Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
Author Message
TroyFootball05 Offline
1987 Man of the Year
*

Posts: 8,725
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 348
I Root For: Good Times
Location: 8-Bit Pizza Bar
Post: #1
Exclamation Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
This is based on the end of 2021 Massey Composite.

I moved teams to their 2023 alignments, and for FCS teams, I found their FCS Massey Composite rating and placed them where they would be in the FBS composite using their Massey Computer number. Overall, the G5 as a whole dropped roughly five spots, and every conference that added and lost programs, dropped several spots, with the AAC taking the biggest blow. The MWC is the clear winner of this round of realignment. Is it 100% accurate? No. Is it a predictive model? No. But it is interesting to think about. It'll be interesting to compare this to the end of 2023 Massey Composite and see how everything turned out.

Conference Averages

prev number is the true 2021 average, before programs are added or removed.

MWC: 68.70 (No change in membership)
AAC: 84.92 (prev 68.92)
SBC: 86.78 (prev 83.44)
MAC: 91.99 (No change in membership)
USA: 96.55 (prev 90.19)

G5 Averages

G5 average before realignment: 80.64
G5 average after realignment: 85.78

AAC 14, SBC 14, and CUSA 9 Averages

prev number is the true 2021 average, before programs are added or removed.

AAC 14

34. UTSA
48. SMU
50. UAB
66. East Carolina
68. Tulsa
77. Memphis
86. Navy
97. North Texas
102. Florida Atlantic
104. Tulane
110. Rice
111. South Florida
112. Charlotte
124. Temple

AVG: 84.92 (prev 68.92)

SBC 14

22. Louisiana
37. Appalachian State
42. Coastal Carolina
69. Georgia State
75. Marshall
78. James Madison
98. Old Dominion
103. Troy
106. South Alabama
107. ULM
114. Texas State
116. Georgia Southern
123. Southern Miss
125. ARKST

AVG: 86.78 (prev 83.44)

CUSA 9

44. Western Kentucky
58. Liberty
87. MTSU
92. Sam Houston State
93. UTEP
113. LATECH
126. New Mexico State
127. Jacksonville State
129. FIU

AVG: 96.55 (prev 90.19)
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2022 07:46 PM by TroyFootball05.)
06-17-2022 07:41 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,688
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 204
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #2
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
As has been pointed out previously, the MWC "won" by standing pat. And that was harder to do than it sounds given the near-defection of two members. I think over time it will become clear that Colorado State and Air Force made the right choice by staying.
06-17-2022 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shizzle787 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,136
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 8
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
(06-17-2022 07:45 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  As has been pointed out previously, the MWC "won" by standing pat. And that was harder to do than it sounds given the near-defection of two members. I think over time it will become clear that Colorado State and Air Force made the right choice by staying.

Colorado State and Air Force were two of the biggest winners in this. They could have left for the American (good choice), which would not have added six teams from C-USA to water down the league. At most the AAC would have added UAB and Rice in addition.

CSU and Air Force were in the catbird seat: they had two good options, and picked the status quo.

Their decision ultimately will cost the AAC big time. That league will never be the same. Teams were always trying to get out of it, but at least up until last year, every team (with the exception of Tulsa and maybe Tulane) was known nationally to college football fans (similar to the MW).
06-17-2022 08:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sstaedtler88 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 566
Joined: Dec 2019
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Liberty, Army
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
I expect CUSA to move up from this. La. Tech had a non-typical down year. FIU got a new athletic director and solid coach. They've had talent players but no one to really put it together. New Mexico State will benefit some by just not being independent and hiring Jerry Kill, and I can't imagine Jacksonville State will stay at #127 for long with Rich Rodriguez coaching. MTSU also has a rising program right now.
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2022 09:06 PM by sstaedtler88.)
06-17-2022 09:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,670
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1694
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #5
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
I think the MW's position relative to the AAC is.much stronger now than a year ago. Or will be in 2023.

But imo you can't transfer results earned in one league and project them to another.
06-17-2022 09:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Milwaukee Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,113
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 116
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
(06-17-2022 07:41 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  This is based on the end of 2021 Massey Composite.

