services, wiseman gets to be ruled ineligible. lmao. you couldn't make this up. hardaway is taking a stand against the wounded nc$$ and playing him anyway, looking for a ruling outside the nc$$.

one week. 3 instances of the nc$$ holding fast to b.s. minutiae and their iron, illogical grip. ironically, that hubris will ultimately be their ruling power's downfall.
Two quite possible future number one picks in one week. NCAA going out in a blaze of (ignominious) glory.

Chase Young will be back and we are hoping he only gets two games. His case was far less egregious than Wiseman’s. I have no idea what Hardaway was thinking.

https://amp.tmz.com/2019/11/12/ohio-sta ... er-1-week/

I don’t like the rules but the rule is the rule.
“I wish you would!”
Post Reply

Return to “D1 MENS LACROSSE”