It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 10:27 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57234
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
spanky wrote:
They can keep the auto bids, but they need to give the automatic bids to the reg season champs.


It doesn't really matter for the big conferences. The regular season champ is going to make it anyway. Besides that, I think it's up to the individual conferences to decide how they want to assign their automatic bid, isn't it? If one of these small conferences has a freak team win its tournament and that keeps out their really good regular season champ with only a couple losses, they have no one to blame but themselves.

For the record, I don't think Illinois deserved to be in the Tournament. The regular season has to count. I'm merely pointing out that they are a better team right now, today, than a bunch of teams that did get in, including several from their own conference.

No way you can say that last sentence with any confidence. This is a team that struggled to get past the 7 seed in the NIT. Maybe they are better than Iowa, but that is not saying much right now. The rest of the Big 10 teams in the tournament are better than Illinois.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:28 pm
Posts: 29948
Location: SW Burbs
It could matter to the big conferences as well. Like if Illinois would have won the conference tourney this year.

_________________
FavreFan wrote:
Im pretty hammered right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
RFDC wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
spanky wrote:
They can keep the auto bids, but they need to give the automatic bids to the reg season champs.


It doesn't really matter for the big conferences. The regular season champ is going to make it anyway. Besides that, I think it's up to the individual conferences to decide how they want to assign their automatic bid, isn't it? If one of these small conferences has a freak team win its tournament and that keeps out their really good regular season champ with only a couple losses, they have no one to blame but themselves.

For the record, I don't think Illinois deserved to be in the Tournament. The regular season has to count. I'm merely pointing out that they are a better team right now, today, than a bunch of teams that did get in, including several from their own conference.

No way you can say that last sentence with any confidence. This is a team that struggled to get past the 7 seed in the NIT. Maybe they are better than Iowa, but that is not saying much right now. The rest of the Big 10 teams in the tournament are better than Illinois.

Maybe, but Ohio St was extremely unimpressive yesterday. I have no idea how that team won 15 straight games.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 23833
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
Winning the NIT is better than losing in the first round of the NCAA. Playing 5 extra games (and an extra week or 2 of practice) instead of one is better for the program.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
Hard to believe the NIT makes enough dough to cover the expenses of running it. Waste of time.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79550
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
spanky wrote:
It could matter to the big conferences as well. Like if Illinois would have won the conference tourney this year.


It could, but I'm guessing that may have pushed Iowa out.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
I'm sure we are only a few years away from having 64 play-in games anyway. That'll solve all these issues.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36 pm
Posts: 19369
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Someone would rather go to the Poinsetta bowl and play a meaningless game vs having a shot at winning the national championship.
You don't think people enjoy going to the Rose Bowl?


If you gave a player a choice between playing in a tourney for the National title or going to the Rose bowl 100/100 would pick the tourney.

_________________
Frank Coztansa wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Not over yet.
Yes it is.


CDOM wrote:
When this is all over, which is not going to be for a while, Trump will be re-elected President.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:17 am
Posts: 14391
Location: West Burbs
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
spanky wrote:
It could matter to the big conferences as well. Like if Illinois would have won the conference tourney this year.


It could, but I'm guessing that may have pushed Iowa out.

It was likely NC State actually.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:28 pm
Posts: 29948
Location: SW Burbs
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
spanky wrote:
It could matter to the big conferences as well. Like if Illinois would have won the conference tourney this year.


It could, but I'm guessing that may have pushed Iowa out.

They put out the actual list of teams 1-68. It would have pushed out the lowest non-AQ. Was that Iowa?

_________________
FavreFan wrote:
Im pretty hammered right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
conns7901 wrote:
If you gave a player a choice between playing in a tourney for the National title or going to the Rose bowl 100/100 would pick the tourney.
Yeah, so?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:17 am
Posts: 14391
Location: West Burbs
It was NC State

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/ohi ... urney-1-68


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:01 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79550
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
spanky wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
spanky wrote:
It could matter to the big conferences as well. Like if Illinois would have won the conference tourney this year.


It could, but I'm guessing that may have pushed Iowa out.

They put out the actual list of teams 1-68. It would have pushed out the lowest non-AQ. Was that Iowa?


No, but who knows how the nuts and bolts of selection really works? There might have been some support for the idea that the Big Ten gets six this year and that's it. I don't know. As Vince said, maybe NC State is the one that goes. I do think a smaller conference is much more likely to be punished by losing a team when a huge upset happens in their tournament than a big one. I'm not sure that's fair though. Strength of schedule is great, but all a team can do is beat the teams it plays.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36 pm
Posts: 19369
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Someone would rather go to the Poinsetta bowl and play a meaningless game vs having a shot at winning the national championship.
You don't think people enjoy going to the Rose Bowl?


What does enjoying yourself at the Rose Bowl have to do with playing meaningful games?

