Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The only losers in realignment are
Author Message
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 241
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #41
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 03:54 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 12:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 12:23 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Methinks an ACC in which all 15 members have reportedly agreed to sign a GOR says the ACC is a winner. We will miss Maryland in much the same way the SEC misses GT.

And... Louisville is an upgrade.

Once again, it's not about whether a replacement is suitable or might even be an upgrade on-the-field/court. The ACC would have never, ever, ever, ever, ever *chosen* to trade Maryland for Louisville, just as the Big 12 would have never, ever, ever, ever, ever *chosen* to trade, say, Colorado for West Virginia or TCU regardless of how terrible CU has been lately in terms of competitiveness. Those conferences lost schools that no league in its right mind would ever want to lose. The fact that there were solid replacements for them was fortuitous, but it wasn't by choice, so yes, they lost *something* (population base, academic prestige, TV markets, etc.). The Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 are the only ones to have outright gains without losing any assets.

You added Rutgers for TV sets only...not a real win in my book but if you're happy...glad for you.

Uh so Rutgers didn't win? Also they fit in the B1G like a glove. Large state university in a highly populated state that houses a ton of B1G alumni? C'mon how do you NOT think that's a win for both sides? Would the Cuse have been a better choice?
(This post was last modified: 04-22-2013 04:06 PM by NJRedMan.)
04-22-2013 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 241
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #42
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 03:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 02:02 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase
2) Utah - similar to TCU, but they're a much bigger school
3) Rutgers - horrible athletics but happens to be located in NYC, good academics
4) Notre Dame - remains independent but gets better bowls
5) Louisville - improving academically but not there just yet, great athletics and lots of history with several ACC schools

Losers:
1) UConn - great academics and basketball and great location
2) UConn - ditto
3) West Virginia - stuck in a conference with 1000 miles to travel every road game, no eastern partners for the foreseeable future
4) Cincinnati - decent academics and athletics, small fanbase that doesn't show up

I'm sorry but Rutgers has been good in football. Yes UofL has had higher highs but they also had lower lows in the big east 2.0

Really...good in FB? You had a coach build up a resume of wins OOC that was pathetic...Rutgers never made a BCS Bowl game.

How good has Cuse been? You guys made a BCS bowl in its first year. That was 15 years ago if you're keeping score. Most years since then they've been pulling up the rear in the big east.
04-22-2013 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mikeinsec127 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,988
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #43
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-21-2013 08:34 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  
(04-21-2013 08:23 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Biggest winners: utah, tcu and rutgers
Biggest losers: uconn, cincy and usf


Plus USM.

Idaho and NMSU
04-22-2013 04:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #44
RE: The only losers in realignment are
The biggest loser is Temple. They were/are the only school that started out in the BCS and finished outside of the BCS. Honorable mention to Cincinnati (two BCS berths) and UConn, who started out the BCS era in a power conference, even if they did not play football.
04-22-2013 04:14 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BullsFanInTX Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,485
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 338
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #45
RE: The only losers in realignment are
The only true losers in all of this is USF, UConn, and UC. That's it! No one else was demoted in such a manner. Also it puzzles me why some of you list UConn and UC, but not USF. Did USF lose any less??? No. If you want to go back to the original BCS you could also add Temple to that list. Those are the only 4 schools that at one time were BCS, and have been demoted.
(This post was last modified: 04-22-2013 04:22 PM by BullsFanInTX.)
04-22-2013 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #46
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 04:05 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 03:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 02:02 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase
2) Utah - similar to TCU, but they're a much bigger school
3) Rutgers - horrible athletics but happens to be located in NYC, good academics
4) Notre Dame - remains independent but gets better bowls
5) Louisville - improving academically but not there just yet, great athletics and lots of history with several ACC schools

Losers:
1) UConn - great academics and basketball and great location
2) UConn - ditto
3) West Virginia - stuck in a conference with 1000 miles to travel every road game, no eastern partners for the foreseeable future
4) Cincinnati - decent academics and athletics, small fanbase that doesn't show up

I'm sorry but Rutgers has been good in football. Yes UofL has had higher highs but they also had lower lows in the big east 2.0

Really...good in FB? You had a coach build up a resume of wins OOC that was pathetic...Rutgers never made a BCS Bowl game.

How good has Cuse been? You guys made a BCS bowl in its first year. That was 15 years ago if you're keeping score. Most years since then they've been pulling up the rear in the big east.

