Iowa AD says floating scrapping divisions

Donate To GopherHole


Ope3 said:
I appreciate the deep dive, thanks. Just a few points:

- You mention decreasing interest if the game ends up being a repeat, that can happen already with the crossover games. For example, Minnesota could have played Ohio St for a 2nd time last year had they beat Michigan and Nebraska hung on against Iowa.
- Most of the time a team from the Current West would still get in as the 2nd best team, though that could change if the method of scheduling gets scrambled.
- I go back to without knowing the future BCS format, it's difficult to hammer out the best plan for Divisions/Realignment/No Divisions. Let's just say for the sake of argument, it's 12 teams, 6 auto-bids from Conference Winners and 6 At-Large. It that situation, I would think the Big 10 would want to avoid a scenario in 2018 if Northwestern had upset Ohio St and thus get the only bid, or 2012 Wisconsin who were barely over .500 (granted that was even more unique Legends/Leaders with Ohio St and Penn St on probation). If it was a Divisionless format, no matter what, 1 of the 2 Best Teams (in theory most deserving) would get the Auto-Bid. In a Division format, it could wind up being the 3rd, 4th, or even 5th best team going to the Playoff based on overall merit. The loser (Regular Season #1) may still get in as an At Large but if they had a couple of losses going into it, a 3rd loss would probably get them pushed out.
Click to expand...
On the first point, true and there’s no refuting that. The scrapping divisions is coming from the east wanting to have a shot to lose to OSU again consistently, which to me isn’t going to generate interest annually, particularly from the west teams if it’s how it’s going to be from a viewership standpoint.
on the second, yep completely depends on how they’d align games
On the third, I mean it again totally depends on how it’s scheduled. Why can’t the second best team be several tied at 9-3 (as has frequently been the case) or 10-2? Those teams are again not going to be “locks” unless there are auto bids in a new format. It’s what the B12 runs into every year with their divisionless format.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Or the desire to get Ohio State and Michigan into the championship game.
Click to expand...
Well if they want to do that more often the easiest way to do that would be to not have them play each other in the regular season. Which isn’t going to happen so I’m not sure that is really the goal.

After the legends and leaders Michigan and Ohio state asked into the same division
 

Some guy said:
Well if they want to do that more often the easiest way to do that would be to not have them play each other in the regular season. Which isn’t going to happen so I’m not sure that is really the goal.

After the legends and leaders Michigan and Ohio state asked into the same division
Click to expand...
Take away divisions but add protected games, and they can still play every year and meet again for the conference title.
 


Word said:
Penn State can't beat Minnesota.
Click to expand...
No. And since James Franklin was one of the first the first guy to complain about the divisions he is super mediocre in conference okay
 

MNVCGUY said:
Take away divisions but add protected games, and they can still play every year and meet again for the conference title.
Click to expand...
Well by scheduling them to play every year you are giving one of them a loss every year. If the primary goal would be to make them both in the top 2 you wouldn’t want them to play each other.
Is what I’m saying.
 

The Athletic has a long essay about this topic.
MN would be guaranteed WI, IA and NE.
IA would get MN, WI and NE
WI would get MN and IA but get NWA instead of NE as a guarantee.
I can see WI going for that.
The East and the West are pretty even up in W/L except of course for the BIG Championship.
I see no harm in dropping the geographic divisions.
What is the glory to win the West and then get pounded in the championship game?
 

MNVCGUY said:
Do the SEC and PAC 12 screw around with their divisional formats as much as the Big Ten does?

Legends/leaders, 8 games, 9 games, east/west, divisions, no divisions...feels like they are always considering a change of some kind to the conference layout. Maybe this is common with other conferences as well as I don't really pay that much attention to how they handle things.
Click to expand...

No...because the Big Ten is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. The problem is we have teams that don't belong. We are too big and too spread out and this is them trying to compensate for that. The WCHA used to have to do it all the time as well as they kept expanding because there is a set number of games and now too many teams to satisfy. It is what made the BTHC inevitable to many of us. (that and Red Berenson hating having to play all the Michigan teams) The WCHA was untenable and as more teams were trying to use it as a launching point for hockey (including some Minnesota schools) it was only going to get worse. All the same methods (divisions, pods...etc) were discussed but nothing was going to work 100% and no one would discuss splitting the WCHA (or the CCHA) up into two conferences. That gave Barry and Red their window to force the issue.

