Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
Author Message
Intellectual_Brutality Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 939
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice Owls!
Location:
Post: #1
Exclamation OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
01-19-2019 02:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


TFW Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,229
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Owls in Omaha
Location: 2nd Base

New Orleans BowlDonators
Post: #2
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
I saw this article too. I have for several years thought that football might die from the strangulating effect of CTE leading to parents not wanting their kids to play football, with less participants leading to less fans, or at least less ardent fans.

I had not thought about the insurance aspect of CTE but it definitely makes sense.
01-19-2019 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Intellectual_Brutality Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 939
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice Owls!
Location:
Post: #3
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
I also hadn't thought of how football would be bundled together with other contact sports, and that they all may decline simultaneously
01-19-2019 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 75,463
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 2600
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #4
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
Rugby coaches will insist that there is a simple way to reduce football injuries--take off the headgear.

With no helmet, players are a lot more aware of proper technique. Put it on, and they think they are invincible and can go spearing people with it.

There are (at this point admittedly isolated) places where rugby is growing as football declines because of the concussion issue.
01-19-2019 05:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
franklyconfused Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 792
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Rice
Location: Houston
Post: #5
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-19-2019 05:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rugby coaches will insist that there is a simple way to reduce football injuries--take off the headgear.

With no helmet, players are a lot more aware of proper technique. Put it on, and they think they are invincible and can go spearing people with it.

There are (at this point admittedly isolated) places where rugby is growing as football declines because of the concussion issue.

I've heard this a lot, but I wonder if this is due in part to the fact that rugby doesn't have as much scrutiny because there's less money being thrown around. It also doesn't address the issue of rugby being far less likely to put a ball carrier in a position where there are defenders running full speed at them from in front and from behind at the same time (forward passes). Generally, a ball carrier in rugby is either in front of every defender or behind every defender, maybe with an exception for the full back that they can turn away from (turn the hits from front and back to side-on). A receiver on a crossing route is surrounded by line backers and safeties, and a running back through the line has to deal with linemen and linebackers. I'd like to see experiments where teams demonstrate American football with less or no padding to see if it's viable, but I'm not sold on it, yet.
01-20-2019 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 75,463
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 2600
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #6
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-20-2019 01:09 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  
(01-19-2019 05:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rugby coaches will insist that there is a simple way to reduce football injuries--take off the headgear.
With no helmet, players are a lot more aware of proper technique. Put it on, and they think they are invincible and can go spearing people with it.
There are (at this point admittedly isolated) places where rugby is growing as football declines because of the concussion issue.
I've heard this a lot, but I wonder if this is due in part to the fact that rugby doesn't have as much scrutiny because there's less money being thrown around. It also doesn't address the issue of rugby being far less likely to put a ball carrier in a position where there are defenders running full speed at them from in front and from behind at the same time (forward passes). Generally, a ball carrier in rugby is either in front of every defender or behind every defender, maybe with an exception for the full back that they can turn away from (turn the hits from front and back to side-on). A receiver on a crossing route is surrounded by line backers and safeties, and a running back through the line has to deal with linemen and linebackers. I'd like to see experiments where teams demonstrate American football with less or no padding to see if it's viable, but I'm not sold on it, yet.

There is no question that the dynamics of rugby are different. And those different dynamics almost certainly contribute, as you suggest. I do think that if you removed the headgear, the dynamics of football would change as a result. You raise interesting questions, and I don't know the answers. Nor, I suspect, does anyone.
01-20-2019 04:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


loki_the_bubba Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,850
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 468
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #7
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-20-2019 04:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-20-2019 01:09 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  
(01-19-2019 05:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rugby coaches will insist that there is a simple way to reduce football injuries--take off the headgear.
With no helmet, players are a lot more aware of proper technique. Put it on, and they think they are invincible and can go spearing people with it.
There are (at this point admittedly isolated) places where rugby is growing as football declines because of the concussion issue.
I've heard this a lot, but I wonder if this is due in part to the fact that rugby doesn't have as much scrutiny because there's less money being thrown around. It also doesn't address the issue of rugby being far less likely to put a ball carrier in a position where there are defenders running full speed at them from in front and from behind at the same time (forward passes). Generally, a ball carrier in rugby is either in front of every defender or behind every defender, maybe with an exception for the full back that they can turn away from (turn the hits from front and back to side-on). A receiver on a crossing route is surrounded by line backers and safeties, and a running back through the line has to deal with linemen and linebackers. I'd like to see experiments where teams demonstrate American football with less or no padding to see if it's viable, but I'm not sold on it, yet.

There is no question that the dynamics of rugby are different. And those different dynamics almost certainly contribute, as you suggest. I do think that if you removed the headgear, the dynamics of football would change as a result. You raise interesting questions, and I don't know the answers. Nor, I suspect, does anyone.

