Page 1 of 16 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 301

Thread: team scoring

  1. #1
    Participating Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    LOS ANGELES
    Posts
    3

    team scoring

    first of all, congrats to the meet directors and all the volunteers on a job well done. so organized and efficient!! very impressive. the only thing i wish someone could explain to me is why the usms champ. committee changed the team scoring from large, medium and small team to clumping everyone in the same category. seems extremely unfair to have what i call "real teams" competing against state mega teams. there is no possibility for "real teams" to ever come close to competing against them. if you are going to give team awards at the end of the meet, is there any way you can do it fairly? our team is extremely proud to have gotten as many team members as we did to go to natls. (most of them for the first time), but unfortunately they were very disillusioned (as was i) with the idea that we would be competing against state teams. as one of the coaches i didn't have an explanation. even though we were very proud of our 7th place finish in men's division, and our 12th place in combined, we were only one of a few "real teams" in the top ten. would appreciate responses. maybe even someone from the champ.committee could explain how they felt this scoring system would be more fair to the majority of swimmers. then i can pass it along to my teammates.. i don't want them to be so disillusioned that they lose interest in attending any future natls. thanks

  2. #2
    Pretty Lethargic Swimmer mbmg3282's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    610

    Re: team scoring

    Tom,

    I understand your frustration. I think our current system is in need of some repare. As I was very involved with this change, let me address your first question. The former team scoring method of small, medium and large was eliminated due its arbitrary nature. In theory, the concept was good, but in practice it was flawed. What made a team of 12 small and a team of 13 medium? At the same time what made a team of 300 large and a team of 80 also large? The main challege that existed with the small, medium and large system was that there were not logical break points for the divisions. Teams with one more or less swimmer ended up in separate divisions.

    I think you hit on the right idea dividing between mega team (state teams) and what you call true clubs. In fact, in my original proposal contained this idea. However, many members on the state teams objected. There were several reasons that caused them to object. One, they didn't feel it was fair for a smaller state team to have to compete against a large one (and yes, under our current system, they do). Two, how do you define a state team. We currently don't have a definition of anything other than a club. State teams and true clubs are all clubs by that definition. The later objection is the more difficult one to overcome.

    I think we are halfway to a better scoring system. However, until we split the mega clubs from the "true" clubs we have a systems that encourages clubs to join with other clubs to form a mega club. In order to change this, legislation needs to be proposed so this can be discussed at convention. It would be great if your LMCS or some other would get the second part of the debate rolling by proposing a rule change. I personally think it would find support in many areas and equally strong objection in others.
    Mark Gill

  3. #3
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    1,278

    Re: team scoring

    Tom:

    I am going to provide you with some links on the discussions we had about this in the past and I hope this helps explain things better and how people feel about scoring.

    http://forums.usms.org/showthread.ph...t=club+scoring

    http://forums.usms.org/showthread.ph...t=club+scoring

    http://forums.usms.org/showthread.ph...t=club+scoring
    Skip Thompson

  4. #4
    Very Active Member imspoiled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    486

    Re: team scoring

    Mark mentioned the arbitrary nature of dividing teams into categories. I can understand how that can be a challenge, as well as the frustration of being on a "small" team that sometimes gets lumped into the "medium" category. I've also heard rumor of teams that prevent swimmers from entering meets so the team can stay in the smaller category and not have the "extra" swimmer push the team over the edge into the next larger division.

    Perhaps the answer lies not in determining divisions by number of swimmers entered, but rather by total number of events entered. Looking over psych sheet for larger meets, I have seen a breakdown by team that includes number of participants per team and total entries by team.

    For example, team ABCD has 75 swimmers with 235 event entries, while team WXYZ has 17 swimmers and 85 event entries. In this example, the larger team has more entries, but fewer entries per swimmer (3.1 vs. 5 for team WXYZ); however, the larger team has more opportunities to score points. By looking at the total event entries per team, we are treating every event entry as an equal opportunity to score for the team.