The Big Ten is seeing the same problem and so they keep re-arranging the chairs without looking at the bigger picture/problem.
 




Ope3 said:
Andy Staples in the Athletic asserts that Divisions are dead/boring and need to done away, for all conferences. Seems like the SEC is going to kabosh them as well.

theathletic.com

Staples: Divisions are boring, worthless, bad for business. Here’s how Power 5 leagues keep tradition and maximize CFP chances

We took a try at creating some sensible division-free schedule formats for the Power 5 conferences, possibly to save them from themselves.
theathletic.com theathletic.com
Click to expand...
I’m not sure writers writing away divisions is really a thing.

Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma are all unbeaten…who goes to SEC championship game?
Whoops

SEC can do 4 4 team pods. Play your pod and another pod plus one other team.

Switch crossover POD every year. It actually does work because it is divisions that happen to rotate.

instead of 2 divisions you have 4 half divisions and mix up which halves play each year. So rotating divisions.

That doesn’t work for a 14 team league. But if it’s about money Kansas and Pitt aren’t coming.
 

Some guy said:
I’m not sure writers writing away divisions is really a thing.

Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma are all unbeaten…who goes to SEC championship game?
Whoops

SEC can do 4 4 team pods. Play your pod and another pod plus one other team.

Switch crossover POD every year. It actually does work because it is divisions that happen to rotate.

instead of 2 divisions you have 4 half divisions and mix up which halves play each year. So rotating divisions.

That doesn’t work for a 14 team league. But if it’s about money Kansas and Pitt aren’t coming.
Click to expand...
I think OU would've had to play Alabama or Georgia OR Alabama and Georgia would've had to play, in a 14 team league with 8 games.

My guess is what you're thinking of here, would not be possible.


Hypothetical:
if it were proven that it could not happen, is that your only problem with it? I think the answer based on your posts so far, is still No.
 

Some guy said:
I’m not sure writers writing away divisions is really a thing.

Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma are all unbeaten…who goes to SEC championship game?
Whoops
Click to expand...
Uhh, was anyone indicating that Andy Staples had any such authority?

As to your if Alabama, Georgia & Oklahoma are all unbeaten situation, I would guess the team that doesn't go would be thrilled with going to BCS Playoff with a bye as they would still be unbeaten and skipping the SEC Title game all together saving the potential for injury.

Just a hypothetical guess in a hypothetical situation for a hypothetical BCS Playoff format.
 



Gophers_4life said:
I think OU would've had to play Alabama or Georgia OR Alabama and Georgia would've had to play, in a 14 team league with 8 games.

My guess is what you're thinking of here, would not be possible.


Hypothetical:
if it were proven that it could not happen, is that your only problem with it? I think the answer based on your posts so far, is still No.
Click to expand...
Yea that is my problem with it. Any schedule that leaves open the possibility of 3 unbeatens but not co-championships is dumb


big ten is a different story for me. I prefer to see the big ten stay east west because I think it’s more fun for the team I follow and fun for me. But if they change I wouldn’t have a problem with it. If they change to a schedule where the gophers could go unbeaten and not win the conference title…I would have trouble continuing to watch big ten football to be honest. Same reason I don’t watch as much G5 football. They can’t play themselves in most years.


but my preference has nothing to do with what I think is wrong with a schedule. Any schedule in a conference that is going to have a conference title game needs 2 closed loop round robins IMO or you may as well not have a conference. You’re just going to let some committee choose your conference title game.
 

TurfGopher said:
I kind of like the idea of ACC/PAC games in the mix. Who would our 3 guaranteed opponents be? Wisco, Iowa, ???
Click to expand...
If they're going to scrap divisions then I would prefer if Minnesota had a locked game with Michigan.
 

Some guy said:
So who? Who are they going to get that enlarges each piece of the pie

The reason they are at 14 is because there aren’t any candidates willing who would grow the pie big enough to make each piece bigger. If it was profitable it would already have been announced.
Click to expand...
UNC and Virginia. This is why the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. It's amazing how quickly everyone forgot that.
 

