Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
Author Message
JDTulane Offline
Sazeracs and Retirement
*

Posts: 11,780
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 420
I Root For: Peace
Location:
Post: #21
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
Cowen is no clown. He misspoke. Is he the most athletics friendly prez? No. But he has done a tremendous amount of good for Tulane post Katrina
04-02-2012 01:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,059
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1018
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #22
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-01-2012 11:52 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  As much as he might dislike the BCS. It has given schools like Utah,TCU, Boise and Hawaii opportunities to play in big games. Those bowls were closed to those schools in the past. As for his Big East comment, well what can you expect from a CUSA school that has been left behind.

I love this myth. It always seems to be pushed by those who really don't remember what the old system was like and by those who have benefited by the BCS being formed. I wouldn't expect you to understand, as your school didn't even play FBS football until the BCS came into existence. Everyone wants to point at the bowl access and neglects the real issue, the financial and perception gap the BCS created. The perception gap is the big one. It's created the perception, especially to recruits, that all non-AQ schools are lesser FB programs than AQ schools. Doesn't really matter if the AQ school has been a dog forever and the non-AQ school has a lot of tradition, better fan base, better facilities, dominates the overall series, or anything else. Why would Duke be a more desirable place to go play football over ECU? Duke puts less players in the league, hasn't made a bowl game in almost 20 years, plays in one of the worst football stadiums I have ever been in, in front of 20k fans or less at times, and yet we have to deal with the stigma that we are a lesser football program than them, because they are in the "club" and we aren't.
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2012 07:40 AM by b0ndsj0ns.)
04-02-2012 06:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ring of Black Offline
Official Person to Blame
*

Posts: 28,421
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 722
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: Wichita, KS
Post: #23
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 01:11 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Cowen is no clown. He misspoke. Is he the most athletics friendly prez? No. But he has done a tremendous amount of good for Tulane post Katrina

That's good to hear JD 04-bow
04-02-2012 07:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #24
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-01-2012 03:29 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  
(04-01-2012 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-01-2012 11:52 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  As much as he might dislike the BCS. It has given schools like Utah,TCU, Boise and Hawaii opportunities to play in big games. Those bowls were closed to those schools in the past. As for his Big East comment, well what can you expect from a CUSA school that has been left behind.

Yes, the biggest beneficiaries of the BCS have been the non-AQ schools (at least since the reforms of 2004) and also the Big East.

The BCS has been far more 'inclusive' than anything that ever preceded it, at least since the NCAA lost control of football TV in 1984.

Say that to a Boise St fan and get ready to duck. 04-chairshot

Are you kidding? How many BCS-level bowls did Boise ever go to before 2004? How many since?

The BCS has been a God-Send for Boise.
04-02-2012 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #25
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 06:31 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(04-01-2012 11:52 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  As much as he might dislike the BCS. It has given schools like Utah,TCU, Boise and Hawaii opportunities to play in big games. Those bowls were closed to those schools in the past. As for his Big East comment, well what can you expect from a CUSA school that has been left behind.

I love this myth. It always seems to be pushed by those who really don't remember what the old system was like and by those who have benefited by the BCS being formed. I wouldn't expect you to understand, as your school didn't even play FBS football until the BCS came into existence. Everyone wants to point at the bowl access and neglects the real issue, the financial and perception gap the BCS created. The perception gap is the big one. It's created the perception, especially to recruits, that all non-AQ schools are lesser FB programs than AQ schools. Doesn't really matter if the AQ school has been a dog forever and the non-AQ school has a lot of tradition, better fan base, better facilities, dominates the overall series, or anything else. Why would Duke be a more desirable place to go play football over ECU? Duke puts less players in the league, hasn't made a bowl game in almost 20 years, plays in one of the worst football stadiums I have ever been in, in front of 20k fans or less at times, and yet we have to deal with the stigma that we are a lesser football program than them, because they are in the "club" and we aren't.

It's no myth: The BCS has obviously improved access to the big bowls for the non-AQ schools far more than they used to have.

As for Duke, seems to me that they don't attract any more talent than does ECU, so it seems like your claim that the BCS/AQ label has hurt recruiting for those not labeled AQ doesn't hold much water.
04-02-2012 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,059
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1018
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #26
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-02-2012 06:31 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(04-01-2012 11:52 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  As much as he might dislike the BCS. It has given schools like Utah,TCU, Boise and Hawaii opportunities to play in big games. Those bowls were closed to those schools in the past. As for his Big East comment, well what can you expect from a CUSA school that has been left behind.