    Looking solely at number of participants, we overlook the fact that some entries may be relay-only swimmers (no individual events entered), or may have only entered one or two events (while other swimmers entered the maximum allowed). This would be especially effective at a meet like Nationals, since swimmers not meeting NQTs are limited to three swims. It would also prevent coaches/teams from discouraging participation because "one more swimmer" will push them up a size.

    No, it's not a perfect solution. Relay entries are usually deck entries, so they would need to be factored in, along with a dozen or more things I haven't thought of yet. But I'm sure someone could come up with a formula that allowed adjustments for relay entries. Maybe something that looked at the number of men vs. women entered, or just counted relays as an event?

    As an example, when my team went to Colonies Zones, we were the smallest team in the medium team category. We had several swimmers who entered the max number of entries, and a few who only entered two or three. We also only had two women at the meet, so we could not score points in the women's relays. The team did well due to some strong individual swims, but not being able to score realy points, we could not compete on the team points level. It was one swimmer that put us over the "small team" cutoff. We did not know that until the meet started, and that was fine. Interestingly, we had one swimmer enter the meet who has not been practicing with the team. We were all glad to see him at the meet. He placed well in his events, scoring individual points in all. It would have been great to think, "More points for us!", but we were also thinking, "Darn him, he put us over the limit!"

    Just some food for thought,
    Dana
    Twizzlers will be the ruin of Western society... or, at the very least, my waistline.

  5. #5
    Active Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    46

    Re: team scoring

    I just attended my first Nationals in Federal Way and I was thrilled with the level of excitement and competition. But, I guess I wasn't the only one questioning the rationale of the scoring system.

    It makes sense to me why they did away with the old large/medium/small team scoring system, as the dividing line was COMPLETELY ARBITRARY (and therefore, inherently unfair), and it seems from what I've read that some teams were actually discouraging swimmers from attending the meet in order to stay in a smaller division. I would never want to discourage anyone, no matter what speed, from competing in a meet, so I'm glad that system is gone.

    However, not having ANY divisions seems just as bad, if not worse. These mega teams obviously have an insurmountable advantage, and the winning team of the meet is most likely a forgone conclusion. If an LMSC, or state, wants to pool its teams to create a mega team for the purpose of scoring more points, then I think, in doing so, they should be opting into another scoring category. *For the record, the argument that a state combines several teams in order to make a relay, or for comradrie sake, does not carry much weight with me - it's to have BETTER relays, and score MORE points.

    High schools do have divisions based on school size (at least where I'm from in Washington state) in order to make competition more fair. Could you imagine if some high schools combined to compete together for the state championships!? Essentially, that's what we have here. In my ideal world, every club team would compete as itself - a club team. But, since these mega teams have apparently been accepted, there needs to be SOME FORM of division between mega teams and true club teams.

    MY MAIN POINT:
    By dividing mega teams and true club teams, the pitfalls of the previous scoring system are still avoided: (1) There is no arbitrary size division; (2) Swimmers will not be discouraged from competing.

    It is true that some mega teams will be larger than others, and some club teams will be larger than others, but there is nothing anyone can do to avoid that, and that's all part of competing. At least this way it SUBSTANTIALLY LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD WITHOUT PUTTING ANYONE AT A DISADVANTAGE. Has anyone posted an argument as to why this should NOT be the way it's scored?

    Thanks. I'm looking forward to differing perspectives.

  6. #6
    Very Active Member Peter Cruise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Nanaimo, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    1,967

    Re: team scoring

    Um, why have team counts at all?
    Life keeps throwing curve balls; the trick, I'm learning, is to duck...

  7. #7
    Very Active Member michaelmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    574

    Re: team scoring

    Below is a list of the top ten scoring teams at the last five SCY Nationals. As you can see the LMSC teams have a significant advantage over the non-LMSC teams. As the LMSC teams take eight of the top ten places in the combined teams scores.