Ope3 said:
Uhh, was anyone indicating that Andy Staples had any such authority?

As to your if Alabama, Georgia & Oklahoma are all unbeaten situation, I would guess the team that doesn't go would be thrilled with going to BCS Playoff with a bye as they would still be unbeaten and skipping the SEC Title game all together saving the potential for injury.

Just a hypothetical guess in a hypothetical situation for a hypothetical BCS Playoff format.
Click to expand...
Bolded is a great point, unto itself as an aside from the CCG hypothetical dilemma.

In the 2017 season, Alabama didn't make it to the SEC CCG, but still made a 4-team playoff and won the thing.

You'd think with a 12 team playoff having 6 at-large, it would be almost guaranteed that the 12-0 non-CCG SEC team would make it. Would avoid the risk of losing the CCG, as well, and possibly being knocked out at 12-1 (thought not likely).
 

Some guy said:
Yea that is my problem with it. Any schedule that leaves open the possibility of 3 unbeatens but not co-championships is dumb


big ten is a different story for me. I prefer to see the big ten stay east west because I think it’s more fun for the team I follow and fun for me. But if they change I wouldn’t have a problem with it. If they change to a schedule where the gophers could go unbeaten and not win the conference title…I would have trouble continuing to watch big ten football to be honest. Same reason I don’t watch as much G5 football. They can’t play themselves in most years.


but my preference has nothing to do with what I think is wrong with a schedule. Any schedule in a conference that is going to have a conference title game needs 2 closed loop round robins IMO or you may as well not have a conference. You’re just going to let some committee choose your conference title game.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, on all counts.

As to your last sentence (bolded), I hope that is not the criteria. I hope they can figure out some kind of way of ranking and fairly tie-breaking the teams based only on the game results.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Bolded is a great point, unto itself as an aside from the CCG hypothetical dilemma.

In the 2017 season, Alabama didn't make it to the SEC CCG, but still made a 4-team playoff and won the thing.

You'd think with a 12 team playoff having 6 at-large, it would be almost guaranteed that the 12-0 non-CCG SEC team would make it. Would avoid the risk of losing the CCG, as well, and possibly being knocked out at 12-1 (thought not likely).
Click to expand...
This whole thing while fun and interesting to discuss seems pointless until the BCS Playoff format is settled upon. What if it's 12 Teams and there are Auto Bids and 4 byes, which have to be Conference Champions? Also what if the first 2 rounds are on campus (Top 8 would get at least 1 home game)?

All of that has an impact on deciding how each conference wants to identify their Champion.
 

hello-world said:
UNC and Virginia. This is why the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. It's amazing how quickly everyone forgot that.
Click to expand...
You think adding Virginia and UNC adds more than 100 million extra revenue?
Because that’s what it would take to break even


if it is those two look for expansion in fall 2027 announced in 2025 or 26
 

Some guy said:
You think adding Virginia and UNC adds more than 100 million extra revenue?
Because that’s what it would take to break even


if it is those two look for expansion in fall 2027 announced in 2025 or 26
Click to expand...
Would lock down DC, Raliegh, and Charlotte. Might even open up Atlanta. Think going north is less attractive and requires adding two private schools in Syracuse and BC. I also think PSU already does a good enough job of carrying Boston.
 
Last edited:

hello-world said:
Would lock down DC, Raliegh, and Charlotte. Might even open up Atlanta. Think going north is less attractive and requires adding two private schools in Syracuse and BC. I also think PSU already does a good enough job of carrying Boston.
Click to expand...
I agree they add more than a Syracuse or a Boston college. But my question was do they add 100 million. To break even they need to add 100 million.

to add 5 million in revenue for every school they’d have to be worth 180 million
 

Some guy said:
I agree they add more than a Syracuse or a Boston college. But my question was do they add 100 million. To break even they need to add 100 million.

to add 5 million in revenue for every school they’d have to be worth 180 million
Click to expand...
Not sure I'm following ...
 