Without much thought I would say the top three things would be:
1. No helmets
2. Tackling must wrap arms
3. Can't slaughter a man in the air.
01-21-2019 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,034
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 567
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #8
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
I was surprised to see soccer listed as precarious due to insurance concerns.

Hockey and football? No brainer there (apologies for the implied CTE reference...).

Soccer? wth?
(This post was last modified: 01-21-2019 09:56 PM by tanqtonic.)
01-21-2019 09:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chrisc Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 373
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #9
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-21-2019 09:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I was surprised to see soccer listed as precarious due to insurance concerns.

Hockey and football? No brainer there (apologies for the implied CTE reference...).

Soccer? wth?

Soccer is the only major sport where the head is actively used in playing the ball. This leads to head-to-ball collisions (obviously), head-to-head collisions (two players both going for the ball), and head-to-ground collisions (falling after an attempted header).
01-21-2019 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gsloth Offline
perpetually tired
*

Posts: 6,541
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice&underdogs
Location: Central VA

Donators
Post: #10
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
Concussions are a major concern in soccer. Two players going to head the same ball is a major source of injuries, particularly with concussions in youth.

Lacrosse also has a very high rate.

There are some interesting studies out there, showing particularly that girls/womens sports have higher rates than equivalent boys/mens sports. The rates between sexes come closer in line the older/more experienced the participants.
(This post was last modified: 01-21-2019 10:28 PM by gsloth.)
01-21-2019 10:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,871
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #11
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-21-2019 10:26 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Concussions are a major concern in soccer. Two players going to head the same ball is a major source of injuries, particularly with concussions in youth.

Lacrosse also has a very high rate.

There are some interesting studies out there, showing particularly that girls/womens sports have higher rates than equivalent boys/mens sports. The rates between sexes come closer in line the older/more experienced the participants.

That brings up a problem with Title IX. Female athletes have a higher incidence of concussion than males for same activity type in some studies. It basically is saying being female in sport is a greater concussion risk. If they want to get rid of football, then by the same reasoning they need to get rid of female sports because it is “riskier”. Are they going to scrap Title IX because female athletes are more susceptible to concussion than males? Field hockey, ice hockey, soccer, and lacrosse all have concussion rates similar to football on the youth level with baseball and basketball not far behind. This doesn’t even count motor sports or biking or skiing. The youth sport with the greatest loss of participation and injuries requiring surgery is baseball. Are we going to ban it? Sport, like any activity has inherent risk. Life has inherent risk. Where do you draw the line on trying to avoid risk? The attack on football is out of proportion to the risk versus other youth activities. This is going to get messy due to the inherent risk in sports and people trying to make life “less risky”.
01-22-2019 12:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,034
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 567
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #12
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
Hey guys -- appreciate the clarification on why soccer is included. I guess this tells you how much I have played, let alone follow, soccer.
01-22-2019 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Intellectual_Brutality Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 939
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice Owls!
Location:
Post: #13
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-22-2019 12:55 AM)ruowls Wrote:  
(01-21-2019 10:26 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Concussions are a major concern in soccer. Two players going to head the same ball is a major source of injuries, particularly with concussions in youth.

Lacrosse also has a very high rate.

There are some interesting studies out there, showing particularly that girls/womens sports have higher rates than equivalent boys/mens sports. The rates between sexes come closer in line the older/more experienced the participants.

That brings up a problem with Title IX. Female athletes have a higher incidence of concussion than males for same activity type in some studies. It basically is saying being female in sport is a greater concussion risk. If they want to get rid of football, then by the same reasoning they need to get rid of female sports because it is “riskier”. Are they going to scrap Title IX because female athletes are more susceptible to concussion than males? Field hockey, ice hockey, soccer, and lacrosse all have concussion rates similar to football on the youth level with baseball and basketball not far behind. This doesn’t even count motor sports or biking or skiing. The youth sport with the greatest loss of participation and injuries requiring surgery is baseball. Are we going to ban it? Sport, like any activity has inherent risk. Life has inherent risk. Where do you draw the line on trying to avoid risk? The attack on football is out of proportion to the risk versus other youth activities. This is going to get messy due to the inherent risk in sports and people trying to make life “less risky”.

The risk of tommy john surgery, even if numerically the same as, say, CTE, carries very different implications for one's life
01-22-2019 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,871
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 86
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #14
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
Does it?

Lost earnings from a Tommy John injury could change one’s socioeconomic position which could negatively impact one’s life expectancy.
There are too many variables and cascade of events to make a blanket statement. The problem is you can’t regulate all the variables and you can’t state the future consequences of any given factor as a stand alone cause. It is why football is such a great sport. It isn’t just about running power against a 3 man front. The dynamics will change from play to play and there is no way to exactly know how that will be.
This is a multi-factorial issue that doesn’t have an easy answer. [/align]
01-22-2019 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,161
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 104
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #15
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-22-2019 11:58 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  
(01-22-2019 12:55 AM)ruowls Wrote:  
(01-21-2019 10:26 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Concussions are a major concern in soccer. Two players going to head the same ball is a major source of injuries, particularly with concussions in youth.

Lacrosse also has a very high rate.

There are some interesting studies out there, showing particularly that girls/womens sports have higher rates than equivalent boys/mens sports. The rates between sexes come closer in line the older/more experienced the participants.

That brings up a problem with Title IX. Female athletes have a higher incidence of concussion than males for same activity type in some studies. It basically is saying being female in sport is a greater concussion risk. If they want to get rid of football, then by the same reasoning they need to get rid of female sports because it is “riskier”. Are they going to scrap Title IX because female athletes are more susceptible to concussion than males? Field hockey, ice hockey, soccer, and lacrosse all have concussion rates similar to football on the youth level with baseball and basketball not far behind. This doesn’t even count motor sports or biking or skiing. The youth sport with the greatest loss of participation and injuries requiring surgery is baseball. Are we going to ban it? Sport, like any activity has inherent risk. Life has inherent risk. Where do you draw the line on trying to avoid risk? The attack on football is out of proportion to the risk versus other youth activities. This is going to get messy due to the inherent risk in sports and people trying to make life “less risky”.

The risk of tommy john surgery, even if numerically the same as, say, CTE, carries very different implications for one's life

Hear, hear! I think a valid distinction can be made between different types of risks. In women's lacrosse, the decision was made several years ago to require protective eyewear to prevent the small but significant risk of a ball destroying an eye. That's a concrete, catastrophic and completely preventable risk, which makes it quite different from shoulder and knee injuries that are typical of field sports.

Head trauma is harder to prevent, but perhaps similarly catastrophic, and much less understood. It is reasonable to give it different consideration from orthopedic injuries.

We as fans may not be very good at making such distinctions, but commercial insurers are extremely good at it. It's hard to blame them for excluding an injury category (neurological) in which they can't accurately price the risk.
01-22-2019 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,034
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 567
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #16
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
Also, the root of CTE isnt just concussions per se; it is the repeated traumatic blows that affect the head.

Massive difference between football, which those activities are part and parcel of every single instance of the game on a repeated and long term basis, and baseball.

The same can be said for basketball to a lesser degree.

But no sport, aside from hockey, involves such continuous and repeated concussive activities, albeit those activities dont necessarily result in a medical concussion.

The only other near equivalent would be boxing, and a good case can be made that while boxing is more extreme in the short term of the bout, that football is more constant in those forces that are linked to CTE. And Muhammad Ali and Jerry Quarry are drastic and stark examples of what those repeated activities can result in.

I just dont think the wrapping of baseball, basketball, and to a lesser extent the 'field hockey' type sports have nearly the same impact on the head and brain that football can have over an extended time.
01-22-2019 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Intellectual_Brutality Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 939
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice Owls!
Location:
Post: #17
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-22-2019 12:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Does it?

Lost earnings from a Tommy John injury could change one’s socioeconomic position which could negatively impact one’s life expectancy.
There are too many variables and cascade of events to make a blanket statement. The problem is you can’t regulate all the variables and you can’t state the future consequences of any given factor as a stand alone cause. It is why football is such a great sport. It isn’t just about running power against a 3 man front. The dynamics will change from play to play and there is no way to exactly know how that will be.
This is a multi-factorial issue that doesn’t have an easy answer. [/align]

"lost earnings from a tommy john..."
Yeah, if you go pro, maybe. Which basically no one will get to do. Whereas head trauma will (probably) have financial consequences even for those who don't go pro.

In general, you're of course right, there are no *easy* answers. That said, these types of decisions/comparisons have to be, and are, undertaken every day around the world. The decisions are not completely devoid of data, either, as people use imperfect but reasonable measures like "quality-adjusted life year" and such.
01-22-2019 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,034
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 567
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #18
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-22-2019 12:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Does it?

Lost earnings from a Tommy John injury could change one’s socioeconomic position which could negatively impact one’s life expectancy.
There are too many variables and cascade of events to make a blanket statement. The problem is you can’t regulate all the variables and you can’t state the future consequences of any given factor as a stand alone cause. It is why football is such a great sport. It isn’t just about running power against a 3 man front. The dynamics will change from play to play and there is no way to exactly know how that will be.
This is a multi-factorial issue that doesn’t have an easy answer. [/align]

I dont think the 'lost earnings' really compares with the image of drooling glassy eyed Jerry Quarry or Muhammad Ali for boxing.

Nor do I think the 'lost earnings' from a Tommy John surgery really compares with the images of Mike Webster as he drifted away. Not in the slightest.
01-22-2019 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 20,180
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 1245
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #19
Exclamation RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-20-2019 01:09 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  
(01-19-2019 05:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rugby coaches will insist that there is a simple way to reduce football injuries--take off the headgear.

With no helmet, players are a lot more aware of proper technique. Put it on, and they think they are invincible and can go spearing people with it.

There are (at this point admittedly isolated) places where rugby is growing as football declines because of the concussion issue.

I've heard this a lot, but I wonder if this is due in part to the fact that rugby doesn't have as much scrutiny because there's less money being thrown around. It also doesn't address the issue of rugby being far less likely to put a ball carrier in a position where there are defenders running full speed at them from in front and from behind at the same time (forward passes). Generally, a ball carrier in rugby is either in front of every defender or behind every defender, maybe with an exception for the full back that they can turn away from (turn the hits from front and back to side-on). A receiver on a crossing route is surrounded by line backers and safeties, and a running back through the line has to deal with linemen and linebackers. I'd like to see experiments where teams demonstrate American football with less or no padding to see if it's viable, but I'm not sold on it, yet.

Some questions for this board might be:

1) Would changes to the game of football, in particular, in order to further prevent/lessen risk of CTE (such as no helmets, etc...) help or hurt Rice's fortunes on the gridiron versus the present competition vis-a-vis where the program is now (has been for many decades, give or take?)

2) If the answer to 1) above is positive for our school, should we then work together in a more concerted (and public) effort with the world's largest Medical Center across the street (and within BRC) to help make it so?

3) Would helping with the "experiments" necessary to reduce these injuries/risks allow (finally) some significant additional millions from the academic budget (and dare I say, endowment) to legitimately flow directly to the athletic dept for the specific intent of improving football health (and then maybe the fortunes of our team on the field in terms of success, "moving the needle" as it were finally?)

4) And finally, would partnering in such manner with the Medical center personnel across the street help improve football attendance and interest as there would be a medical reason for those folks to attend, be interested in Rice's program specifically?
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2019 07:13 PM by GoodOwl.)
01-22-2019 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,034
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 567
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #20
RE: OT - Good piece on the precarious future of football due to insurance troubles
(01-22-2019 07:09 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(01-20-2019 01:09 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  
(01-19-2019 05:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rugby coaches will insist that there is a simple way to reduce football injuries--take off the headgear.

With no helmet, players are a lot more aware of proper technique. Put it on, and they think they are invincible and can go spearing people with it.

There are (at this point admittedly isolated) places where rugby is growing as football declines because of the concussion issue.

I've heard this a lot, but I wonder if this is due in part to the fact that rugby doesn't have as much scrutiny because there's less money being thrown around. It also doesn't address the issue of rugby being far less likely to put a ball carrier in a position where there are defenders running full speed at them from in front and from behind at the same time (forward passes). Generally, a ball carrier in rugby is either in front of every defender or behind every defender, maybe with an exception for the full back that they can turn away from (turn the hits from front and back to side-on). A receiver on a crossing route is surrounded by line backers and safeties, and a running back through the line has to deal with linemen and linebackers. I'd like to see experiments where teams demonstrate American football with less or no padding to see if it's viable, but I'm not sold on it, yet.

Some questions for this board might be:

1) Would changes to the game of football, in particular, in order to further prevent/lessen risk of CTE (such as no helmets, etc...) help or hurt Rice's fortunes on the gridiron versus the present competition vis-a-vis where the program is now (has been for many decades, give or take?)

2) If the answer to 1) above is positive for our school, should we then work together in a more concerted (and public) effort with the world's largest Medical Center across the street (and within BRC) to help make it so?

3) Would helping with the "experiments" necessary to reduce these injuries/risks allow (finally) some significant additional millions from the academic budget (and dare I say, endowment) to legitimately flow directly to the athletic dept for the specific intent of improving football health (and then maybe the fortunes of our team on the field in terms of success, "moving the needle" as it were finally?)

4) And finally, would partnering in such manner with the Medical center personnel across the street help improve football attendance and interest as there would be a medical reason for those folks to attend, be interested in Rice's program specifically?

How ethical would such a study or experiment be? I am hardly any expert on medical ethics, but it would seem to me that the known danger is collision forces -- repeated collision forces.

Removing all or some portions of protective equipment -- seems rather hit or miss if that would expand or diminish protection from such repeated collision forces.

And, I dont see where a medical doctor, who has a Socratic oath to 'do no harm', could really be following that oath where the outcome would be so up in the air.

Legally, I think such a program, if not very sure of a positive outcome, would make many plaintiff's attorneys salivate like a dog eyeing a juicy steak on the counter.
01-22-2019 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2022 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, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.