I moved teams to their 2023 alignments, and for FCS teams, I found their FCS Massey Composite rating and placed them where they would be in the FBS composite using their Massey Computer number. Overall, the G5 as a whole dropped roughly five spots, and every conference that added and lost programs, dropped several spots, with the AAC taking the biggest blow. The MWC is the clear winner of this round of realignment. Is it 100% accurate? No. Is it a predictive model? No. But it is interesting to think about. It'll be interesting to compare this to the end of 2023 Massey Composite and see how everything turned out.

Conference Averages

prev number is the true 2021 average, before programs are added or removed.

MWC: 68.70 (No change in membership)
AAC: 84.92 (prev 68.92)
SBC: 86.78 (prev 83.44)
MAC: 91.99 (No change in membership)
USA: 96.55 (prev 90.19)

G5 Averages

G5 average before realignment: 80.64
G5 average after realignment: 85.78

AAC 14, SBC 14, and CUSA 9 Averages

prev number is the true 2021 average, before programs are added or removed.

AAC 14

34. UTSA
48. SMU
50. UAB
66. East Carolina
68. Tulsa
77. Memphis
86. Navy
97. North Texas
102. Florida Atlantic
104. Tulane
110. Rice
111. South Florida
112. Charlotte
124. Temple

AVG: 84.92 (prev 68.92)

Though many may consider this discouraging information, the average AAC M.C. ranking may not fall all the way down into the 80s. It's likely that most of the 8 AAC
remainers' teams will be more highly ranked than they have been due to the fact that they won't be losing an average of 2 games per year to UC, UCF, and UH. A team that went 6-6 will be likely to go 7-5 or 8-4; a team that went 8-4 will be likely to go 9-3 or 10-2.

Thus, rather than dropping to 84.9, it may be more likely that the AAC's average M.C. ranking will drop into the mid-to-high 70s. What happens after that will depend on how the AAC programs adjust, going forward.

.
06-18-2022 01:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BigHouston Offline
STRONG
*

Posts: 11,947
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 356
I Root For: HOUSTON / USC PAC
Location: Houston Tx
Post: #7
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
Well said, Milwaukee

Here’s my take, no one is jumping the AAC until they mirror exactly what the American has accomplished over the years. And as Milwaukee stated above with Houston Cincinnati UCF moving to their respective new conference others from the AAC will most likely capitalized on the absence left from the ongoing three. Also, don’t count out few incoming AAC members from immediately being competitive either.
06-18-2022 06:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,670
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1694
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #8
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
There's kind of a "churn" theory of G5 schools out there. It basically says that programs in the upper G5, the MW and AAC, aren't necessarily better than schools in the lower G5, it's just that for quirky reasons some got the opportunity to be in the upper and others were stuck in the lower, such that if you switched them around or substituted one for another, not much would change.

There's probably some merit to that. Still, I do expect the AAC to fall off significantly. We'll see.
06-18-2022 07:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
topper1296 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,942
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 110
I Root For: WKU
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #9
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
I did a similar thing for men's bball with CUSA and the SBC and updated it through out the year with NET data from the NCAA site. Below is from my final update.

Likely my last time updating this for this season.

NET data thru 3.12
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_ranking...ties/22483

Current CUSA
UAB 46
North Texas 47
Louisiana Tech 97
Middle Tenn. 104
Western Ky. 125
Fla. Atlantic 131
UTEP 164
Charlotte 188
Old Dominion 203
Rice 217
Marshall 242
FIU 266
UTSA 326
Southern Miss. 341
Average 178

Future CUSA
New Mexico St. 79
Louisiana Tech 97
Middle Tenn. 104
Liberty 119
Western Ky. 125
Jacksonville St. 142
Sam Houston 152
UTEP 164
FIU 266
Average 139

Average comps based on future conference affiliations:
A-10 129
AAC 138
CUSA 139
MVC 151
SBC 202

Average NET variance between the current and future conference membership:
AAC drops <31> spots
CUSA rises 39 spots
SBC drops <4> spots

****************************************************************

Below shows the number of Quad 1 wins and the number of Quad 4 losses (AKA good wins vs bad losses) with current members and future members.