Word said:
Not sure I'm following ...
Click to expand...
In the big ten they equally revenue share.

currently the big ten media contract pays out about 50 million per school.
So for everyone to get 50 million, the two new additions would need to add 50 million each in revenue to cover their 50 million in payouts (100 million)

I assume you add to increase the payout. To payout 55 million per school you would need to add the 100 million for the first 50 for the new schools. Plus another 80 for the extra 5x16 schools


IMO the expansion is going to have to be a bigger deal than VA and NC because it doesn’t grow the pie enough to divide it by 16 instead of 14 and have the pieces be the same size.
CA and Florida expansion make more sense to me.


if the big ten really wants to make more money it might be easier just to buy tier 2/3 broadcast rights to the pac 12 and ACC and big 12 schedules. Expand the footprint of the BTN without expanding the conference.
 

The reason this is being looked at closely by Iowa is because after the ACC B1G Pac 12 alliance kicks in, each team in the B1G will be playing a required 11 Power 5 games (9 conference + 2 alliance), except Iowa will be playing 12 required P5 games (+ Iowa State). The same will go for teams that usually play Notre Dame.

I imagine most teams think 11 or 12 required P5 games will be too many, especially if a team is rebuilding. With this in mind, it makes sense to reduce the number of B1G games by 1 to 8 games.

My solution is to decide the B1G games for the next year after the previous year ends. Each team can protect 2 rivalries that will be played every year. (3 won’t work as you’ll see below).

Then rank all teams by conference record, including tie breakers, and match number 1 with number 2, then 3, then 4, etc until 8 opponents are selected. Then do the same with number 2, etc. This is advantageous for rebuilding teams as they will have a slightly easier schedule.

Divisions would be redrawn every year by how the teams are ranked. This is attractive because it divides the top two ranked teams equal chance at being in the conference championship game.

for this mock up, I used 247Sports end of season Power Rankings to get an idea how this would look:

Division 1 (overall rank)
1. Michigan (1)
2. Michigan State (3)
3. Minnesota (5)
4. Purdue (7)
5. Penn State (9)
6. Illinois (11)
7. Northwestern (13)

Division 2
1. Ohio State (2)
2. Iowa (4)
3. Wisconsin (6)
4. Maryland (8)
5. Rutgers (10)
6. Nebraska (12)
7. Indiana (14)

Note: 3 protected teams won’t work because a team plays six in it’s division plus 2 from the other division. In Minnesota’s case, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska are in the other division. If theplayed all three, they would be over 8 conference games.

If Minnesota’s protected games were Iowa and Wisconsin, they would be the other division games. Yes, it would be a little harder schedule, but the rivalries remain played.

If Michigan’s protected games were Ohio State and Michigan State, their other division games woul be Ohio State and Iowa.

If Ohio State’s protected games were Michigan and Penn State, their other division games would be Michigan and Penn State.

If Purdue’s protected games were Indiana and Illinois, their other division games would be Indiana and Maryland.

If Iowa’s protected games were Minnesota and Wisconsin, their other division games would be Michigan State and Minnesota.

If Wisconsin’s protected games were Minnesota and Iowa, their other division games would be Minnesota and Purdue.

Nebraska’s a bit of a sticking point because their end of year game is usually with Iowa, which has deeper rivalries with Minnesota. But, on years they are in the same division with Iowa, they can have the end of year game.

If Nebraska’s protected games are Northwestern and Illinois, there other division games will be Illinois and Northwestern.

Then each year, the rankings and divisions get reset.

As with every scheduling scheme with 14 teams, there will be challenges. I do like the mostly fair makeup, and the anticipation such a schedule presents.
 


WAGopher said:
The reason this is being looked at closely by Iowa is because after the ACC B1G Pac 12 alliance kicks in, each team in the B1G will be playing a required 11 Power 5 games (9 conference + 2 alliance), except Iowa will be playing 12 required P5 games (+ Iowa State). The same will go for teams that usually play Notre Dame.

I imagine most teams think 11 or 12 required P5 games will be too many, especially if a team is rebuilding. With this in mind, it makes sense to reduce the number of B1G games by 1 to 8 games.

My solution is to decide the B1G games for the next year after the previous year ends. Each team can protect 2 rivalries that will be played every year. (3 won’t work as you’ll see below).

Then rank all teams by conference record, including tie breakers, and match number 1 with number 2, then 3, then 4, etc until 8 opponents are selected. Then do the same with number 2, etc. This is advantageous for rebuilding teams as they will have a slightly easier schedule.