    While I voted to change from the Small, Medium and Large teams, after looking at the results, I would rather see the SML come back rather than the system that we have right now. Yes, there is some arbitrariness to it, but it cannot be helped - in any system we chose there will always be some arbitrary number that will make one team in a division that it does not want to be it. It is not completely arbitrary, if one looks at the team numbers, one can see natural breaks and those breaks are where the dividing lines are.

    I would suggest that any team that has 40% or more of the total number of the LMSC members is an LMSC team. I could think of other defining issues, does team have central management, how many bank accounts does it have? (more than one operating account - then it should be a super team). Who makes the decision on the hiring and firing of coaches?

    While some can argue about small LMSC teams competing against large state teams, that pales in obsticles that a true team has competing against an LMSC team. Of course, I keep thinking that if the game is to be played with the LMSC team, I think of Team Pacific going against Colorado Masters or the Florida LMSC teams. There are many Pacific swimmers who think it would be fun to be on a relay team with members from other current clubs.


    Lets look at the results of the past five years and who is doing well:

    2007 - Federal Way, Washington
    1 Pacific Northwest Aquatics
    2 Oregon Masters
    3 Colorado Masters
    4 Walnut Creek Masters
    5 Arizona Masters
    6 Team Illinois Masters
    7 Wisconsin Masters
    8 San Diego Masters
    9 The Olympic Club
    10 North Carolina Masters

    Only two teams were not LMSC Teams: Walnut Creek and The Olympic Club. PNA was hosting the championships.

    2006 Coral Springs, Florida
    1 Gold Coast Masters
    2 Colorado Masters
    3 Fort Lauderdale Aquatics
    4 Florida Aquatic Combined Team
    5 Team Illinois Masters
    6 New England Masters
    7 Pacific Northwest Aquatics
    8 North Carolina Masters
    9 Florida Maverick Masters
    10 Wisconsin Masters Aquatic Club
    Only Two teams were not LMSC Teams: Fort Lauderdale Aquatics and Florida Maverick Masters

    2005 Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    1 Colorada Masters Swimming
    2 Gold Coast Masters
    3 Florida Aquatic Combined Team
    4 The Olympic Club
    5 North Carolina Masters Swimming
    6 Illinois Masters
    7 Walnut Creek Masters
    8 New England Masters
    9 Virginia Masters Swim Team
    10 Pacific Northwest Aquatic

    Again only two teams were not LMSC Teams: Walnut Creek and The Olympic Club - Not bad for traveling all across the United States.

    2004 Indianapolis, Indiana
    1 Illinois Mastesr
    2 Indy Swim Fit
    3 Rocky Mountain Masters (Colorado Masters)
    4 Walnut Creek Masters
    5 OHIO Masters
    6 Michigan Masters
    7 Swim Kentucky Masters
    8 New England Masters
    9 North Carolina Masters
    10 Woodland Masters Swim Team
    Only three teams were not LMSC Teams Indy Swim Team (which was swimming at its home pool), Walnut Creek Masters and Woodland Masters Swim Team

    2003 Tempe, Arizona
    1 Arizona Masters
    2 Rocky Mountain Masters (Colorado Masters)
    3 Walnut Creek Masters
    4 San Diego Swim Masters
    5 The Olympic Club
    6 Pacific Northwest Aquatics
    7 YMCA Indy Swim Fit
    8 Illinois Masters
    9 New England Masters
    10 Oregon Masters
    Only three teams were not LMSC Teams Walnut Creek Masters, The Olympic Club, and Indy Swim Fit.

    Congratulation to Kerry O'Brien of Walnut Creek and Scott Williams of The Olympic, who consistantly get swimmers to travel to compete at the national championships - and they do very well!!