Current AAC
Quad 1 wins - 11
Quad 4 losses - 13

Future AAC
Quad 1 wins - 12
Quad 4 losses - 25

Current CUSA
Quad 1 wins - 5
Quad 4 losses - 32

Future CUSA
Quad 1 wins - 4
Quad 4 losses - 22

Current SBC
Quad 1 wins - 0
Quad 4 losses - 36

Future SBC
Quad 1 wins - 0
Quad 4 losses - 41
06-18-2022 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Gemofthehills Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,320
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For: JSU
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
(06-18-2022 01:55 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 07:41 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  This is based on the end of 2021 Massey Composite.

I moved teams to their 2023 alignments, and for FCS teams, I found their FCS Massey Composite rating and placed them where they would be in the FBS composite using their Massey Computer number. Overall, the G5 as a whole dropped roughly five spots, and every conference that added and lost programs, dropped several spots, with the AAC taking the biggest blow. The MWC is the clear winner of this round of realignment. Is it 100% accurate? No. Is it a predictive model? No. But it is interesting to think about. It'll be interesting to compare this to the end of 2023 Massey Composite and see how everything turned out.

Conference Averages

prev number is the true 2021 average, before programs are added or removed.

MWC: 68.70 (No change in membership)
AAC: 84.92 (prev 68.92)
SBC: 86.78 (prev 83.44)
MAC: 91.99 (No change in membership)
USA: 96.55 (prev 90.19)

G5 Averages

G5 average before realignment: 80.64
G5 average after realignment: 85.78

AAC 14, SBC 14, and CUSA 9 Averages

prev number is the true 2021 average, before programs are added or removed.

AAC 14

34. UTSA
48. SMU
50. UAB
66. East Carolina
68. Tulsa
77. Memphis
86. Navy
97. North Texas
102. Florida Atlantic
104. Tulane
110. Rice
111. South Florida
112. Charlotte
124. Temple

AVG: 84.92 (prev 68.92)

Though many may consider this discouraging information, the average AAC M.C. ranking may not fall all the way down into the 80s. It's likely that most of the 8 AAC
remainers' teams will be more highly ranked than they have been due to the fact that they won't be losing an average of 2 games per year to UC, UCF, and UH. A team that went 6-6 will be likely to go 7-5 or 8-4; a team that went 8-4 will be likely to go 9-3 or 10-2.

Thus, rather than dropping to 84.9, it may be more likely that the AAC's average M.C. ranking will drop into the mid-to-high 70s. What happens after that will depend on how the AAC programs adjust, going forward.

.

The same could be said for all of the conferences. The reshuffle will change the data quite a lot.

JMU, Sam and JSU's numbers are not an accurate judgement. Having FCS data vs FBS data is the old apples and oranges. These three are an unknown at best.
06-18-2022 09:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
(06-17-2022 09:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the MW's position relative to the AAC is.much stronger now than a year ago. Or will be in 2023.

But imo you can't transfer results earned in one league and project them to another.

Yes. The schools in the last round moving to CUSA were near the bottom of the Sun Belt in football, but did better in CUSA. Troy and Arkansas St., who had won most of the recent titles, were left behind.
06-18-2022 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
(06-18-2022 07:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's kind of a "churn" theory of G5 schools out there. It basically says that programs in the upper G5, the MW and AAC, aren't necessarily better than schools in the lower G5, it's just that for quirky reasons some got the opportunity to be in the upper and others were stuck in the lower, such that if you switched them around or substituted one for another, not much would change.

There's probably some merit to that. Still, I do expect the AAC to fall off significantly. We'll see.

