Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
Author Message
wrcwolf Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 95
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation: 2
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #21
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
Welcome to the "real world". Isn't college suppose to prepare students for the "real world"?
09-28-2019 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 82
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #22
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 08:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 04:17 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I think we are going down the right path with California's bill that will prohibit folks from not allowing athletes to profit off their own likeness. That's the path that's going to get us closest to players earning what their market value is.

If you get into the schools themselves paying players, you run into Title IX issues, and it can be interpreted that your female athletes would have to receive the same pay as your male athletes. So, instead of paying your 100 or so football players, you're having to pay all say 700 athletes on your campus despite the fact that only 2 sports generate the majority of your revenue.

I agree that having the schools involved directly pay would be a problem, because that would raise Title IX issues.

However, what could make it sticky is if the schools were involved in arranging for donors to pay for likenesses and the like, because a court would likely interpret that as the school being involved in the payment process, thus triggering Title IX.

Schools will have to be totally uninvolved, they will have to let donors and businesses decide on their own who to sponsor, and that is likely to be very difficult. It could also be very divisive, e.g., if star receiver X sees that the star QB is getting more local sponsorship deals, then he probably enters the Transfer Portal pronto .... Also, guys are likely to get deals even if they aren't good. E.g., the QB might not be nearly as good as the star WR, but the QB is white and looks like Brad Pitt, and so is in high demand around town.

There definitely could be racial divisions, because at most big powers, the rich alumni and fans are overwhelmingly white even though the players are mostly black, which could mean lesser skilled white players getting more deals than the better black players, leading to resentments.

I could just see an Athletic Director, seeing divisions on the football team because some guys are getting deals and others aren't, getting on the phone with the owner of the local chevy dealership, a rich alumnus, "hey, I need you to give player X some kind of deal, he doesn't have one and he's chafing about it, it's hurting the locker room and he's threatening to leave and we really need him for the games against Texas and Notre Dame", etc.

... then the NCAA finds out about the call (violation of the NCAA rules which now mirror the California rule), and the women's basketball coach asks out loud why calls aren't being made for the girls (Title IX).

I'm no lawyer but I once read the relevant portion of Title IX and saw nothing that indicated that if one athlete receives non-education related compensation then all athletes at that school must receive the same, or any at all.

Further, I read an OCR interpretation of the relevant portion of Title IX and recognized nothing indicating that if one athlete receives non-education related compensation at a school then all athletes at that school must receive the same, or any at all.

Looked to me that Title IX, in relation to athletics, was all about equal opportunity of participation in sports, relative to the ratio of male to female enrollment at that school and equal education related benefits. A school has to spend money on equipment, travel etc. for an athlete in a non-revenue sport to have the opportunity to compete, but it does not have to pay that athlete money in order for he or she to have the opportunity to compete.

At any rate, if there were any doubt, and supposing that some school somewhere DID want to pay athletes on revenue-generating squads only, then all that school need do is...hire them. Voilà.
09-28-2019 09:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,911
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1516
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #23
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
Nobody has to pay players. Just let the free market pay for their likenesses on the side, if they want. Ads, autograph signings, a percentage of jersey sales, etc. for whatever players can do it.
09-28-2019 09:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,877
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 230
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #24
I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 09:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Nobody has to pay players. Just let the free market pay for their likenesses on the side, if they want. Ads, autograph signings, a percentage of jersey sales, etc. for whatever players can do it.


Watch how then rest of the team reacts when QB gets big bucks and they get zip.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
09-28-2019 10:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 82
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #25
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 09:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Nobody has to pay players. Just let the free market pay for their likenesses on the side, if they want. Ads, autograph signings, a percentage of jersey sales, etc. for whatever players can do it.

I'm all for NIL action to begin with. But ultimately it does not garner all college athletes their full market value, which, IMO, ought to be the ultimate aim. There's no telling what a Trevor Lawrence, a Zion Williamson or a Tua Tagovailoa is actually worth to their schools because Clemson, Duke and Alabama participate in an economic cartel that has fixed player compensation at artificial lows.
09-28-2019 10:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wrcwolf Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 95
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation: 2
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #26
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 10:08 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 09:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Nobody has to pay players. Just let the free market pay for their likenesses on the side, if they want. Ads, autograph signings, a percentage of jersey sales, etc. for whatever players can do it.


Watch how then rest of the team reacts when QB gets big bucks and they get zip.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don't QB's get the most money in the NFL?

Does everyone make the same pay at the company you work for? I suggest you go into the bosses office Monday and demand the same pay as the top earner at your job.