Divisions would be redrawn every year by how the teams are ranked. This is attractive because it divides the top two ranked teams equal chance at being in the conference championship game.

for this mock up, I used 247Sports end of season Power Rankings to get an idea how this would look:

Division 1 (overall rank)
1. Michigan (1)
2. Michigan State (3)
3. Minnesota (5)
4. Purdue (7)
5. Penn State (9)
6. Illinois (11)
7. Northwestern (13)

Division 2
1. Ohio State (2)
2. Iowa (4)
3. Wisconsin (6)
4. Maryland (8)
5. Rutgers (10)
6. Nebraska (12)
7. Indiana (14)

Note: 3 protected teams won’t work because a team plays six in it’s division plus 2 from the other division. In Minnesota’s case, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska are in the other division. If theplayed all three, they would be over 8 conference games.

If Minnesota’s protected games were Iowa and Wisconsin, they would be the other division games. Yes, it would be a little harder schedule, but the rivalries remain played.

If Michigan’s protected games were Ohio State and Michigan State, their other division games woul be Ohio State and Iowa.

If Ohio State’s protected games were Michigan and Penn State, their other division games would be Michigan and Penn State.

If Purdue’s protected games were Indiana and Illinois, their other division games would be Indiana and Maryland.

If Iowa’s protected games were Minnesota and Wisconsin, their other division games would be Michigan State and Minnesota.

If Wisconsin’s protected games were Minnesota and Iowa, their other division games would be Minnesota and Purdue.

Nebraska’s a bit of a sticking point because their end of year game is usually with Iowa, which has deeper rivalries with Minnesota. But, on years they are in the same division with Iowa, they can have the end of year game.

If Nebraska’s protected games are Northwestern and Illinois, there other division games will be Illinois and Northwestern.

Then each year, the rankings and divisions get reset.

As with every scheduling scheme with 14 teams, there will be challenges. I do like the mostly fair makeup, and the anticipation such a schedule presents.
Click to expand...
B1G and PAC12 will go down to 8 conference games.
 

WAGopher said:
The reason this is being looked at closely by Iowa is because after the ACC B1G Pac 12 alliance kicks in, each team in the B1G will be playing a required 11 Power 5 games (9 conference + 2 alliance), except Iowa will be playing 12 required P5 games (+ Iowa State). The same will go for teams that usually play Notre Dame.

I imagine most teams think 11 or 12 required P5 games will be too many, especially if a team is rebuilding. With this in mind, it makes sense to reduce the number of B1G games by 1 to 8 games.

My solution is to decide the B1G games for the next year after the previous year ends. Each team can protect 2 rivalries that will be played every year. (3 won’t work as you’ll see below).

Then rank all teams by conference record, including tie breakers, and match number 1 with number 2, then 3, then 4, etc until 8 opponents are selected. Then do the same with number 2, etc. This is advantageous for rebuilding teams as they will have a slightly easier schedule.

Divisions would be redrawn every year by how the teams are ranked. This is attractive because it divides the top two ranked teams equal chance at being in the conference championship game.

for this mock up, I used 247Sports end of season Power Rankings to get an idea how this would look:

Division 1 (overall rank)
1. Michigan (1)
2. Michigan State (3)
3. Minnesota (5)
4. Purdue (7)
5. Penn State (9)
6. Illinois (11)
7. Northwestern (13)

Division 2
1. Ohio State (2)
2. Iowa (4)
3. Wisconsin (6)
4. Maryland (8)
5. Rutgers (10)
6. Nebraska (12)
7. Indiana (14)

Note: 3 protected teams won’t work because a team plays six in it’s division plus 2 from the other division. In Minnesota’s case, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska are in the other division. If theplayed all three, they would be over 8 conference games.

If Minnesota’s protected games were Iowa and Wisconsin, they would be the other division games. Yes, it would be a little harder schedule, but the rivalries remain played.

If Michigan’s protected games were Ohio State and Michigan State, their other division games woul be Ohio State and Iowa.

If Ohio State’s protected games were Michigan and Penn State, their other division games would be Michigan and Penn State.

If Purdue’s protected games were Indiana and Illinois, their other division games would be Indiana and Maryland.

If Iowa’s protected games were Minnesota and Wisconsin, their other division games would be Michigan State and Minnesota.

