Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
@flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #1
@flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
Everyone think he is off his rocker or is there any credence to this? The basic conclusion from BTM is the league may go to 16 to monetize pod semi-final games and the only league to add two teams from is the Big 12 because they will not take from the PAC & ACC due to the alliance.

BTM “Big Ten’s eyeing SEC’s decision on pods. If SEC selects pods & “semi-final pod weekend” as their “9th” conf game to go with 3 OOC games and receives another boost on media REV because of pod semi-final content this could make Big Ten expand sooner than expected or wanted.”

“SEC would maximize their content in going with 4 pods & semi-final weekend. This is action which could force Big Ten into deciding on expanding with candidates that would not normally be considered especially under this time frame. Alliance schools would be off the board”

“You combine SEC’s possible changing of the structure of how conferences maximize their content with Big Ten’s internal dissatisfaction with their current divisional alignments it all could push Big Ten to 16 before they had planned”

“4 pods of 4 schools cures lots of the issues that is causing strife inside Big Ten when it comes to alignment. Especially if you add 1 Eastern with 1 Midwest school. But Big Ten has 14 schools and will not raid schools from PAC & ACC at this time. This will not happen”


“Pods work beautifully on paper. Big Ten creating championship weekend during Covid is basically same as “Semi-Final weekend” with pods. 4 pod winners play each other for their 9th conf game. Crossover pod games (2nd place vs 2nd place etc) for other schools 9th conf game”

“If SEC does pull the trigger on pods and semi-final weekend how does Big Ten stand at 14? If SEC rakes in extra 35 mil for 2 “semi-final pod winner” games on final weekend of regular season to go with SEC CCG $ the following week how does Big Ten not follow suit?”

"This was unexpected information from BTM this morning. But it all boils down to this: there is a strong belief if SEC chooses pods they will monetize the bleep out of the new structure. If true, everyone eventually…especially Big Ten…will do the same."

BTM made no mention of possible schools in long email. Obviously it’s Big 12 schools. Watch SEC’s decision on new conference structure which will probably follow FBS 10 conferences and Notre Dame’s decision on playoff format.
10-06-2021 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #2
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
So let me get this straight: 3 OOC games; 3 pod games; 5 intra-conference games for 11 games. The 12th game would be a semi-final on the last regular season weekend followed by a CCG. That works and is relevant for school #1-4. What about the other schools? I presume they would be scheduled a school from another they have not played and each school would rotate as the 12th game host.

The real issue is who in the world would they add? Creating a mini-conference tournament for 16 means nothing without 16 schools. At this point, the ACC is locked in for another nearly 15 years. The XII has Iowa St and Kansas as possible candidates but highly unlikely. Missouri has no incentive to leave the SEC but I guess they could. I'm not sure even Colorado would venture into a conference to play Maryland and Rutgers.
10-07-2021 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #3
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
The source is definitely not one I hold in high regard. I also think the odds of the Big Ten expanding from the existing Big 12 teams is highly unlikely (outside of Kansas).

Also the whole idea of the Big Ten expanding would seem to go against idea of alliance to start with.
10-08-2021 12:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #4
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
(10-08-2021 12:45 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The source is definitely not one I hold in high regard. I also think the odds of the Big Ten expanding from the existing Big 12 teams is highly unlikely (outside of Kansas).

Also the whole idea of the Big Ten expanding would seem to go against idea of alliance to start with.

I agree on all accounts. Even Kansas isn't much of a catch for what the Big Ten needs, in my opinion.

I think the divisions are fine as is. Adding two is easier as either Purdue could move east, Indiana west, or everything the same if one is added to both divisions. These things are typically cyclical and it's just a matter of time before the west regroups.

Pods is messy because nobody will be happy with the three they are stuck with. I imagine Penn State will be with Maryland and Rutgers but the last slot could be Ohio State. If so, they will need to have a fixed opponent of Michigan. If it's Michigan State, they'll also need Michigan but would also like Indiana, which is unlikely because UM and UI will be in the same pod. Poor Iowa will likely be with Nebraska plus the hypothetical western additions, schools they'll likely have little history with (unless the Big Ten does the unthinkable by adding Iowa State).
10-08-2021 07:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #5
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
(10-08-2021 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 12:45 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The source is definitely not one I hold in high regard. I also think the odds of the Big Ten expanding from the existing Big 12 teams is highly unlikely (outside of Kansas).

Also the whole idea of the Big Ten expanding would seem to go against idea of alliance to start with.

I agree on all accounts. Even Kansas isn't much of a catch for what the Big Ten needs, in my opinion.

I think the divisions are fine as is. Adding two is easier as either Purdue could move east, Indiana west, or everything the same if one is added to both divisions. These things are typically cyclical and it's just a matter of time before the west regroups.

Pods is messy because nobody will be happy with the three they are stuck with. I imagine Penn State will be with Maryland and Rutgers but the last slot could be Ohio State. If so, they will need to have a fixed opponent of Michigan. If it's Michigan State, they'll also need Michigan but would also like Indiana, which is unlikely because UM and UI will be in the same pod. Poor Iowa will likely be with Nebraska plus the hypothetical western additions, schools they'll likely have little history with (unless the Big Ten does the unthinkable by adding Iowa State).

I think we’ll see CCG rule change allowing non-division fixed opponents. At 14, you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 10 at 5/5. At 16 you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 12 at 6/6.
10-08-2021 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #6
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
(10-08-2021 08:49 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 12:45 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The source is definitely not one I hold in high regard. I also think the odds of the Big Ten expanding from the existing Big 12 teams is highly unlikely (outside of Kansas).

Also the whole idea of the Big Ten expanding would seem to go against idea of alliance to start with.

I agree on all accounts. Even Kansas isn't much of a catch for what the Big Ten needs, in my opinion.

I think the divisions are fine as is. Adding two is easier as either Purdue could move east, Indiana west, or everything the same if one is added to both divisions. These things are typically cyclical and it's just a matter of time before the west regroups.

Pods is messy because nobody will be happy with the three they are stuck with. I imagine Penn State will be with Maryland and Rutgers but the last slot could be Ohio State. If so, they will need to have a fixed opponent of Michigan. If it's Michigan State, they'll also need Michigan but would also like Indiana, which is unlikely because UM and UI will be in the same pod. Poor Iowa will likely be with Nebraska plus the hypothetical western additions, schools they'll likely have little history with (unless the Big Ten does the unthinkable by adding Iowa State).

I think we’ll see CCG rule change allowing non-division fixed opponents. At 14, you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 10 at 5/5. At 16 you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 12 at 6/6.

I don't know why more people don't realize this and see how this is the best for all leagues.
10-08-2021 12:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #7
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
(10-08-2021 12:34 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 08:49 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 12:45 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The source is definitely not one I hold in high regard. I also think the odds of the Big Ten expanding from the existing Big 12 teams is highly unlikely (outside of Kansas).

Also the whole idea of the Big Ten expanding would seem to go against idea of alliance to start with.

I agree on all accounts. Even Kansas isn't much of a catch for what the Big Ten needs, in my opinion.

I think the divisions are fine as is. Adding two is easier as either Purdue could move east, Indiana west, or everything the same if one is added to both divisions. These things are typically cyclical and it's just a matter of time before the west regroups.

Pods is messy because nobody will be happy with the three they are stuck with. I imagine Penn State will be with Maryland and Rutgers but the last slot could be Ohio State. If so, they will need to have a fixed opponent of Michigan. If it's Michigan State, they'll also need Michigan but would also like Indiana, which is unlikely because UM and UI will be in the same pod. Poor Iowa will likely be with Nebraska plus the hypothetical western additions, schools they'll likely have little history with (unless the Big Ten does the unthinkable by adding Iowa State).

I think we’ll see CCG rule change allowing non-division fixed opponents. At 14, you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 10 at 5/5. At 16 you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 12 at 6/6.

I don't know why more people don't realize this and see how this is the best for all leagues.

I think fixed opponents works well for most conferences but not the Big Ten, and maybe not the SEC. How many rivalries are being missed due to the current setup? Maybe Ohio State - Illinois, but is that pretty much it? If I were to guess, this is how I'd expect the three fixed opponents to be for each school (in order of preference):

Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State, Maryland
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers, Indiana
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, Rutgers
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Nebraska
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State:Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Rutgers: Penn State, Maryland, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska

A couple thoughts/explanations:
- It is hard not to lump Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin playing each other as a foursome. I tried to switch it up and break out Nebraska and Minnesota to give Nebraska a regular trip to Chicago for recruits and Minnesota a renewed rivalry with Michigan.
- I tried to think of each school's first choice and give it to them. That filled up most of Penn State's, Ohio State's, and Michigan's schedules as I feel Maryland and Rutgers would want PSU most, PSU would want OSU, Michigan would want OSU, and MSU would want Michigan. A lot of people like to peg Michigan State as a fixed opponent for Penn State but that "rivalry" only came around because neither had a top rival that reciprocated that feeling.
- I don't know the western schools and their preferences very well. I tried to go off random lists of rivalries and choose ones with the most games played.
10-08-2021 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #8
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
I would love to do away with divisions and have highest two meet. We just dont play teams in the west enough for my taste and it will get worse if drop back down to 8 conference games.

Ge and mts, that is pretty similar to what I have come up with when done before. There are a few random matchups at end, but most of it feels fairly natural.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2021 01:22 AM by ohio1317.)
10-09-2021 01:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #9
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
(10-08-2021 10:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 12:34 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 08:49 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(10-08-2021 12:45 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The source is definitely not one I hold in high regard. I also think the odds of the Big Ten expanding from the existing Big 12 teams is highly unlikely (outside of Kansas).

Also the whole idea of the Big Ten expanding would seem to go against idea of alliance to start with.

I agree on all accounts. Even Kansas isn't much of a catch for what the Big Ten needs, in my opinion.

I think the divisions are fine as is. Adding two is easier as either Purdue could move east, Indiana west, or everything the same if one is added to both divisions. These things are typically cyclical and it's just a matter of time before the west regroups.

Pods is messy because nobody will be happy with the three they are stuck with. I imagine Penn State will be with Maryland and Rutgers but the last slot could be Ohio State. If so, they will need to have a fixed opponent of Michigan. If it's Michigan State, they'll also need Michigan but would also like Indiana, which is unlikely because UM and UI will be in the same pod. Poor Iowa will likely be with Nebraska plus the hypothetical western additions, schools they'll likely have little history with (unless the Big Ten does the unthinkable by adding Iowa State).

I think we’ll see CCG rule change allowing non-division fixed opponents. At 14, you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 10 at 5/5. At 16 you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 12 at 6/6.

I don't know why more people don't realize this and see how this is the best for all leagues.

I think fixed opponents works well for most conferences but not the Big Ten, and maybe not the SEC. How many rivalries are being missed due to the current setup? Maybe Ohio State - Illinois, but is that pretty much it? If I were to guess, this is how I'd expect the three fixed opponents to be for each school (in order of preference):

Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State, Maryland
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers, Indiana
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, Rutgers
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Nebraska
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State:Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Rutgers: Penn State, Maryland, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska

A couple thoughts/explanations:
- It is hard not to lump Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin playing each other as a foursome. I tried to switch it up and break out Nebraska and Minnesota to give Nebraska a regular trip to Chicago for recruits and Minnesota a renewed rivalry with Michigan.
- I tried to think of each school's first choice and give it to them. That filled up most of Penn State's, Ohio State's, and Michigan's schedules as I feel Maryland and Rutgers would want PSU most, PSU would want OSU, Michigan would want OSU, and MSU would want Michigan. A lot of people like to peg Michigan State as a fixed opponent for Penn State but that "rivalry" only came around because neither had a top rival that reciprocated that feeling.
- I don't know the western schools and their preferences very well. I tried to go off random lists of rivalries and choose ones with the most games played.

thats a pretty solid list.
10-11-2021 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #10
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion


I know it's Flug - so take it with mounds of salt - but why now? When the Big 12 just reloaded with programs? I get that Kansas would love to be in the B1G but unless the value of basketball is going to dramatically change I don't see it.

And FOX/PAC/B1G want to start another mad scramble right after the SEC had initiated theirs these past few months (and remember that pinky-swear alliance)?

I'll believe it when I see it.
10-23-2021 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #11
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
(10-23-2021 06:22 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

I know it's Flug - so take it with mounds of salt - but why now? When the Big 12 just reloaded with programs? I get that Kansas would love to be in the B1G but unless the value of basketball is going to dramatically change I don't see it.

And FOX/PAC/B1G want to start another mad scramble right after the SEC had initiated theirs these past few months (and remember that pinky-swear alliance)?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Even a better question would be why didn't the B1G tell Texas bring OU and ANY, and I mean ANY other 2 schools in the region you need for partners? I don't care whether its TT, TCU, Arky or UH.

I would think the B1G would have been smart enough to do this already but I see no evidence the B1G communicated this to UT. So it would make sense to add TCU/UH or KU with one of those schools now but they wouldn't have allowed UT to bring any other 2 besides OU to make it work?