_________________
Frank Coztansa wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Not over yet.
Yes it is.


CDOM wrote:
When this is all over, which is not going to be for a while, Trump will be re-elected President.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
conns7901 wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Someone would rather go to the Poinsetta bowl and play a meaningless game vs having a shot at winning the national championship.
You don't think people enjoy going to the Rose Bowl?


What does enjoying yourself at the Rose Bowl have to do with playing meaningful games?
The players enjoy the Rose Bowl and I can promise you they don't think it is meaningless.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36 pm
Posts: 19369
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Someone would rather go to the Poinsetta bowl and play a meaningless game vs having a shot at winning the national championship.
You don't think people enjoy going to the Rose Bowl?


What does enjoying yourself at the Rose Bowl have to do with playing meaningful games?
The players enjoy the Rose Bowl and I can promise you they don't think it is meaningless.


And winning the MAC championship game is meaningful to those guys too. Neither leads to a title.

_________________
Frank Coztansa wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Not over yet.
Yes it is.


CDOM wrote:
When this is all over, which is not going to be for a while, Trump will be re-elected President.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
conns7901 wrote:
And winning the MAC championship game is meaningful to those guys too. Neither leads to a title.
Still don't know what your point is here, though conference championships are a huge deal too, and it is considered a title.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79550
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
FavreFan wrote:
I'm sure we are only a few years away from having 64 play-in games anyway. That'll solve all these issues.


I think it would only take two more rounds for every team to play. I'm not sure why they don't just do that like the IHSA does with its playoffs. I don't think it would diminish the regular season. In fact, it would actually make the conference championships mean something again.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
Posts: 17678
Location: The Leviathan
pizza_Place: Frozen
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I'm sure we are only a few years away from having 64 play-in games anyway. That'll solve all these issues.


I think it would only take two more rounds for every team to play. I'm not sure why they don't just do that like the IHSA does with its playoffs. I don't think it would diminish the regular season. In fact, it would actually make the conference championships mean something again.

I don't understand how putting every team in the tournament makes the conference championships any more relevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:28 pm
Posts: 29948
Location: SW Burbs
lipidquadcab wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I'm sure we are only a few years away from having 64 play-in games anyway. That'll solve all these issues.


I think it would only take two more rounds for every team to play. I'm not sure why they don't just do that like the IHSA does with its playoffs. I don't think it would diminish the regular season. In fact, it would actually make the conference championships mean something again.

I don't understand how putting every team in the tournament makes the conference championships any more relevant.

He means that if a team loses their conference tourney - they are out of the big tourney altogether.

_________________
FavreFan wrote:
Im pretty hammered right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
Posts: 17678
Location: The Leviathan
pizza_Place: Frozen
spanky wrote:
lipidquadcab wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I'm sure we are only a few years away from having 64 play-in games anyway. That'll solve all these issues.


I think it would only take two more rounds for every team to play. I'm not sure why they don't just do that like the IHSA does with its playoffs. I don't think it would diminish the regular season. In fact, it would actually make the conference championships mean something again.

I don't understand how putting every team in the tournament makes the conference championships any more relevant.

He means that if a team loses their conference tourney - they are out of the big tourney altogether.

Oh...certainly not the way I read it, but that makes more sense...although I most certainly disagree with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:18 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79550
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
lipidquadcab wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I'm sure we are only a few years away from having 64 play-in games anyway. That'll solve all these issues.


I think it would only take two more rounds for every team to play. I'm not sure why they don't just do that like the IHSA does with its playoffs. I don't think it would diminish the regular season. In fact, it would actually make the conference championships mean something again.

I don't understand how putting every team in the tournament makes the conference championships any more relevant.


Back when I first started following college hoops, the Tournament had 32 teams. You pretty much had to win your conference to get in, thus, the conference championship meant a lot. If you've ever read A Season on the Brink, Bobby Knight's entire focus was on winning the Big Ten. But with the Tournament expanding, a conference championship- especially in a power conference- has been diminished. Can you tell me who won last year's Big Ten championship? And who even is the Big Ten champion- the regular season champ or the tourney champ?

If every team were eligible for the NCAA Tournament, it would effectively divide the season into two distinct parts which I think would return some significance to a conference championship. As it is now, what difference does it make if you finish first or second in the Big Ten? Maybe the players care and yeah, you get another trophy, but it's all secondary to the greatest day in sports: Selection Sunday.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
Posts: 17678
Location: The Leviathan
pizza_Place: Frozen
So you're saying play the conference tournaments and then put all the teams into the big dance after that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79550
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
lipidquadcab wrote:
So you're saying play the conference tournaments and then put all the teams into the big dance after that?