If Wisconsin’s protected games were Minnesota and Iowa, their other division games would be Minnesota and Purdue.

Nebraska’s a bit of a sticking point because their end of year game is usually with Iowa, which has deeper rivalries with Minnesota. But, on years they are in the same division with Iowa, they can have the end of year game.

If Nebraska’s protected games are Northwestern and Illinois, there other division games will be Illinois and Northwestern.

Then each year, the rankings and divisions get reset.

As with every scheduling scheme with 14 teams, there will be challenges. I do like the mostly fair makeup, and the anticipation such a schedule presents.
Click to expand...
The problem with that kind of scheduling is threefold:
Home road balance
Part of the complaint right now is that east teams don’t play west enough and vice versa. Teams at the bottoms of one division might never play teams at the top of the other again.
a team like Purdue could make the conference title game without ever playing a team in the top 3rd of the conference until the championship

I do think flexible scheduling makes some sense though. It is the way to avoid 3 unbeatens.
 

WAGopher said:
The reason this is being looked at closely by Iowa is because after the ACC B1G Pac 12 alliance kicks in, each team in the B1G will be playing a required 11 Power 5 games (9 conference + 2 alliance), except Iowa will be playing 12 required P5 games (+ Iowa State). The same will go for teams that usually play Notre Dame.

I imagine most teams think 11 or 12 required P5 games will be too many, especially if a team is rebuilding. With this in mind, it makes sense to reduce the number of B1G games by 1 to 8 games.

My solution is to decide the B1G games for the next year after the previous year ends. Each team can protect 2 rivalries that will be played every year. (3 won’t work as you’ll see below).

Then rank all teams by conference record, including tie breakers, and match number 1 with number 2, then 3, then 4, etc until 8 opponents are selected. Then do the same with number 2, etc. This is advantageous for rebuilding teams as they will have a slightly easier schedule.

Divisions would be redrawn every year by how the teams are ranked. This is attractive because it divides the top two ranked teams equal chance at being in the conference championship game.

for this mock up, I used 247Sports end of season Power Rankings to get an idea how this would look:

Division 1 (overall rank)
1. Michigan (1)
2. Michigan State (3)
3. Minnesota (5)
4. Purdue (7)
5. Penn State (9)
6. Illinois (11)
7. Northwestern (13)

Division 2
1. Ohio State (2)
2. Iowa (4)
3. Wisconsin (6)
4. Maryland (8)
5. Rutgers (10)
6. Nebraska (12)
7. Indiana (14)

Note: 3 protected teams won’t work because a team plays six in it’s division plus 2 from the other division. In Minnesota’s case, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska are in the other division. If theplayed all three, they would be over 8 conference games.

If Minnesota’s protected games were Iowa and Wisconsin, they would be the other division games. Yes, it would be a little harder schedule, but the rivalries remain played.

If Michigan’s protected games were Ohio State and Michigan State, their other division games woul be Ohio State and Iowa.

If Ohio State’s protected games were Michigan and Penn State, their other division games would be Michigan and Penn State.

If Purdue’s protected games were Indiana and Illinois, their other division games would be Indiana and Maryland.

If Iowa’s protected games were Minnesota and Wisconsin, their other division games would be Michigan State and Minnesota.

If Wisconsin’s protected games were Minnesota and Iowa, their other division games would be Minnesota and Purdue.

Nebraska’s a bit of a sticking point because their end of year game is usually with Iowa, which has deeper rivalries with Minnesota. But, on years they are in the same division with Iowa, they can have the end of year game.

If Nebraska’s protected games are Northwestern and Illinois, there other division games will be Illinois and Northwestern.

Then each year, the rankings and divisions get reset.

As with every scheduling scheme with 14 teams, there will be challenges. I do like the mostly fair makeup, and the anticipation such a schedule presents.
Click to expand...
I like fantasy sports too.

This would never happen.

East was one game over .500 versus the west. Much ado about nothing.
 

highwayman said:
I like fantasy sports too.

This would never happen.

East was one game over .500 versus the west. Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...
While having balanced schedules is important the question is how to maintain balance and protect the most important annual rivalries while getting to an 8 game conference schedule. My plan is another way to consider the problem.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom