Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
Author Message
3BNole Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 389
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Florida State
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Post: #1
Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
Trying to stay as realistic as possible, something I've been wondering about lately is the feasibility of the current independents forming a new football-only conference along w/ a couple of FBS-hopefuls. I wonder if Idaho, NM State, and UMASS would consider forming a new conference w/ teams like Liberty, Eastern Kentucky, and maybe even Wichita State (if they start football). Such a conference would have 2 very obvious pitfalls: it would widespread and have very little marketability in terms of potential for tv revenue, but it would serve to accomplish 3 very large goals of those institutions:

1. For Idaho, NMSU, and UMASS and it would help ease scheduling conflicts by guaranteeing 4-5 conference games a year, 2-3 of which would be at home and could be late season.

2. For the programs moving up it would give them a conference home, which is a current requirement of the NCAA for institutions looking to make the jump.

3. For all programs in the conference, it would provide the opportunity to compete against teams at a similar level of strength for the chance to win a conference championship. In turn it would also make a winning or break-even season more likely, which would bring with it the potential to play in a bowl game as a replacement team for bowls unable to fill their slots.

Theoretically, other potential members would include schools like Jacksonville State and JMU, but I couldn't see either moving up without an invite from the SBC or MAC/CUSA/AAC respectively. Liberty for sure would jump at any opportunity to wade into the FBS and I think EKU would as well, given how much the idea has grown there. Whether Wichita State would want to start out in such a conference is a little more uncertain, but I could see how they might entertain the idea, at least as a stopover until the next major shakeup. The big problem that all these schools have, from Idaho to UMASS to EKU, is that the FBS landscape has stabilized to the point that it may truly be quite some time until there is big enough of a shift to open a new landing spot. Unlike recent years where even the smallest of moves could make huge waves, the conferences have enlarged to the point that losing a team or two no longer means that they all have to scramble for new members.

Such a conference wouldn't be about bringing in the bucks, but rather meeting the various unique needs and goals of its individual members.

What do you all think?
02-13-2016 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
You can't have a FBS football only conference and you need 8 existing FBS schools to form an FBS conference. Yeah ou've got multiple ncaa issues.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2016 05:47 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-13-2016 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,337
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #3
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You can't have a FBS football only conference and you need 8 existing FBS schools to form an FBS conference.n you've got multiple ncaa issues.

Unless, of course, the NCAA agreed to change its rules. I could also see Army playing in such a league. And, if the AAC were to be raided and lost some of its eastern schools, Navy might consider it as well. For both service academies, having a far flung football only conference might be a plus instead of a negative because of the national nature of their student body.

The NCAA rules, as far as I know, were not handed down on stone tablets. What NCAA members might object to such a rule change? What would the fallout be if it were to happen?
02-13-2016 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #4
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
Even if the NCAA allowed it....

Any conference created would be extremely unstable.

First, this conference will be of a caliber far below the Sun Belt. It would also be far flung for many schools.

-Liberty would sign up. UMass might too.
-Barring an ejection from the Sun Belt, neither NMSU nor Idaho would trade FBS only in the Belt for FBS only in the Conference of Misfit Toys.
-Jacksonville State and EKU would express interest. I doubt they really want to join up with a 100 percent move up conference, but for sake of argument say that they're onboard
-If JMU is turning down the Belt, they're turning down this conference too. Also, the CAA would probably toss them from the conference if they tried to move their football anywhere.
- I don't see WSU taking this either, even as a football only
- Lamar might take a flyer on this.
- NDSU wouldn't take this either, but lets assume they do.

Ok, so you've got a FBS conference of UMass, Liberty, Jacksonville State, Lamar, EKU, and NDSU. And that's the best case scenario. I actually don't think that even if the NCAA allowed it, that anyone other than UMass and Liberty would sign up.
02-13-2016 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You can't have a FBS football only conference and you need 8 existing FBS schools to form an FBS conference.n you've got multiple ncaa issues.

Unless, of course, the NCAA agreed to change its rules. I could also see Army playing in such a league. And, if the AAC were to be raided and lost some of its eastern schools, Navy might consider it as well. For both service academies, having a far flung football only conference might be a plus instead of a negative because of the national nature of their student body.