Again, welcome to the "real world". The long snapper on each team should be thankful for the scholly and cost of attendance
09-28-2019 10:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #27
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 10:14 PM)chester Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 09:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Nobody has to pay players. Just let the free market pay for their likenesses on the side, if they want. Ads, autograph signings, a percentage of jersey sales, etc. for whatever players can do it.

I'm all for NIL action to begin with. But ultimately it does not garner all college athletes their full market value, which, IMO, ought to be the ultimate aim. There's no telling what a Trevor Lawrence, a Zion Williamson or a Tua Tagovailoa is actually worth to their schools because Clemson, Duke and Alabama participate in an economic cartel that has fixed player compensation at artificial lows.



This is not a ME sport. This is a team sport. Without their teammates? They are worthless. That is where Tim Tebow is pointing to in his arguement. If it were not for his teammates? He would not have won the Heisman.
09-28-2019 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,877
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 230
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #28
I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 10:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 10:14 PM)chester Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 09:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Nobody has to pay players. Just let the free market pay for their likenesses on the side, if they want. Ads, autograph signings, a percentage of jersey sales, etc. for whatever players can do it.

I'm all for NIL action to begin with. But ultimately it does not garner all college athletes their full market value, which, IMO, ought to be the ultimate aim. There's no telling what a Trevor Lawrence, a Zion Williamson or a Tua Tagovailoa is actually worth to their schools because Clemson, Duke and Alabama participate in an economic cartel that has fixed player compensation at artificial lows.



This is not a ME sport. This is a team sport. Without their teammates? They are worthless. That is where Tim Tebow is pointing to in his arguement. If it were not for his teammates? He would not have won the Heisman.


Exactly, and these are not pros. I could see a huge pick up of look out blocks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
09-28-2019 11:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 82
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #29
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 10:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 10:14 PM)chester Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 09:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Nobody has to pay players. Just let the free market pay for their likenesses on the side, if they want. Ads, autograph signings, a percentage of jersey sales, etc. for whatever players can do it.

I'm all for NIL action to begin with. But ultimately it does not garner all college athletes their full market value, which, IMO, ought to be the ultimate aim. There's no telling what a Trevor Lawrence, a Zion Williamson or a Tua Tagovailoa is actually worth to their schools because Clemson, Duke and Alabama participate in an economic cartel that has fixed player compensation at artificial lows.



This is not a ME sport. This is a team sport. Without their teammates? They are worthless. That is where Tim Tebow is pointing to in his arguement. If it were not for his teammates? He would not have won the Heisman.

Not sure how to respond to this except to say that, supposing a open market, Tebow and all of his teammates would have gotten whatever compensation the market dictated.

ETA: Understand, I'm not some commie sort that thinks that the value of the service of any given laborer is equal to all others. Fact is, the services of some athletes are worth more than others. Only we might not know it, given the NCAA's economic exploitation of valuable college athletes.
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2019 11:33 PM by chester.)
09-28-2019 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1328
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #30
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, this is one of those issues that exposes the naked hypocrisy of G5 fans. Because the same G5 fans who never tire of railing about how the P5 "cartel" holds them down support the NCAA cartel that holds player incomes down, because they fear that if players can be paid, their dream of reaching parity with the established power schools that can afford to pay more will be pushed further out of reach.

It's pretty shameless, IMO. 07-coffee3

lol....Swing and miss. I prefer the current model----but Im fine with sharing some revenue with the players
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2019 11:41 PM by Attackcoog.)
09-28-2019 11:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,629
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 153
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #31
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
I’m not sure if players should be paid or not but I remember the “outrage” when Johnny Manziel got caught signing autographs for $5.

Meanwhile Texas A&M got over $700 million on donations for the 2013 fiscal year not to mention additional millions in media exposure, season tickets and merchandise based on Manziel’s 2012 Heisman winning season. It made the complete remodeling of Kyle Field possible. But the guy who made that possible couldn’t make a profit nor got part of the money the university made off his name.
09-29-2019 12:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,618
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 732
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #32
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
If coaching salary inflation had been at the same rate as general inflation since the 1970's the top college coaches would be paid less than $400,000 a year.

So take a program that pays a head coach $7 million and the two coordinators $1 million each and you've got roughly $7 million currently going to coaching salaries that could have gone to player salaries. Roughly $75,000 average salary per scholarship player. Depending on how you allocate it, you could have a few guys making more than the NFL practice squad minimum but probably none making NFL roster minimum.

With the money infusion and paying players not on the table, schools plowed that money into coaching salaries and facilities.
09-29-2019 01:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,618
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 732
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #33
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, this is one of those issues that exposes the naked hypocrisy of G5 fans. Because the same G5 fans who never tire of railing about how the P5 "cartel" holds them down support the NCAA cartel that holds player incomes down, because they fear that if players can be paid, their dream of reaching parity with the established power schools that can afford to pay more will be pushed further out of reach.

It's pretty shameless, IMO. 07-coffee3

I'm a G5 fan and I have no problem with paying players. I object to the model California is pushing because it is a scam and takes too much from the control of the schools.

There is virtually no market for name and likeness. The NBA on a typical team, one or two guys won't have ANY deal other than the union's deal for video games and player cards. Another 7 or 8 will get a shoe deal that is simply a credit. They have X dollars they can spend on items in the company catalog and the other three or four will actually get a check. In the NFL most of the 53 man roster gets nothing for name and likeness other than the NFLPA deals for video games and player cards.

If Bob from Bob's Used Cars in Tallahassee wants to give Florida State $150,000 to allocate toward player salaries, I'm fine with that. What I don't like is saying players shall not be paid for their athletic ability but legalizing Bob's Used Cars paying a QB $100,000 to sign with Florida State by utilizing the fiction that it is payment for the recruit to appear in ads for the company.

Paying players will make virtually NO difference in competitiveness.

The kid who Alabama or Clemson would out-bid their conference-mates for is almost always going to be the same kid who would have signed with them in the current system. The only difference making might be in G5 where some presidents seem to have no aversion to big transfers of student and university money. There are like 50 schools transferring $20 million or more.

If the balance of competition were to shift, It would be in hoops. Smaller rosters and in smaller leagues one willing to out-spend might become dominant in their conference.
09-29-2019 02:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,911
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1516
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #34
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-28-2019 10:08 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 09:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Nobody has to pay players. Just let the free market pay for their likenesses on the side, if they want. Ads, autograph signings, a percentage of jersey sales, etc. for whatever players can do it.


Watch how then rest of the team reacts when QB gets big bucks and they get zip.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's how free markets work.
09-29-2019 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,994
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 152
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #35
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
I don't disagree with your argument but when you site Texas A&M, the number one school in athletic revenue, you may be overstating a little. 04-cheers
09-29-2019 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #36
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-29-2019 02:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, this is one of those issues that exposes the naked hypocrisy of G5 fans. Because the same G5 fans who never tire of railing about how the P5 "cartel" holds them down support the NCAA cartel that holds player incomes down, because they fear that if players can be paid, their dream of reaching parity with the established power schools that can afford to pay more will be pushed further out of reach.

It's pretty shameless, IMO. 07-coffee3

I'm a G5 fan and I have no problem with paying players. I object to the model California is pushing because it is a scam and takes too much from the control of the schools.

There is virtually no market for name and likeness. The NBA on a typical team, one or two guys won't have ANY deal other than the union's deal for video games and player cards. Another 7 or 8 will get a shoe deal that is simply a credit. They have X dollars they can spend on items in the company catalog and the other three or four will actually get a check. In the NFL most of the 53 man roster gets nothing for name and likeness other than the NFLPA deals for video games and player cards.

If Bob from Bob's Used Cars in Tallahassee wants to give Florida State $150,000 to allocate toward player salaries, I'm fine with that. What I don't like is saying players shall not be paid for their athletic ability but legalizing Bob's Used Cars paying a QB $100,000 to sign with Florida State by utilizing the fiction that it is payment for the recruit to appear in ads for the company.

Paying players will make virtually NO difference in competitiveness.

The kid who Alabama or Clemson would out-bid their conference-mates for is almost always going to be the same kid who would have signed with them in the current system.

So .... why do you care if schools have control? What's the value in that?
09-29-2019 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,994
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 152
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #37
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-29-2019 09:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 10:08 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 09:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Nobody has to pay players. Just let the free market pay for their likenesses on the side, if they want. Ads, autograph signings, a percentage of jersey sales, etc. for whatever players can do it.


Watch how then rest of the team reacts when QB gets big bucks and they get zip.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's how free markets work.

The athletic conferences and members are not using free markets. Additionally, professional leagues, like the NFL, do not organize their sports leagues as free markets.

The teams form leagues that agree to organize themselves under a given set of rules.

The leagues are subject to market forces. No one is forcing the individual to buy.
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2019 10:00 AM by chess.)
09-29-2019 09:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #38
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-29-2019 09:59 AM)chess Wrote:  The athletic conferences and members are not using free markets. Additionally, professional leagues, like the NFL, do not organize their sports leagues as free markets.

