Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Final Directors Cup Standings
Author Message
lumberpack4 Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,336
Joined: Jun 2013
I Root For: ACC
Location:
Post: #1
Final Directors Cup Standings
UNC 5
UVa 6
ND 10
FSU 11
Duke 20
NC State 27
Louis 29
VT 35
Syracuse 47
Miami 55
Clemson 57
BC 68
GT 72
WF 90
Pitt 96

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacd...June25.pdf

What is wrong with Pitt?

Stanford was no 1. The bottoms of the B10 were Rutgers at 104, SEC was Ole Miss at 66, P12 was Washington State at 170, and the B12 was K-State at 92.
06-25-2015 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #2
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
Director's Cup counts too many garbage sports for me to care at all.

What's worse, it counts individuals the same as teams (with few exceptions).

Give a point for each SCHOLARSHIP PLAYER and then let's talk...
06-25-2015 04:28 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #3
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 04:06 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  UNC 5
UVa 6
ND 10
FSU 11
Duke 20
NC State 27
Louis 29
VT 35
Syracuse 47
Miami 55
Clemson 57
BC 68
GT 72
WF 90
Pitt 96

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacd...June25.pdf

What is wrong with Pitt?

They simply do not have a good overall athletics program.

Always one of the weaker entries in the Big East as well, at least in the 21st century. I didn't start looking at this until 2003 or so.

Syracuse was almost as bad, but Chancy Nancy and Dr. Gross changed that. One of the good things they did for SU. I think the new Chancellor and AD will keep it up but with much more emphasis on righting the football ship.

Cheers,
Neil
06-25-2015 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #4
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
If you finished lower than GT, fielding the ACC minimum number of sports, and operating out of a bankrupt athletic department ... you've got serious issues. Especially since baseball, volleyball, and women's tennis have fallen off the radar and men's hoops has completely imploded. Men's golf and football are the only legit title chasers GT fields.
06-25-2015 04:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 04:37 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you finished lower than GT, fielding the ACC minimum number of sports, and operating out of a bankrupt athletic department ... you've got serious issues. Especially since baseball, volleyball, and women's tennis have fallen off the radar and men's hoops has completely imploded. Men's golf and football are the only legit title chasers GT fields.

What's the deal with GT. It's a good engineering school, so the alums *have* money, and GT has historically fielded competitive teams, so there *should* be band wagon fans, especially in Atlanta (high pop, and few good pro teams). But, AD revenue is extremely low. What gives? I know UGA is in the state, but other schools are able to do well with nearby major rivals.
06-25-2015 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cavman Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 333
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 20
I Root For: UVa, UofL
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 04:06 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  UNC 5
UVa 6
ND 10
FSU 11
Duke 20
NC State 27
Louis 29
VT 35
Syracuse 47
Miami 55
Clemson 57
BC 68
GT 72
WF 90
Pitt 96

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacd...June25.pdf

What is wrong with Pitt?

Stanford was no 1. The bottoms of the B10 were Rutgers at 104, SEC was Ole Miss at 66, P12 was Washington State at 170, and the B12 was K-State at 92.

The list does not make sense because virginia had 1052 points before winning the baseball championship and according to the scoring structure they should receive 100 points. That would put them barely ahead of UNC in the final standings.
06-25-2015 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #7
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 04:56 PM)cavman Wrote:  The list does not make sense because virginia had 1052 points before winning the baseball championship and according to the scoring structure they should receive 100 points. That would put them barely ahead of UNC in the final standings.

I think it was because the men's baseball points would have been their 21st sport with points. So UVa lost the men's lax points of 25, in order to get the higher points from the men's baseball.

A maximum of 20 sports with points is allowed in this system. So the net gain was actually 75 not 100. It can be confusing.

Cheers,
Neil
06-25-2015 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lumberpack4 Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,336
Joined: Jun 2013
I Root For: ACC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 04:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 04:37 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you finished lower than GT, fielding the ACC minimum number of sports, and operating out of a bankrupt athletic department ... you've got serious issues. Especially since baseball, volleyball, and women's tennis have fallen off the radar and men's hoops has completely imploded. Men's golf and football are the only legit title chasers GT fields.