I love this myth. It always seems to be pushed by those who really don't remember what the old system was like and by those who have benefited by the BCS being formed. I wouldn't expect you to understand, as your school didn't even play FBS football until the BCS came into existence. Everyone wants to point at the bowl access and neglects the real issue, the financial and perception gap the BCS created. The perception gap is the big one. It's created the perception, especially to recruits, that all non-AQ schools are lesser FB programs than AQ schools. Doesn't really matter if the AQ school has been a dog forever and the non-AQ school has a lot of tradition, better fan base, better facilities, dominates the overall series, or anything else. Why would Duke be a more desirable place to go play football over ECU? Duke puts less players in the league, hasn't made a bowl game in almost 20 years, plays in one of the worst football stadiums I have ever been in, in front of 20k fans or less at times, and yet we have to deal with the stigma that we are a lesser football program than them, because they are in the "club" and we aren't.

It's no myth: The BCS has obviously improved access to the big bowls for the non-AQ schools far more than they used to have.

As for Duke, seems to me that they don't attract any more talent than does ECU, so it seems like your claim that the BCS/AQ label has hurt recruiting for those not labeled AQ doesn't hold much water.

See that's the spin they want non-AQ schools and fans to believe, that we are in a better position than we were before because of the token access they allow to potentially 1 non-AQ schools a year (and even that isn't guaranteed). That's the straw man, the "access" it has given us, hoping that we ignore the stigma it's created that all of us non-AQ/mid major/whatever term they want to us are lesser than any AQ school. Just because Duke doesn't do anything doesn't mean that since the advent of the BCS we pretty much can't beat them for recruits on any kind of consistent basis. We can't get very many high level recruits to even visit, because of the perception that we are a lesser school. The ones that do are shocked at what we have, because they have been fed the myth that non-AQ schools are a bunch of small, podunk schools that aren't supported and don't have tradition or top level facilities.
04-02-2012 09:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,409
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 265
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #27
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 06:31 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Why would Duke be a more desirable place to go play football over ECU? Duke puts less players in the league, hasn't made a bowl game in almost 20 years, plays in one of the worst football stadiums I have ever been in...

There are plenty of stadiums worse than at Duke.
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2012 09:23 AM by DFW HOYA.)
04-02-2012 09:22 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,059
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1018
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #28
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 09:22 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  
(04-02-2012 06:31 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Why would Duke be a more desirable place to go play football over ECU? Duke puts less players in the league, hasn't made a bowl game in almost 20 years, plays in one of the worst football stadiums I have ever been in...

There are plenty of stadiums worse than at Duke.

Plenty is a stretch. A few sure, but that place is a dump. Outside of Legion Field where have you been that's worse that houses supposed "big time" football?
04-02-2012 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,409
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 265
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #29
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 09:24 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Plenty is a stretch. A few sure, but that place is a dump. Outside of Legion Field where have you been that's worse that houses supposed "big time" football?

Baylor
TCU (prior to renovation)
Houston (prior to renovation)

Haven't been to Memphis or Washington State, but these often show up in "worst" lists, no matter if you define this as "big time" or not.

Then again, if you want to talk about awful stadiums in I-AA, I've got a nomination for you.
04-02-2012 09:42 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #30
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 09:13 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(04-02-2012 08:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-02-2012 06:31 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(04-01-2012 11:52 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  As much as he might dislike the BCS. It has given schools like Utah,TCU, Boise and Hawaii opportunities to play in big games. Those bowls were closed to those schools in the past. As for his Big East comment, well what can you expect from a CUSA school that has been left behind.

I love this myth. It always seems to be pushed by those who really don't remember what the old system was like and by those who have benefited by the BCS being formed. I wouldn't expect you to understand, as your school didn't even play FBS football until the BCS came into existence. Everyone wants to point at the bowl access and neglects the real issue, the financial and perception gap the BCS created. The perception gap is the big one. It's created the perception, especially to recruits, that all non-AQ schools are lesser FB programs than AQ schools. Doesn't really matter if the AQ school has been a dog forever and the non-AQ school has a lot of tradition, better fan base, better facilities, dominates the overall series, or anything else. Why would Duke be a more desirable place to go play football over ECU? Duke puts less players in the league, hasn't made a bowl game in almost 20 years, plays in one of the worst football stadiums I have ever been in, in front of 20k fans or less at times, and yet we have to deal with the stigma that we are a lesser football program than them, because they are in the "club" and we aren't.

It's no myth: The BCS has obviously improved access to the big bowls for the non-AQ schools far more than they used to have.

As for Duke, seems to me that they don't attract any more talent than does ECU, so it seems like your claim that the BCS/AQ label has hurt recruiting for those not labeled AQ doesn't hold much water.

See that's the spin they want non-AQ schools and fans to believe, that we are in a better position than we were before because of the token access they allow to potentially 1 non-AQ schools a year (and even that isn't guaranteed). That's the straw man, the "access" it has given us, hoping that we ignore the stigma it's created that all of us non-AQ/mid major/whatever term they want to us are lesser than any AQ school. Just because Duke doesn't do anything doesn't mean that since the advent of the BCS we pretty much can't beat them for recruits on any kind of consistent basis. We can't get very many high level recruits to even visit, because of the perception that we are a lesser school. The ones that do are shocked at what we have, because they have been fed the myth that non-AQ schools are a bunch of small, podunk schools that aren't supported and don't have tradition or top level facilities.

WTF? First, the access isn't "token", it's REAL. How many schools from smaller conferences made BCS bowls before the 2003 BCS reforms? Almost none.

Second, if Duke has suddenly been getting all these great recruits because of their AQ label, how come they suck as bad as they always have? Your argument doesn't seem to have facts behind it.

Fact is, ECU was considered "small time" long before the BCS and AQ labels were invented. Those labels reflect the reality of who is big and who is small time, they didn't create that reality.
04-02-2012 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Topkat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,666
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: TheCats
Location:
Post: #31
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 06:31 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(04-01-2012 11:52 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  As much as he might dislike the BCS. It has given schools like Utah,TCU, Boise and Hawaii opportunities to play in big games. Those bowls were closed to those schools in the past. As for his Big East comment, well what can you expect from a CUSA school that has been left behind.

I love this myth. It always seems to be pushed by those who really don't remember what the old system was like and by those who have benefited by the BCS being formed. I wouldn't expect you to understand, as your school didn't even play FBS football until the BCS came into existence. Everyone wants to point at the bowl access and neglects the real issue, the financial and perception gap the BCS created. The perception gap is the big one. It's created the perception, especially to recruits, that all non-AQ schools are lesser FB programs than AQ schools. Doesn't really matter if the AQ school has been a dog forever and the non-AQ school has a lot of tradition, better fan base, better facilities, dominates the overall series, or anything else. Why would Duke be a more desirable place to go play football over ECU? Duke puts less players in the league, hasn't made a bowl game in almost 20 years, plays in one of the worst football stadiums I have ever been in, in front of 20k fans or less at times, and yet we have to deal with the stigma that we are a lesser football program than them, because they are in the "club" and we aren't.

Maybe you coud explain what the "old system" was like?
04-02-2012 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,409
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 265
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #32
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
Those who benefited by the BCS: SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, Big 12, ACC, Big East.

Those who benefited by the old system: Most everyone else
04-02-2012 11:13 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Topkat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,666
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: TheCats
Location:
Post: #33
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
I love one line blanket statements.
04-02-2012 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #34
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
With Memphis, Central Florida, Houston and SMU all leaving for the Big East, CUSA has pretty much been gutted accept for Southern Miss and East Carolina. 07-coffee3
04-02-2012 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #35
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 11:13 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Those who benefited by the BCS: SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, Big 12, ACC, Big East.

Those who benefited by the old system: Most everyone else

Actually, in terms of major bowl access, the B1G, SEC, PAC, and B12 did not benefit from the BCS any more than they did from the prior system, because before the BCS (and Bowl Alliance, and Bowl Coalition) those conferences had "AQ" tie-ins with major bowls anyway.

The beneficiaries were the ACC (got an Orange Bowl tie-in they never had before) and especially the Big East, since Big East teams almost never made BCS bowls previously.

The reason the ACC and Big East were given seats at the AQ table was because they added major Florida powers that could not be ignored- the ACC with FSU, and the Big East with Miami. Miami and FSU got the ACC and Big East seats at the AQ table.

And since 2004, while the ACC has been secure with FSU and Miami, the post-2004 Big East, both the 2004-2011 versions and now the New Big East, would NEVER have been given AQ status. That was purely because of Miami. We have thus been the huge beneficiary of the BCS.

And since 2004, non-AQs have benefited as well, since the reforms of that year gave the non-AQs an easier path to get in, and they have done so.
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2012 12:11 PM by quo vadis.)
04-02-2012 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BigEastHomer Offline
Banned

Posts: 11,730
Joined: Oct 2011
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #36
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 11:35 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  With Memphis, Central Florida, Houston and SMU all leaving for the Big East, CUSA has pretty much been gutted accept for Southern Miss and East Carolina. 07-coffee3

In regards to markets and tradition, the bones have been picked dry. Outside of UTEPs Glory Road team of 1966, the historical relevance within the league has left.
04-02-2012 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Topkat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,666
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: TheCats
Location:
Post: #37
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 11:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-02-2012 11:13 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Those who benefited by the BCS: SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, Big 12, ACC, Big East.

Those who benefited by the old system: Most everyone else

Actually, in terms of major bowl access, the B1G, SEC, PAC, and B12 did not benefit from the BCS any more than they did from the prior system, because before the BCS (and Bowl Alliance, and Bowl Coalition) those conferences had "AQ" tie-ins with major bowls anyway.

The beneficiaries were the ACC (got an Orange Bowl tie-in they never had before) and especially the Big East, since Big East teams almost never made BCS bowls previously.

The reason the ACC and Big East were given seats at the AQ table was because they added major Florida powers that could not be ignored- the ACC with FSU, and the Big East with Miami. Miami and FSU got the ACC and Big East seats at the AQ table.

And since 2004, while the ACC has been secure with FSU and Miami, the Big East since 2004 would NEVER have been given AQ status. That was purely because of Miami. We have thus been the huge beneficiary of the BCS.

And since 2004, non-AQs have benefited as well, since the reforms of that year gave the non-AQs an easier path to get in, and they have done so.

I would just add that I believe the BCS has essentially sped up consolidation in college football with those non-AQ schools that proved themselves joining AQ conferences (TCU, Boise, Utah).

Now, if you think doing away with the BCS and AQ's will essentially get you what we have with the basketball tournament selection process, good luck to ya. College football never was, will never be.
04-02-2012 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #38
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 11:56 AM)Topkat Wrote:  Now, if you think doing away with the BCS and AQ's will essentially get you what we have with the basketball tournament selection process, good luck to ya. College football never was, will never be.

The NCAA tournament money is divided almost 50-50 between the AQ and non-AQ conferences. In contrast, the AQ conferences get between 88% and 94% of the BCS money.

So yes, ain't no way the SEC, B1G, etc. are going to shift to a system that gives non-AQ conferences more money.

In fact, I'd bet the main reason the BCS will be going away is because the B1G and SEC are tired of sharing access to major bowls on an equal basis with the Big East. The Big East is the conference that will lose the most when AQ goes away.
04-02-2012 12:14 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: #39
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 12:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-02-2012 11:56 AM)Topkat Wrote:  Now, if you think doing away with the BCS and AQ's will essentially get you what we have with the basketball tournament selection process, good luck to ya. College football never was, will never be.

The NCAA tournament money is divided almost 50-50 between the AQ and non-AQ conferences. In contrast, the AQ conferences get between 88% and 94% of the BCS money.

So yes, ain't no way the SEC, B1G, etc. are going to shift to a system that gives non-AQ conferences more money.

In fact, I'd bet the main reason the BCS will be going away is because the B1G and SEC are tired of sharing access to major bowls on an equal basis with the Big East. The Big East is the conference that will lose the most when AQ goes away.

Not with ND in their corner. Read Frank the Tanks blog about the BCS meetings. Delany said multiple times about the "seven founders" when talking about the discussions.

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/0...cs-system/

If they add a fifth BCS bowl (Cotton?) it could very well be a Big East/Notre Dame tie in.
04-02-2012 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,240
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #40
RE: OT: C-USA Board Chair Scott Cowen disses BCS again
(04-02-2012 12:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-02-2012 11:56 AM)Topkat Wrote:  Now, if you think doing away with the BCS and AQ's will essentially get you what we have with the basketball tournament selection process, good luck to ya. College football never was, will never be.

The NCAA tournament money is divided almost 50-50 between the AQ and non-AQ conferences. In contrast, the AQ conferences get between 88% and 94% of the BCS money.

So yes, ain't no way the SEC, B1G, etc. are going to shift to a system that gives non-AQ conferences more money.

In fact, I'd bet the main reason the BCS will be going away is because the B1G and SEC are tired of sharing access to major bowls on an equal basis with the Big East. The Big East is the conference that will lose the most when AQ goes away.

Not even close for ncaa tournament money 50/50....
Big East this year gets 29.4 million dollars...
bottom 16 conferences combined get 29.9 million dollars.

AQ combined gets 122 million dollars
all others get 73.8 million

that's hardly 50/50.

That split will I believe increase soon. 2006 tourney AQ had 71 units. non AQ had 54 units. That gap of 17 by far the smallest in the 2006-2012 period. It's replaced by 2012 tourney, AQ 81 units, non AQ 51 units. To put in perspective- next year-
AQ 124.5 million
non AQ 73.8 million
04-02-2012 01:16 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.