The teams form leagues that agree to organize themselves under a given set of rules.

The leagues are subject to market forces. No one is forcing the individual to buy.

No, that's the crucial difference between say the Memphis Grizzlies and the Memphis Tigers. The Tigers, a university, are an independent institution that decided to join a conference, indeed to join the NCAA. As such, they can withdraw from both whenever they like, subject to contract terms like exit fees.

In contrast, the Grizzlies did not "form" the NBA, to the contrary, the NBA created the Grizzlies franchise. The Grizzlies can't leave the NBA, they have no existence independent of it. That's why the molar unit for market purposes is the league, the NBA, not the franchise.

But universities are not creations of their conference or the NCAA, so they are the molar unit when it comes to market forces.
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2019 11:15 AM by quo vadis.)
09-29-2019 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #39
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-29-2019 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 02:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, this is one of those issues that exposes the naked hypocrisy of G5 fans. Because the same G5 fans who never tire of railing about how the P5 "cartel" holds them down support the NCAA cartel that holds player incomes down, because they fear that if players can be paid, their dream of reaching parity with the established power schools that can afford to pay more will be pushed further out of reach.

It's pretty shameless, IMO. 07-coffee3

I'm a G5 fan and I have no problem with paying players. I object to the model California is pushing because it is a scam and takes too much from the control of the schools.

There is virtually no market for name and likeness. The NBA on a typical team, one or two guys won't have ANY deal other than the union's deal for video games and player cards. Another 7 or 8 will get a shoe deal that is simply a credit. They have X dollars they can spend on items in the company catalog and the other three or four will actually get a check. In the NFL most of the 53 man roster gets nothing for name and likeness other than the NFLPA deals for video games and player cards.

If Bob from Bob's Used Cars in Tallahassee wants to give Florida State $150,000 to allocate toward player salaries, I'm fine with that. What I don't like is saying players shall not be paid for their athletic ability but legalizing Bob's Used Cars paying a QB $100,000 to sign with Florida State by utilizing the fiction that it is payment for the recruit to appear in ads for the company.

Paying players will make virtually NO difference in competitiveness.

The kid who Alabama or Clemson would out-bid their conference-mates for is almost always going to be the same kid who would have signed with them in the current system.

So .... why do you care if schools have control? What's the value in that?


That is why the FCOAs come in since it is like paying the players under the control of the schools. The California Bill opens up a can of worms that the players including kids coming out of high school with scandals. You think that Aunt Becky scandal to get her daughter into college? This Bill would look like Aunt Becky scandal look like childs play. This bill would make this scandal look like it is on steroids.
09-29-2019 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,618
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 732
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #40
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(09-29-2019 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-29-2019 02:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(09-28-2019 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, this is one of those issues that exposes the naked hypocrisy of G5 fans. Because the same G5 fans who never tire of railing about how the P5 "cartel" holds them down support the NCAA cartel that holds player incomes down, because they fear that if players can be paid, their dream of reaching parity with the established power schools that can afford to pay more will be pushed further out of reach.

It's pretty shameless, IMO. 07-coffee3

I'm a G5 fan and I have no problem with paying players. I object to the model California is pushing because it is a scam and takes too much from the control of the schools.

There is virtually no market for name and likeness. The NBA on a typical team, one or two guys won't have ANY deal other than the union's deal for video games and player cards. Another 7 or 8 will get a shoe deal that is simply a credit. They have X dollars they can spend on items in the company catalog and the other three or four will actually get a check. In the NFL most of the 53 man roster gets nothing for name and likeness other than the NFLPA deals for video games and player cards.

If Bob from Bob's Used Cars in Tallahassee wants to give Florida State $150,000 to allocate toward player salaries, I'm fine with that. What I don't like is saying players shall not be paid for their athletic ability but legalizing Bob's Used Cars paying a QB $100,000 to sign with Florida State by utilizing the fiction that it is payment for the recruit to appear in ads for the company.

Paying players will make virtually NO difference in competitiveness.

The kid who Alabama or Clemson would out-bid their conference-mates for is almost always going to be the same kid who would have signed with them in the current system.

So .... why do you care if schools have control? What's the value in that?

Most every enterprise has some policy on employees outside income and gifts. At Wal-Mart if you let a vendor pick up your lunch tab you are fired. My employer requires pre-approval if I want to take on a side gig.

Employers generally like to know that employees are loyal to them rather than an outside party and if you are in dire need of offensive linemen but the boosters doing direct pay don't think OL is sexy enough for their money, you may not have money to allocate to your greatest need.
09-29-2019 02:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.