What's the deal with GT. It's a good engineering school, so the alums *have* money, and GT has historically fielded competitive teams, so there *should* be band wagon fans, especially in Atlanta (high pop, and few good pro teams). But, AD revenue is extremely low. What gives? I know UGA is in the state, but other schools are able to do well with nearby major rivals.

Unless my info is out of date, you need to pass the first semester of calculus to get a degree from GT. If that is the case, that alone is barrier. GT is also a smaller university than most realize and nearly every woman or foreign student they have admitted over the past 30 years is akin to a lost athletic donor. Women just don't make athletic donations like men, no do people not brought up on US Football or basketball.
06-25-2015 06:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #9
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 04:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 04:37 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you finished lower than GT, fielding the ACC minimum number of sports, and operating out of a bankrupt athletic department ... you've got serious issues. Especially since baseball, volleyball, and women's tennis have fallen off the radar and men's hoops has completely imploded. Men's golf and football are the only legit title chasers GT fields.

What's the deal with GT. It's a good engineering school, so the alums *have* money, and GT has historically fielded competitive teams, so there *should* be band wagon fans, especially in Atlanta (high pop, and few good pro teams). But, AD revenue is extremely low. What gives? I know UGA is in the state, but other schools are able to do well with nearby major rivals.

Atlanta is a transient city. The fans bring their allegiances with them. GT also exports many of its alumni (engineers are rarely highly concentrated). GT does well (outdraws Braves/etc) given the situation.

Also, GT hasn't had a great AD since Homer Rice left. Dave Braine (from VT) was an unmitigated disaster. He hired Chan and gave P*** H***** a permanent auto-renewing auto-raising contract. Radakovich was respectable, but didn't really turn finances around and botched a NCAA investigation so bad it went from wrist slap to probation. And the current guy came FROM ****ING XAVIER AND HAS NO FOOTBALL EXPERIENCE LET ALONE BIG TIME AD EXPERIENCE. Louisville has been riding a raging Jurich boner for the last many years and look at the difference. A man like Jurich at GT could clean up. The problem is getting somebody like that to try to field a top level AD while putting up with much higher than usual academic hurdles.


So there ya are.
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2015 06:34 PM by georgia_tech_swagger.)
06-25-2015 06:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 06:21 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 04:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 04:37 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you finished lower than GT, fielding the ACC minimum number of sports, and operating out of a bankrupt athletic department ... you've got serious issues. Especially since baseball, volleyball, and women's tennis have fallen off the radar and men's hoops has completely imploded. Men's golf and football are the only legit title chasers GT fields.

What's the deal with GT. It's a good engineering school, so the alums *have* money, and GT has historically fielded competitive teams, so there *should* be band wagon fans, especially in Atlanta (high pop, and few good pro teams). But, AD revenue is extremely low. What gives? I know UGA is in the state, but other schools are able to do well with nearby major rivals.

Unless my info is out of date, you need to pass the first semester of calculus to get a degree from GT. If that is the case, that alone is barrier. GT is also a smaller university than most realize and nearly every woman or foreign student they have admitted over the past 30 years is akin to a lost athletic donor. Women just don't make athletic donations like men, no do people not brought up on US Football or basketball.

The calc is irrelevant. It impacts on the field success, sure. However, GT has had plenty of success regardless. Based on their actual historical level of success, they should be better supported.

I'll compare the rest against Syracuse, which runs a relatively high revenue AD.

The women point is also over-blown. I'd be willing to bet that GT has far fewer women than most universities (as a percentage of the total population - GT is 67% male, SU is 45% male).
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...-tech-1569
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...rsity-2882

The size is also somewhere between wrong and misleading. As per wikipedia, GT is 23k students with ~14.5k undergrads. That's ~2k bigger than Syracuse on the whole with 500 fewer undergrads (GT is more graduate student-centric).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_In...Technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracuse_University

GT also has a (very slightly) higher percentage of American students. SU is "about 10%," whereas GT is "approx. 9%."
http://www.admission.gatech.edu/apply/in...l-freshman
http://www.syr.edu/currentstudents/inter...dents.html

Going by your metrics, GT should have significantly more money than Syracuse, but that isn't the case. What gives?
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2015 06:37 PM by nzmorange.)
06-25-2015 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #11
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 06:36 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Going by your metrics, GT should have significantly more money than Syracuse, but that isn't the case. What gives?

Ya probably were typin your post by the time I had my explanation in.
06-25-2015 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #12
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
Oh -- and lastly engineers are notoriously fickle with sports. We love to analyze them in depth. If we find the issue to be with administration -- we LOVE to close up the purse strings to force their hand. If it is going well though, that's when the money starts a flowin'. For example ... when the GTAA finally fired Chan Gailey I believe they had a record one day haul at the Alexander-Tharpe Fund. We reward good behavior and hide the checkbook quickly in the face of incompetence. We demand the athletic programs be run as well as we run our datacenters and manufacturing facilities.
06-25-2015 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 06:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 04:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 04:37 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you finished lower than GT, fielding the ACC minimum number of sports, and operating out of a bankrupt athletic department ... you've got serious issues. Especially since baseball, volleyball, and women's tennis have fallen off the radar and men's hoops has completely imploded. Men's golf and football are the only legit title chasers GT fields.

What's the deal with GT. It's a good engineering school, so the alums *have* money, and GT has historically fielded competitive teams, so there *should* be band wagon fans, especially in Atlanta (high pop, and few good pro teams). But, AD revenue is extremely low. What gives? I know UGA is in the state, but other schools are able to do well with nearby major rivals.

Atlanta is a transient city. The fans bring their allegiances with them. GT also exports many of its alumni (engineers are rarely highly concentrated). GT does well (outdraws Braves/etc) given the situation.

Also, GT hasn't had a great AD since Homer Rice left. Dave Braine (from VT) was an unmitigated disaster. He hired Chan and gave P*** H***** a permanent auto-renewing auto-raising contract. Radakovich was respectable, but didn't really turn finances around and botched a NCAA investigation so bad it went from wrist slap to probation. And the current guy came FROM ****ING XAVIER AND HAS NO FOOTBALL EXPERIENCE LET ALONE BIG TIME AD EXPERIENCE. Louisville has been riding a raging Jurich boner for the last many years and look at the difference. A man like Jurich at GT could clean up. The problem is getting somebody like that to try to field a top level AD while putting up with much higher than usual academic hurdles.


So there ya are.

I don't buy all of this argument either. Atlanta being a transient city sounds like it might have something to it. The rest doesn't.

The fact that GT chronically underachieves and doesn't accomplish what it *could* do (i.e. be superb) with the right academics and AD doesn't change the fact that GT has actually done well in sports that matter.

There are two big revenue sports, football and basketball, and then everything else just exists and tried to break even. GT football is between really good (i.e. last year) and mediocre (i.e. the year before last year), and it has been that way for a while. GT basketball is currently pretty bad, but it wasn't *that* long ago that GT fielded a legit team. Heck, GT played in the '04 title game.

Being pretty good at football and inconsistent at basketball shouldn't translate into terrible revenue with few fans.

That analysis brings me back to my original question and my second statement. Is Atlanta really *that* transient?
06-25-2015 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 06:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Oh -- and lastly engineers are notoriously fickle with sports. We love to analyze them in depth. If we find the issue to be with administration -- we LOVE to close up the purse strings to force their hand. If it is going well though, that's when the money starts a flowin'. For example ... when the GTAA finally fired Chan Gailey I believe they had a record one day haul at the Alexander-Tharpe Fund. We reward good behavior and hide the checkbook quickly in the face of incompetence. We demand the athletic programs be run as well as we run our datacenters and manufacturing facilities.

I guess. Theoretically, this would create a strong incentive for the school to pour money into the AD, given that the RoI for success would be astronomical and there is a strong correlation (possibly causal relationship) between funding an AD and success on the field. Why hasn't that happened?

Does UGA really have that much power within the GT administration?
06-25-2015 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #15
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 06:48 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Is Atlanta really *that* transient?

Definitely.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/...es-in.html

Definitely in the 10 in the country, maybe Top 5. Not as bad as I imagine Los Angeles, Vegas, and Phoenix to be. But pretty danged bad.
06-25-2015 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #16
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 06:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Does UGA really have that much power within the GT administration?

Huh?