Sure. I don't think the conferences want to give up their tournaments. They play them because of the cash. But it wouldn't be a huge deal to lose a regular season game or two. Like I said, if you do the math, it would only take two more rounds and I think some teams would even get byes.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
Posts: 17678
Location: The Leviathan
pizza_Place: Frozen
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
lipidquadcab wrote:
So you're saying play the conference tournaments and then put all the teams into the big dance after that?


Sure. I don't think the conferences want to give up their tournaments. They play them because of the cash. But it wouldn't be a huge deal to lose a regular season game or two. Like I said, if you do the math, it would only take two more rounds and I think some teams would even get byes.

Yeah, that's what I originally thought you meant. I think it's a horrible idea on so many levels and the pure logistics of putting all 351 teams in the tournament would be a nightmare.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:38 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79550
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
lipidquadcab wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
lipidquadcab wrote:
So you're saying play the conference tournaments and then put all the teams into the big dance after that?


Sure. I don't think the conferences want to give up their tournaments. They play them because of the cash. But it wouldn't be a huge deal to lose a regular season game or two. Like I said, if you do the math, it would only take two more rounds and I think some teams would even get byes.

Yeah, that's what I originally thought you meant. I think it's a horrible idea on so many levels and the pure logistics of putting all 351 teams in the tournament would be a nightmare.


I don't see why it would be so difficult. The IHSA manages an all-inclusive tournament, I'm sure the mighty NCAA could pull it off. Maybe the first two rounds are played on the higher seed's home court.

On what levels do you object to very team playing an extra round or two?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
Posts: 17678
Location: The Leviathan
pizza_Place: Frozen
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
lipidquadcab wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
lipidquadcab wrote:
So you're saying play the conference tournaments and then put all the teams into the big dance after that?


Sure. I don't think the conferences want to give up their tournaments. They play them because of the cash. But it wouldn't be a huge deal to lose a regular season game or two. Like I said, if you do the math, it would only take two more rounds and I think some teams would even get byes.

Yeah, that's what I originally thought you meant. I think it's a horrible idea on so many levels and the pure logistics of putting all 351 teams in the tournament would be a nightmare.


I don't see why it would be so difficult. The IHSA manages an all-inclusive tournament, I'm sure the mighty NCAA could pull it off. Maybe the first two rounds are played on the higher seed's home court.

On what levels do you object to very team playing an extra round or two?

1) There are already plenty of shit teams in the tournament...we don't need to throw in another 200 or so.
2) You are severely devaluing the worth of doing well in the regular season...you're gonna tell Florida or Virginia that even though they won their regular season and conference tournaments that they now have to win 8 games intstead of 6 so we can make sure the bottom feeders of the MEAC and Southland conferences get a chance to play in the big dance.
3) If you are only adding a week to the schedule, now you are looking at a large chunk of teams playing 3 games in that first week (and that's assuming you are only giving the higher seeds a single bye into the second round of the tourney, something I would also have a problem with). More traveling, more time away from school (I know, laugh it up, but if the NCAA is going to pretend to care about the "student athlete", I'm going to as well)

This isn't even mentioning that you lose a great deal of the excitement for those that do make the tournament, either by getting selected or winning those conference tournaments. Selection Sunday would be about as exciting as finding out who is playing in the Preseason NIT.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:43 pm
Posts: 18493
Location: end of lonely street
pizza_Place: Obbies
To build confidence for a young team winning the NIT

_________________
I'm going to bounce from the spot for awhile but I will be back at some point to argue with you about this hoops stuff again. Playoffs have been great this season. See ya up the road.

I'm out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
but it's all secondary to the greatest day in sports: Selection Sunday.

It's worth mentioning that nobody here thinks this or has ever said it.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is better?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79550
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
lipidquadcab wrote:
1) There are already plenty of shit teams in the tournament...we don't need to throw in another 200 or so.
2) You are severely devaluing the worth of doing well in the regular season...you're gonna tell Florida or Virginia that even though they won their regular season and conference tournaments that they now have to win 8 games intstead of 6 so we can make sure the bottom feeders of the MEAC and Southland conferences get a chance to play in the big dance.
3) If you are only adding a week to the schedule, now you are looking at a large chunk of teams playing 3 games in that first week (and that's assuming you are only giving the higher seeds a single bye into the second round of the tourney, something I would also have a problem with). More traveling, more time away from school (I know, laugh it up, but if the NCAA is going to pretend to care about the "student athlete", I'm going to as well)

This isn't even mentioning that you lose a great deal of the excitement for those that do make the tournament, either by getting selected or winning those conference tournaments. Selection Sunday would be about as exciting as finding out who is playing in the Preseason NIT.


Selection Sunday doesn't need to exist. It's not sports. It's politics. I really don't think it should be a huge deal for Florida to dust off Southern Utah before moving into the round of 64. If we're worried about the "student"-athletes we can cut back on the ever-expanding regular season schedule.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group