The NCAA rules, as far as I know, were not handed down on stone tablets. What NCAA members might object to such a rule change? What would the fallout be if it were to happen?

I doubt most FBS members would find it beneficial to the existing membership to make it easier to move up from FCS.
02-13-2016 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
3BNole Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 389
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Florida State
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Post: #6
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You can't have a FBS football only conference and you need 8 existing FBS schools to form an FBS conference.n you've got multiple ncaa issues.

And this perfectly answers it. I figured there was likely some NCAA regulation that prevented it.

That really is unfortunate, as it would be a nice way for all those schools to mutually benefit each other. Of course such a conference wouldn't be founded with the goal of long term stability, it would be more of a temporary construct to serve the ends of each of its members. Odds are that it would quickly dissolve with the next realignment shift, but at least it would give Liberty and EKU a path to the FBS and provide UMASS, NMSU, and Idaho (assuming the latter two get kicked out of the SBC) for a time being.
02-13-2016 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,337
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #7
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You can't have a FBS football only conference and you need 8 existing FBS schools to form an FBS conference.n you've got multiple ncaa issues.

Unless, of course, the NCAA agreed to change its rules. I could also see Army playing in such a league. And, if the AAC were to be raided and lost some of its eastern schools, Navy might consider it as well. For both service academies, having a far flung football only conference might be a plus instead of a negative because of the national nature of their student body.

The NCAA rules, as far as I know, were not handed down on stone tablets. What NCAA members might object to such a rule change? What would the fallout be if it were to happen?

I doubt most FBS members would find it beneficial to the existing membership to make it easier to move up from FCS.

What if the rule change only allowed current FBS programs to move to a football only league? There could be some existing schools that would rather have their non-football programs in a more regional league. Combine those with existing orphans and potential orphans (like NMSU and Idaho, who don't fit in the SBC and don't have a long term commitment from that league) and you might be able to form such a conference.

What if the change also limited football only conferences to 8 members to prevent a stampede from the SBC and CUSA?
02-13-2016 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #8
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 02:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You can't have a FBS football only conference and you need 8 existing FBS schools to form an FBS conference.n you've got multiple ncaa issues.

Unless, of course, the NCAA agreed to change its rules. I could also see Army playing in such a league. And, if the AAC were to be raided and lost some of its eastern schools, Navy might consider it as well. For both service academies, having a far flung football only conference might be a plus instead of a negative because of the national nature of their student body.

The NCAA rules, as far as I know, were not handed down on stone tablets. What NCAA members might object to such a rule change? What would the fallout be if it were to happen?

I doubt most FBS members would find it beneficial to the existing membership to make it easier to move up from FCS.

What if the rule change only allowed current FBS programs to move to a football only league? There could be some existing schools that would rather have their non-football programs in a more regional league. Combine those with existing orphans and potential orphans (like NMSU and Idaho, who don't fit in the SBC and don't have a long term commitment from that league) and you might be able to form such a conference.

What if the change also limited football only conferences to 8 members to prevent a stampede from the SBC and CUSA?

There would not be a stampede from the Belt and CUSA in the even of the NCAA changing the rules.

No one, repeat, no one, is going to leave the Belt or CUSA to join a new conference. Not even NMSU or Idaho.

The Belt is already largely a regional league (other than one or less long conference road game in one sport a year). There aren't enough teams out west to provide any reasonable home for NMSU or Idaho that makes more sense than the Belt. CUSA is far flung, but the pretense that they're still in the conference with the legacy of Louisville, TCU, Houston, UCF, etc. is strong for them.
02-13-2016 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 02:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Even if the NCAA allowed it....

Any conference created would be extremely unstable.

First, this conference will be of a caliber far below the Sun Belt. It would also be far flung for many schools.

-Liberty would sign up. UMass might too.
-Barring an ejection from the Sun Belt, neither NMSU nor Idaho would trade FBS only in the Belt for FBS only in the Conference of Misfit Toys.
-Jacksonville State and EKU would express interest. I doubt they really want to join up with a 100 percent move up conference, but for sake of argument say that they're onboard
-If JMU is turning down the Belt, they're turning down this conference too. Also, the CAA would probably toss them from the conference if they tried to move their football anywhere.
- I don't see WSU taking this either, even as a football only
- Lamar might take a flyer on this.
- NDSU wouldn't take this either, but lets assume they do.

Ok, so you've got a FBS conference of UMass, Liberty, Jacksonville State, Lamar, EKU, and NDSU. And that's the best case scenario. I actually don't think that even if the NCAA allowed it, that anyone other than UMass and Liberty would sign up.


Lets say that the WAC could re-start FBS football conference? Lets say Grand Canyon, Utah Valley, Bakersfield State, and UTRGV starts football up? Grand Canyon could play in the University of Phoenix's Stadium. You have 6 schools right there if you include Idaho and New Mexico State are there as well.

I could see a waiver waived to include schools that were former FBS level back in the 1980s.

Football: WAC
Idaho
New Mexico State
Utah Valley
Bakersfield State
UTRGV
Grand Canyon
North Dakota State
West Texas A&M (former FBS school)
Wichita State
Northern Iowa
Lamar
Sam Houston State/SFA/Missouri State/South Dakota State/Illinois State/Azusa Pacific/Colorado State-Pueblo/Northern Colorado all could be #12.


New East Coast Conference formed by U. Mass. and Army.

U. Mass.
Army
James Madison
Stony Brook
Albany
Delaware
Liberty
Towson
Jacksonville State
Youngstown State
Eastern Kentucky
Chattanooga

If Delaware refuse to go? Kennesaw State/Maine/New Hampshire/William & Mary?
This could work out.
02-13-2016 03:11 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: #10
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 02:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  What if the rule change only allowed current FBS programs to move to a football only league? There could be some existing schools that would rather have their non-football programs in a more regional league. Combine those with existing orphans and potential orphans (like NMSU and Idaho, who don't fit in the SBC and don't have a long term commitment from that league) and you might be able to form such a conference.

What if the change also limited football only conferences to 8 members to prevent a stampede from the SBC and CUSA?
Who would vote for it though? No power conference would? No g5 conference would? It does not help any current league? So it would be DOA
02-13-2016 03:28 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,285
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 148
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #11
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
It may be in the mutual interest of the remaining or potential independents to look out for each other.

So call it what you want, the G5 level independents or potential independents should have some sort of scheduling alliance agreement to always play each other.

NMSU, Idaho, UMASS should agree to always play each other. BYU, Hawaii, Army could be included somehow too.

So let's say NMSU, Idaho, UMass, Army, BYU, Hawaii all become independent and sign a scheduling alliance agreement to all play each other every year. BYU, Hawaii, Army always get 3 out of 5 games at home. The others get 2 out of 5 games at home.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2016 03:44 PM by goofus.)
02-13-2016 03:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,337
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #12
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 03:43 PM)goofus Wrote:  It may be in the mutual interest of the remaining or potential independents to look out for each other.

So call it what you want, the G5 level independents or potential independents should have some sort of scheduling alliance agreement to always play each other.

NMSU, Idaho, UMASS should agree to always play each other. BYU, Hawaii, Army could be included somehow too.

So let's say NMSU, Idaho, UMass, Army, BYU, Hawaii all become independent and sign a scheduling alliance agreement to all play each other every year. BYU, Hawaii, Army always get 3 out of 5 games at home. The others get 2 out of 5 games at home.

As I suggested earlier, if the AAC were to be diminished significantly by P5 raids, Navy potentially could be added to that list. Indies always have the option of playing each other, and they don't have to be in a formal conference to do that. Where they are at a disadvantage, though, is that the CFP penalizes them for not being in a conference, even though that may not be the school's choice. G5's that belong to a conference get at least $1 million more from the CFP deal than indies do.
02-13-2016 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,718
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 446
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #13
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 03:43 PM)goofus Wrote:  It may be in the mutual interest of the remaining or potential independents to look out for each other.

So call it what you want, the G5 level independents or potential independents should have some sort of scheduling alliance agreement to always play each other.