Well with frequent coach poaching by the P5 and relative talent parity among the G5, there can be a lot of variability in results.
06-18-2022 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AztecNation Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 17
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Aztecs
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
I wish AAC fans the best but I can't help but compare this to when the MWC lost Utah, BYU and TCU. The MWC replaced them with much better schools than the AAC just replaced UC, UH and UCF with and the MWC still hasn't fully recovered a decade later. Maybe it'll be different for the AAC.
06-18-2022 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Milwaukee Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,113
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 116
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
(06-18-2022 05:24 PM)AztecNation Wrote:  I wish AAC fans the best but I can't help but compare this to when the MWC lost Utah, BYU and TCU. The MWC replaced them with much better schools than the AAC just replaced UC, UH and UCF with and the MWC still hasn't fully recovered a decade later. Maybe it'll be different for the AAC.

"...the MWC still hasn't fully recovered a decade later..."

That all depends on what you're comparing today's MWC with. For example, today's MWC is arguably stronger than the MWC of 1999 through 2007 was:

Overall MWC conference winning percentage and # of Final AP Top 25 teams:

.............Overall
..........Conference.........# of 10+........# of Final AP
...........win pct (%)......win Teams:......Top 25 Teams:

1999...... .549...................0......................0
2000...... .489...................1......................1
2001...... .511...................1......................1
2002...... .455...................1......................0
2003...... .531...................1......................1
2004...... .505...................1......................1
2005...... .490...................1......................1
2006...... .491...................2......................2
2007...... .531...................1......................1
2008...... .566...................3......................3
2009...... .540...................3......................3
2010...... .500...................2......................1
2011...... .515...................2......................2
2012...... .465...................1......................1
2013...... .474...................1......................0
2014...... .506...................4......................1
2015...... .465...................1......................0
2016...... .513...................3......................1
2017...... .477...................3......................1
2018...... .513...................3......................3
2019...... .545...................4......................2
2020...... .488...................*......................1
2021...... .549...................4......................2


There were a total of 11 Final AP Top 25 teams in the first decade of the MWC, and there have been 12 in the past decade.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/mwc/

.
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2022 11:34 PM by Milwaukee.)
06-18-2022 10:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Milwaukee Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,113
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation: 116
I Root For: many teams
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
.

The MWC has maintained its relative position in the conference rankings.

MWC's Overall Rank and Average Massey Composite Team Rankings:

..........Conference.....Average MWC......# of Final AP
...............Rank..........Team Rank*.......Top 25 Teams:........Top MWC Teams:
2003:...........DATA NOT AVAILABLE.....................1................Utah & New Mexico
2004:...........DATA NOT AVAILABLE.....................1................Utah & New Mexico
- - - - - - - - - - - - TCU joined the MWC in 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2005:...........DATA NOT AVAILABLE.....................1..................TCU & BYU/CSU
2006:...........DATA NOT AVAILABLE.....................2.....................BYU & TCU
2007:...........DATA NOT AVAILABLE.....................1...................BYU & Air Force
2008:...........DATA NOT AVAILABLE.....................3.....................Utah & TCU
2009:........#7...............61.02....................3......................TCU & BYU
2010:........#8...............62.39....................1......................TCU & Utah
- - - - - - - - - - - - Utah & BYU Departed after the 2010 season - - - - - - - - - - -
2011:........#8...............70.45....................2......................Boise & TCU
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - TCU Departed after the 2011 season - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2021:........#6...............68.02....................2...................SDSU & Air Force

*Average team ranks are not apples to apples comparisons, since there were fewer FBS teams in 2007 (n=120) than there were in 2021 (n=130)

~MWC teams in 2003: Utah, UNM, CSU, AFA, SDSU, BYU, UNLV, & Wyoming
^Teams added since 2010: Fresno St., SJSU, Boise St., Nevada, Utah St., Hawaii

.

It's only when comparing with the MWC "glory years" (2008-2010) that today's MWC doesn't shine quite as brightly. In comparison with the first decade of its existence, the MWC has maintained its stature after adding six schools to replace Utah, TCU, and BYU.


It's quite possible that the situation will be much the same for the AAC 5-10 years from now.
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2022 11:24 PM by Milwaukee.)
06-18-2022 10:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IceJus10 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,117
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Sports
Location: New York
Post: #16
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
The AAC/old Big East will continue to churn rising programs because their media contract and exposure is better than any other current G5 league. The exposure and increase in revenue will allow for programs to step up and take the leading role like the three departing had done from those who departed before them.