I can say UGAg controls the Georgia Board of Regents. Which is why UGAg got a brand new engineering school (despite there already being a second BoR controlled engineering school at Georgia Southern), but when GT flirts with liberal arts or in particular a law school all HELL breaks loose. Wouldn't want to upset that UGAg apple cart!
06-25-2015 06:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 06:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 06:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Does UGA really have that much power within the GT administration?

Huh?

I can say UGAg controls the Georgia Board of Regents. Which is why UGAg got a brand new engineering school (despite there already being a second BoR controlled engineering school at Georgia Southern), but when GT flirts with liberal arts or in particular a law school all HELL breaks loose. Wouldn't want to upset that UGAg apple cart!

So does that say trickle down into athletics, and if so, to what extent?
06-25-2015 07:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #18
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 07:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 06:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 06:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Does UGA really have that much power within the GT administration?

Huh?

I can say UGAg controls the Georgia Board of Regents. Which is why UGAg got a brand new engineering school (despite there already being a second BoR controlled engineering school at Georgia Southern), but when GT flirts with liberal arts or in particular a law school all HELL breaks loose. Wouldn't want to upset that UGAg apple cart!

So does that say trickle down into athletics, and if so, to what extent?

Kinda. The GABOR prefers to keep GT in its existing academic box to prevent them from competing athletically through greatly restricted degree offerings. But they REALLLLLLY want to make sure GT never gets a law school so that their influence in government doesn't increase. Because that's a threat that rises above and beyond even the GABOR.
06-25-2015 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 07:04 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 07:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 06:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 06:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Does UGA really have that much power within the GT administration?

Huh?

I can say UGAg controls the Georgia Board of Regents. Which is why UGAg got a brand new engineering school (despite there already being a second BoR controlled engineering school at Georgia Southern), but when GT flirts with liberal arts or in particular a law school all HELL breaks loose. Wouldn't want to upset that UGAg apple cart!

So does that say trickle down into athletics, and if so, to what extent?

Kinda. The GABOR prefers to keep GT in its existing academic box to prevent them from competing athletically through greatly restricted degree offerings. But they REALLLLLLY want to make sure GT never gets a law school so that their influence in government doesn't increase. Because that's a threat that rises above and beyond even the GABOR.

I get the law school thing, and I get the Calc argument as well. My question is more along the lines of finance.

If your argument that engineers reward success significantly more than most people, then I would imagine that GT would be under extreme pressure to win.

Since there is a correlation (if not causal relationship) between spending and winning, it seems like GT would have a crazy high RoI on money spent.

As such, I would expect GT to find a way to spend the money necessary to win, even if it meant borrowing money from the university. However, that clearly isn't happening. Therefore, at least 1 of 3 things is going on. 1. UGA is using its weight in the GABOR to keep GT AD from borrowing money, 2. your argument is wrong, or 3. there is some other factor at work that I don't see.

I can see UGA using it's influence to keep the university from subsidizing athletics, which was really the topic of my needlessly cryptic question. Is that what's happening?
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2015 07:17 PM by nzmorange.)
06-25-2015 07:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #20
RE: Final Directors Cup Standings
(06-25-2015 07:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I get the law school thing, and I get the Calc argument as well. My question is more along the lines of finance.

If your argument that engineers reward success significantly more than most people, then I would imagine that GT would be under extreme pressure to win.

Since there is a correlation (if not causal relationship) between spending and winning, it seems like GT would have a crazy high RoI on money spent.

As such, I would expect GT to find a way to spend the money necessary to win, even if it meant borrowing money from the university. However, that clearly isn't happening. Therefore, at least 1 of 3 things is going on. 1. UGA is using its weight in the GABOR to keep GT AD from borrowing money, 2. your argument is wrong, or 3. there is some other factor at work that I don't see.

I can see UGA using it's influence to keep the university from subsidizing athletics, which was really the topic of my needlessly cryptic question. Is that what's happening?


At most schools, unless you are an alumni you are only motivated to do well enough to get a promotion elsewhere or not get fired. If you win the NC at football and men's basketball and baseball how much more do you get paid? At most places, the answer is $0. Insert a clip of Peter Gibbons speaking to The Bobs about motivation in Office Space here.

Regarding subsidizing athletics, they already have a large student athletic fee and pull several million a year out of the general fund to the GTAA.
06-25-2015 07:20 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.