That was in the past...we have turned the corner. Throw in a nationally elite hoops team too.
04-22-2013 04:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #47
RE: The only losers in realignment are
I only didn't add USF because they didn't lose as much as the other three. Temple lost their in part due to their own doing. UConn was partially a power conference member (BB but not FB), and later upgraded its football program with promises of being in a BCS conference, that went away. Cincy I mentioned because of all of the teams left out, they and Boise both actually did it on the field, and were left out. I only didn't mention Boise since they were never really "in" a BCS conference. It's not that USF didn't lose anything, it's just that comparatively speaking, I put them a notch behind UC and UConn, and I had to list Temple since they were the first loser in realignment, and have now lost twice.
04-22-2013 04:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #48
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 04:03 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 03:54 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 12:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 12:23 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Methinks an ACC in which all 15 members have reportedly agreed to sign a GOR says the ACC is a winner. We will miss Maryland in much the same way the SEC misses GT.

And... Louisville is an upgrade.

Once again, it's not about whether a replacement is suitable or might even be an upgrade on-the-field/court. The ACC would have never, ever, ever, ever, ever *chosen* to trade Maryland for Louisville, just as the Big 12 would have never, ever, ever, ever, ever *chosen* to trade, say, Colorado for West Virginia or TCU regardless of how terrible CU has been lately in terms of competitiveness. Those conferences lost schools that no league in its right mind would ever want to lose. The fact that there were solid replacements for them was fortuitous, but it wasn't by choice, so yes, they lost *something* (population base, academic prestige, TV markets, etc.). The Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 are the only ones to have outright gains without losing any assets.

You added Rutgers for TV sets only...not a real win in my book but if you're happy...glad for you.

Uh so Rutgers didn't win? Also they fit in the B1G like a glove. Large state university in a highly populated state that houses a ton of B1G alumni? C'mon how do you NOT think that's a win for both sides? Would the Cuse have been a better choice?

BTW, I never said Rutgers didn't win...they won the friggin expansion lottery...I was talking about the B1G in general. All they won was cable boxes with Rutgers...oh and a host stadium for their NE transplant fans.
04-22-2013 04:40 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BamaScorpio69 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,602
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Non-AQs
Location:
Post: #49
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 03:54 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 03:51 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase 2) Utah - similar to TCU, but they're a much bigger school
3) Rutgers - horrible athletics but happens to be located in NYC, good academics
4) Notre Dame - remains independent but gets better bowls
5) Louisville - improving academically but not there just yet, great athletics and lots of history with several ACC schools

Losers:
1) UConn - great academics and basketball and great location
2) UConn - ditto
3) West Virginia - stuck in a conference with 1000 miles to travel every road game, no eastern partners for the foreseeable future And making a ton of money. Clearly not losers!!!
4) Cincinnati - decent academics and athletics, small fanbase that doesn't show up

FIFY

Cards should have just said that UofL was the winner and everyone else was the loser of realignment. He pretty much poo pooed on everyone else. Hahaha

He really did...lol
04-22-2013 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AtlantaEagle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,024
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 47
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #50
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 04:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I only didn't add USF because they didn't lose as much as the other three. Temple lost their in part due to their own doing. UConn was partially a power conference member (BB but not FB), and later upgraded its football program with promises of being in a BCS conference, that went away. Cincy I mentioned because of all of the teams left out, they and Boise both actually did it on the field, and were left out. I only didn't mention Boise since they were never really "in" a BCS conference. It's not that USF didn't lose anything, it's just that comparatively speaking, I put them a notch behind UC and UConn, and I had to list Temple since they were the first loser in realignment, and have now lost twice.

Personally, I think USM was one of the losers in the totality of realignment. Arguably one of the better small programs on the field at the start of the BCS creation, they were passed over due to a new concept of conference memberships - markets.

They probably don't feel this way, but it could be argued USF had "bonus time" as a BCS program.
In their defense, having it & losing it, is probably worse than never having it.
04-22-2013 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Blue_Trombone Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,189
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 370
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location:
Post: #51
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 04:07 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  
(04-21-2013 08:34 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  
(04-21-2013 08:23 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Biggest winners: utah, tcu and rutgers
Biggest losers: uconn, cincy and usf


Plus USM.

Idaho and NMSU

How are Idaho and NMSU losers... Er, I mean, how are Idao and NMSU realignment losers? The Sun Belt just saved them from the nether that is Non-BCS Independent status. If anything, they just won by staying in the FBS.
(This post was last modified: 04-22-2013 04:57 PM by Blue_Trombone.)
04-22-2013 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PaulDel2 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 605
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 30
I Root For: Sothern Miss
Location:
Post: #52
RE: The only losers in realignment are
Everyone not in a conference named ACC, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12 or SEC. The rest are all in the same boat and there isn't a REAL difference in any of them.
04-22-2013 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #53
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 04:53 PM)AtlantaEagle Wrote:  Personally, I think USM was one of the losers in the totality of realignment. Arguably one of the better small programs on the field at the start of the BCS creation, they were passed over due to a new concept of conference memberships - markets.