The Big East/AAC football schools were being left for dead in 2013 and yet the conference survived and thrived. I think a new set of teams will take their place at the top and continue to keep the AAC competitive.
06-19-2022 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,670
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1694
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #17
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
(06-19-2022 12:01 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The AAC/old Big East will continue to churn rising programs because their media contract and exposure is better than any other current G5 league. The exposure and increase in revenue will allow for programs to step up and take the leading role like the three departing had done from those who departed before them.

The Big East/AAC football schools were being left for dead in 2013 and yet the conference survived and thrived. I think a new set of teams will take their place at the top and continue to keep the AAC competitive.

About the bolded, my recollection is that circa that time the AAC was expected to be the best of the G5, or maybe contending with the MW for that position. But my memory has failed me before.
06-19-2022 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Yosef181 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 292
Joined: Sep 2021
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Appalachian State
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
(06-17-2022 07:41 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  This is based on the end of 2021 Massey Composite.

I moved teams to their 2023 alignments, and for FCS teams, I found their FCS Massey Composite rating and placed them where they would be in the FBS composite using their Massey Computer number. Overall, the G5 as a whole dropped roughly five spots, and every conference that added and lost programs, dropped several spots, with the AAC taking the biggest blow. The MWC is the clear winner of this round of realignment. Is it 100% accurate? No. Is it a predictive model? No. But it is interesting to think about. It'll be interesting to compare this to the end of 2023 Massey Composite and see how everything turned out.

Conference Averages

prev number is the true 2021 average, before programs are added or removed.

MWC: 68.70 (No change in membership)
AAC: 84.92 (prev 68.92)
SBC: 86.78 (prev 83.44)
MAC: 91.99 (No change in membership)
USA: 96.55 (prev 90.19)

G5 Averages

G5 average before realignment: 80.64
G5 average after realignment: 85.78

AAC 14, SBC 14, and CUSA 9 Averages

prev number is the true 2021 average, before programs are added or removed.

AAC 14

34. UTSA
48. SMU
50. UAB
66. East Carolina
68. Tulsa
77. Memphis
86. Navy
97. North Texas
102. Florida Atlantic
104. Tulane
110. Rice
111. South Florida
112. Charlotte
124. Temple

AVG: 84.92 (prev 68.92)

SBC 14

22. Louisiana
37. Appalachian State
42. Coastal Carolina
69. Georgia State
75. Marshall
78. James Madison
98. Old Dominion
103. Troy
106. South Alabama
107. ULM
114. Texas State
116. Georgia Southern
123. Southern Miss
125. ARKST


AVG: 86.78 (prev 83.44)

CUSA 9

44. Western Kentucky
58. Liberty
87. MTSU
92. Sam Houston State
93. UTEP
113. LATECH
126. New Mexico State
127. Jacksonville State
129. FIU

AVG: 96.55 (prev 90.19)

If we could get our lowest teams (Georgia Southern, Southern Miss, Arkansas State) back to where they were in 2015 (9-4, 9-5, and 9-4, respectively), we'd really impress.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2022 04:58 PM by Yosef181.)
06-19-2022 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TroyFootball05 Offline
1987 Man of the Year
*

Posts: 8,725
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 348
I Root For: Good Times
Location: 8-Bit Pizza Bar
Post: #19
RE: Adjusted Massey Composite After Realignment
(06-19-2022 04:57 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  If we could get our lowest teams (Georgia Southern, Southern Miss, Arkansas State) back to where they were in 2015 (9-4, 9-5, and 9-4, respectively), we'd really impress.

If I were a gambling man, I'd bet Troy, Southern Miss, and Arkansas State take some pretty big steps forward over the next few seasons. ULM has Vic Koenning, and trust me when I say he never misses, ever. The SBC-W is not going to be the punching bag some people want them to be.
06-19-2022 06:49 PM
Visit this user's website 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.