NMSU, Idaho, UMASS should agree to always play each other. BYU, Hawaii, Army could be included somehow too.

So let's say NMSU, Idaho, UMass, Army, BYU, Hawaii all become independent and sign a scheduling alliance agreement to all play each other every year. BYU, Hawaii, Army always get 3 out of 5 games at home. The others get 2 out of 5 games at home.

Hawaii has no interest or desire to go independent. Zero, nada, zip. We are currently in an ideal conference situation in the MWC western division with five long-time rivals. We wouldn't trade that for games against NMSU, Idaho and UMass. The downgrade to the home schedule would cost us more in reduced ticket revenue than the $700K in annual travel subsidies we pay the MWC. Our share of CFP money would plunge too. Any realignment proposal that assumes Hawaii would go independent voluntarily is unrealistic.
02-13-2016 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,093
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 506
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 02:41 PM)3BNole Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You can't have a FBS football only conference and you need 8 existing FBS schools to form an FBS conference.n you've got multiple ncaa issues.

And this perfectly answers it. I figured there was likely some NCAA regulation that prevented it.

That really is unfortunate, as it would be a nice way for all those schools to mutually benefit each other. Of course such a conference wouldn't be founded with the goal of long term stability, it would be more of a temporary construct to serve the ends of each of its members. Odds are that it would quickly dissolve with the next realignment shift, but at least it would give Liberty and EKU a path to the FBS and provide UMASS, NMSU, and Idaho (assuming the latter two get kicked out of the SBC) for a time being.

Sorry, but the trajectory HAS to be the other direction...moving non-functional FBS programs to FCS where they belong (or to drop FB altogether)...than to make it easier for programs to move from FCS to FBS.

"Division 1" football is already too watered down. Idaho, NMSU, UMass, EMU...they DON'T BELONG at the "D1"-FBS level. They need to be incentivized...or forced to...relocate to the appropriate level of competition. And that would be good for the FCS level too, which has seen it's stocks depleted over the years.

The ideal number of FBS programs is 100 or lower.
02-13-2016 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cleburneslim Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,551
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 25
I Root For: jax state
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 03:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 02:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  What if the rule change only allowed current FBS programs to move to a football only league? There could be some existing schools that would rather have their non-football programs in a more regional league. Combine those with existing orphans and potential orphans (like NMSU and Idaho, who don't fit in the SBC and don't have a long term commitment from that league) and you might be able to form such a conference.

What if the change also limited football only conferences to 8 members to prevent a stampede from the SBC and CUSA?
Who would vote for it though? No power conference would? No g5 conference would? It does not help any current league? So it would be DOA

why would p5 schools object?
02-13-2016 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.

At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.
02-13-2016 06:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


rokamortis Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,981
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 160
I Root For: Coastal
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.

At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.

Getting 3 more FBS schools to join you will be pretty tough.
02-13-2016 06:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 06:14 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.

At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.

Getting 3 more FBS schools to join you will be pretty tough.

Oh, agreed. I'd much, much rather just stay in the Sun Belt. But if we do get kicked out then finding 3 more schools is easier than 5. We'd still have to do who knows how long in purgatory until the next round of realignment either shakes loose more orphans or gets us a new conference invite.

Awful, but still better than FCS.
02-13-2016 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.

At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.

It takes eight FBS schools to be an FBS conference. It takes seven for a bball autobid.
02-13-2016 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
(02-13-2016 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.

At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.

It takes eight FBS schools to be an FBS conference. It takes seven for a bball autobid.

OK, so why did Idaho's AD say this:

"That (going FBS) is one thing the Big Sky should look at it and Doug Fullerton has talked about that possibility … I think they could … What’s interesting is current NCAA rules say you can form an FBS football league with six members. It doesn’t allow you to form a brand new league, but the possibility exists to form an FBS league under the umbrella of the Big Sky … There is an opportunity awaiting the Big Sky to do something different that I think sustains the future of that league and we’re happy to be a part of that conversation.


Full interview here: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sportslin...belt-vote/
02-13-2016 07:03 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.