I can agree with that, but they still fall in line behind those that had it and lost it IMO.
04-22-2013 05:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecuacc4ever Offline
Resident Geek Musician
*

Posts: 7,491
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 239
I Root For: ACC
Location:

SkunkworksDonatorsPWNER of Scout/Rivals
Post: #54
RE: The only losers in realignment are
The biggest losers were the schools who were in a BCS conference, only to find themselves no longer in a BCS conference -- Cincinnati, Connecticut and South Florida.

Next up -- Maryland. Their fanbase will discover their leadership overreacted by taking them to the B1G where they have no rivalries AND they are geographically isolated. Sure, enjoy the short-term loot, assuming it materializes, but man, 10 years from now... man.

Followed by West Virginia -- while many will disagree, the Big XII is the most unstable league. All Texas has to do is decide it wants to play as a football independent, and West Virginia finds itself on not only an island, but one without bi-annual visits from Texas. Heaven forbid Texas decides to play football as an independent AND Oklahoma decides to move to either the SEC or PAC12.
04-22-2013 06:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BullsFanInTX Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,485
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 338
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #55
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 04:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I only didn't add USF because they didn't lose as much as the other three. Temple lost their in part due to their own doing. UConn was partially a power conference member (BB but not FB), and later upgraded its football program with promises of being in a BCS conference, that went away. Cincy I mentioned because of all of the teams left out, they and Boise both actually did it on the field, and were left out. I only didn't mention Boise since they were never really "in" a BCS conference. It's not that USF didn't lose anything, it's just that comparatively speaking, I put them a notch behind UC and UConn, and I had to list Temple since they were the first loser in realignment, and have now lost twice.

USF lost just as much as Temple, UC, and UConn. Period. Same lost BCS access. Same lost dollars. Everything. Now you can argue that USF hasn't had the same success as UC and UConn. And you may have an argument, or may not. But the fact is, the exact same thing was lost.
04-22-2013 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
justinslot Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,349
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 94
I Root For: Rutgers&Temple
Location: South Jersey
Post: #56
RE: The only losers in realignment are
Biggest loser is UConn and it isn't even close. This is a school with a VASTLY more successful athletic program than most of the schools in the Cartel Five AND a better media market than most if you give them credit for a chunk of NYC (and you should) and they're been left out to dry and it's an absolute joke.

For me the biggest winner is A&M, which has permanently shed itself of the negative influence of the Great Burnt Orange Satan and gotten into the nation's best conference. Second place is Rutgers for obvious reasons.
04-22-2013 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
justinslot Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,349
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 94
I Root For: Rutgers&Temple
Location: South Jersey
Post: #57
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 04:58 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  Everyone not in a conference named ACC, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12 or SEC. The rest are all in the same boat and there isn't a REAL difference in any of them.

Eh, there are real differences between them, just like there are real differences between the Cartel 5 leagues.
04-22-2013 06:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #58
RE: The only losers in realignment are
I would start by looking at who added the most major pieces to the conference as the winners.

1) B1G (adds Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers) The B1G pulls in upper tier schools from 3 different BCS conferences (B12, ACC, BE) to shed its rust belt image. The new additions add a more elite dynamic.

2) ACC (adds Notre Dame, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt) The ACC brought in a bunch of well respected schools and once again has become the top college basketball conference in the country. The Maryland loss hurt but but adding 4 top tier athletic schools is more than an adequate replacement.

3) SEC (adds TAMU and Missouri) While TAMU was a great pickup Missouri was kind of ho-hum a school that would make more sense in the B1G. The upper half of SEC football is now TAMU, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida which no conference can touch.

4) PAC (adds Utah and Colorado) The PAC was able to pick up a couple more markets for itself but neither addition moves the needle that much in football and basketball. It was a big failure not to be able to attract Texas.

5) MWC (adds Boise, Fresno, Nevada, SJSU, Hawaii, Utah St). If you look at what the MWC was able to do overall which was crush the WAC, sign a 1.8 per school deal with ESPN after BYU, TCU, Utah left and successfully push for a G5 automatic bid one has to say they made out well. They survived a hostile takeovers by the WAC and Big East.

6) MAC (adds UMass). In membership the MAC flipped Temple for UMass. Where the MAC gained was by collapse of the WAC and the SBC/CUSA filling its ranks with less established programs a situation where the MAC can no longer be ignored on the TV and bowl front. Every team except UMass has played at the FBS level for at least 15 seasons. The new CUSA has 6 schools with under 10 years in FBS and the SBC has 5.

And now for the losers......