I do believe this is what the B1G should have done because the state of Texas with the UT/OU rivalry was the big prize left not just for tv but also recruiting and now thats a mistake the B1G never can undo.
11-15-2021 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #12
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
(11-15-2021 02:47 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(10-23-2021 06:22 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

I know it's Flug - so take it with mounds of salt - but why now? When the Big 12 just reloaded with programs? I get that Kansas would love to be in the B1G but unless the value of basketball is going to dramatically change I don't see it.

And FOX/PAC/B1G want to start another mad scramble right after the SEC had initiated theirs these past few months (and remember that pinky-swear alliance)?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Even a better question would be why didn't the B1G tell Texas bring OU and ANY, and I mean ANY other 2 schools in the region you need for partners? I don't care whether its TT, TCU, Arky or UH.

I would think the B1G would have been smart enough to do this already but I see no evidence the B1G communicated this to UT. So it would make sense to add TCU/UH or KU with one of those schools now but they wouldn't have allowed UT to bring any other 2 besides OU to make it work?

I do believe this is what the B1G should have done because the state of Texas with the UT/OU rivalry was the big prize left not just for tv but also recruiting and now thats a mistake the B1G never can undo.

If the Big Ten offered that deal to Texas/Oklahoma (you two plus two), I still expect they would have picked the SEC. If literally any non-Big Ten school were an option, would it be fair to say Texas and Oklahoma would choose Texas A&M as one? That would be their first choice, I'm sure. They aren't leaving the SEC.

Maybe another way is what could the Big Ten offer that would compare to Texas A&M, Arkansas, and LSU on a regular basis? Does Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma State compare? Not to UT and OU. Now they severely handicapped their in-state rivals (except Texas A&M) while joining a conference they will make even more money in, playing against even better brands, with better media attention, in highly concentrated recruiting grounds. Oklahoma can even reunite with Missouri, even if it isn't a big deal on the rival scale relative to others.

Notre Dame is the whale the Big Ten needs to concentrate on if they want a grand slam.
11-15-2021 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,158
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 440
I Root For: tOSU/UNL/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #13
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
(11-15-2021 10:27 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(11-15-2021 02:47 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(10-23-2021 06:22 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

I know it's Flug - so take it with mounds of salt - but why now? When the Big 12 just reloaded with programs? I get that Kansas would love to be in the B1G but unless the value of basketball is going to dramatically change I don't see it.

And FOX/PAC/B1G want to start another mad scramble right after the SEC had initiated theirs these past few months (and remember that pinky-swear alliance)?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Even a better question would be why didn't the B1G tell Texas bring OU and ANY, and I mean ANY other 2 schools in the region you need for partners? I don't care whether its TT, TCU, Arky or UH.

I would think the B1G would have been smart enough to do this already but I see no evidence the B1G communicated this to UT. So it would make sense to add TCU/UH or KU with one of those schools now but they wouldn't have allowed UT to bring any other 2 besides OU to make it work?

I do believe this is what the B1G should have done because the state of Texas with the UT/OU rivalry was the big prize left not just for tv but also recruiting and now thats a mistake the B1G never can undo.

If the Big Ten offered that deal to Texas/Oklahoma (you two plus two), I still expect they would have picked the SEC. If literally any non-Big Ten school were an option, would it be fair to say Texas and Oklahoma would choose Texas A&M as one? That would be their first choice, I'm sure. They aren't leaving the SEC.

Maybe another way is what could the Big Ten offer that would compare to Texas A&M, Arkansas, and LSU on a regular basis? Does Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma State compare? Not to UT and OU. Now they severely handicapped their in-state rivals (except Texas A&M) while joining a conference they will make even more money in, playing against even better brands, with better media attention, in highly concentrated recruiting grounds. Oklahoma can even reunite with Missouri, even if it isn't a big deal on the rival scale relative to others.

Notre Dame is the whale the Big Ten needs to concentrate on if they want a grand slam.
Add Colorado, Arizona, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, UNC, Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, VT, Kansas and NC State. Call this the AFC, the SEC adds a few more schools and call it the NFC and let's call it a day.
11-16-2021 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,158
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 440
I Root For: tOSU/UNL/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #14
RE: @flugempire tweets on possible monetization of pod semi-finals and B1G expansion
The Dude of Minnesota is a fool and full of crap. I will say, it has been waaaaaay too quiet lately. It feels like something big is going on...right? There Is just a weird feel to all of this right now.
11-16-2021 03:56 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.