1) AAC (adds Temple ECU, UCF, SMU, Tulsa, Navy, Memphis, Houston, Tulane). When you go from a projected TV deal of 13.8 million to 1.8 million you know you are a big loser. When you go from AQ status to G5 you are a big loser. When you lose your conference name and replace it with American Athletic you are a big loser.

2) B12 (adds TCU, WVU) TCU & WVU no matter how you look at it doesn't make up for losing TAMU, Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado. The B12 has dropped from a peer of B1G and SEC to the 5th best AQ conference.

3) CUSA (adds UTSA, UNT, La Tech, WKU, MTSU, FIU, FAU, ODU, Char) In most respects CUSA 3.0 isn't too much weaker than its predecessor in football, basketball and baseball. Academically this league has taken a fatal blow with the loss of SMU, Tulsa and Tulane replaced by low endowment schools.

4) SBC (adds Idaho, NMSU, Texas St, USA, GSU, GS, ASU) Losing WKU and MTSU hurts the SBC quite a bit in basketball. In football the SBC has gained new depth with the growth to 11 FB programs (maybe 12). Forced into taking Idaho and NMSU in for survival reasons leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
04-22-2013 08:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMUDuke25 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,502
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 26
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #59
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 11:46 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 11:06 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Winners:

1) Notre Dame -- as mentioned above, they get an upgraded bakery, get a newly made cake and still get to eat it.

2) ACC -- yes, Notre Dame gets to eat its own cake, but they're willing to share 5 of the slices per season, something the old Big East could never achieve.

3) MAC -- no losses.

4) Missouri -- made out like a bandit with that SEC invite

5) Louisville, starting in 2014.

6) Rutgers -- won the friggin' conference realignment lottery jackpot with the B1G invite.

7) Boise State and the MWC -- that's how I shall refer to this group of (now) stable schools

8) The New Big East -- streamlined its roster with a renewed focus on hoops and a new TV partner.

Losers:

1) UConn -- they belong with the new Big East

2) ACC -- depending on one's expectations, not getting ND to commit to full-time football could be considered a "loss" (although I don't feel that way) -- I'm sure stever will be along shortly to put me in my place and all...

3) Any of the following: AAC, SBC, C-USA -- if the expectations were that of playing "big time" college football, then this is a loss.

The ACC is not a winner in this. They lost one of their founding members, which was a cornerstone. And 2 more members are openly flirting with the B12.

Moreover, the MWC is not a winner in this either. They lost Utah, TCU and BYU. Those 3 programs were the MWC. Boise State just got there from the WAC.

The ACC traded Maryland for Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and a beneficial agreement with Notre Dame. how are they not a winner?

Maryland is a cornerstone?

No one ever openly flirted with the Big 12. One board member ran his mouth at FSU and then the bloggers and fans took over. They were never going to the Big 12 or anywhere else.
04-22-2013 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BullsFanInTX Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,485
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 338
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #60
RE: The only losers in realignment are
(04-22-2013 09:04 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 11:46 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 11:06 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Winners:

1) Notre Dame -- as mentioned above, they get an upgraded bakery, get a newly made cake and still get to eat it.

2) ACC -- yes, Notre Dame gets to eat its own cake, but they're willing to share 5 of the slices per season, something the old Big East could never achieve.

3) MAC -- no losses.

4) Missouri -- made out like a bandit with that SEC invite

5) Louisville, starting in 2014.

6) Rutgers -- won the friggin' conference realignment lottery jackpot with the B1G invite.

7) Boise State and the MWC -- that's how I shall refer to this group of (now) stable schools

8) The New Big East -- streamlined its roster with a renewed focus on hoops and a new TV partner.

Losers:

1) UConn -- they belong with the new Big East

2) ACC -- depending on one's expectations, not getting ND to commit to full-time football could be considered a "loss" (although I don't feel that way) -- I'm sure stever will be along shortly to put me in my place and all...

3) Any of the following: AAC, SBC, C-USA -- if the expectations were that of playing "big time" college football, then this is a loss.

The ACC is not a winner in this. They lost one of their founding members, which was a cornerstone. And 2 more members are openly flirting with the B12.

Moreover, the MWC is not a winner in this either. They lost Utah, TCU and BYU. Those 3 programs were the MWC. Boise State just got there from the WAC.

The ACC traded Maryland for Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and a beneficial agreement with Notre Dame. how are they not a winner?

Maryland is a cornerstone?

No one ever openly flirted with the Big 12. One board member ran his mouth at FSU and then the bloggers and fans took over. They were never going to the Big 12 or anywhere else.

Funny how these schools were belittled when part of the "Big Least", but now that they are going to ACC are so valuable.
04-22-2013 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.