    Just my $0.02

    michael
    michael moore

  8. #8
    Active Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    46

    Re: team scoring

    Hey Michael,

    Thank you for posting those team results for the last 5 years. It's quite telling. And yes, congrats to Walnut Creek and The Olympic Club for doing so well! Teams like this DESERVE RECOGNITION and under the current scoring system, it takes looking at a list like this to see how well they've actually done since neither of them have ever won Nationals.

    Michael, you said you voted to change the old scoring system, so I assume you hold a position that may give you additional insight to this issue. I'm confused from your post as to whether you want to go back to SML scoring, or Mega Team/Club Team scoring. (Also, I'm unclear as to what you meant with the 40% idea. ??) I still think the SML scoring system requires an arbitrary division that would GREATLY hinder some teams while GREATLY helping others, who happen to be on the fortunate side of the line.

    I don't think that dividing Mega Teams and Club Teams would be arbitrary at all. We can tell by simply looking at the name of the team, i.e., Oregon Masters & Colorado Masters vs. Walnut Creek & The Olympic Club. There is no need to look at number of bank accounts or anything so detailed, but if pressed, I think a Club Team would have one board (and a training schedule, to be found on the club's website, should they have one).

    In the 3 links provided above (a few posts up) there was discussion of how Club Teams in Ohio (or Illinois?) compete as themselves within their LMSC, and they compete together when outside their LMSC. It seems that everyone is aware of what their real Club Team is.

    I'm still looking for an argument against dividing Mega Teams and Club Teams.

    Thanks!
    Brian

  9. #9
    Very Active Member A.K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cape Coral, Florida
    Posts
    415
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: team scoring

    How about..

    Within LMSC compete as Club Team

    Outside LMSC or Nationals compete as State Team

    Outside Country or International meets compete as National Team
    Thanks,

    A.K.

    Don't Panic!

  10. #10
    Very Active Member michaelmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    574

    Re: team scoring

    Quote Originally Posted by swim4life View Post
    I'm confused from your post as to whether you want to go back to SML scoring, or Mega Team/Club Team scoring.
    IMHO, either is preferable to the current system. But I would prefer the Mega Team/Club Team Scoring.

    I still think the SML scoring system requires an arbitrary division that would GREATLY hinder some teams while GREATLY helping others, who happen to be on the fortunate side of the line.

    Any system that we design will have some degree of arbitrariness to it, but lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We may have done that with the current system and what we see is that the large LMSC teams dominate in team scoring.

    Within LMSC compete as Club Team

    Outside LMSC or Nationals compete as State Team

    Outside Country or International meets compete as National Team


    Sounds good to me. I know a bunch of Pacific swimmers who would love to swim with Pacific swimmers from other clubs on a relay. Actually it would not take much to impliment a or b. In Pacific there are teams that like being their own teams, however, there are those that would like to combine for nationals and worlds.

    There is a FINA rule about competing as a national team - you compete as a 'non-national' club.

    michael
    michael moore

  11. #11
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    1,415

    Re: team scoring

    I am so glad to see this discussion. The Large, Medium, and Small divisions may not have worked perfectly, but the system was better than the current one. I am intrigued by the suggestion of number of actual events entered. I don't know if it is practicial, but it would account for the swimmers who do not have qualifying times and can only swim 3 events.

    I also worry about the definition of a "mega" team. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.

  12. #12
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    378
    Blog Entries
    18

    Re: team scoring

    Quote Originally Posted by A.K. View Post
    How about..

    Within LMSC compete as Club Team

    Outside LMSC or Nationals compete as State Team

    Outside Country or International meets compete as National Team
    Please no. I like my club. I am proud of the work that goes into it and its competitive tradition, and I would rather not be part of some "team" that is a group in name only. Honestly, I think LMSC and state teams are bad for competition: If you want to swim relays get four people from your team to go! That way you encourage your teammates to push themselves, both in competition and training.

    (It is hilarious how many people on my team come in swearing they won't compete, get nagged into going to a team focus meet, and wind up sucked in and ready to go to nationals.)

    So I would rather superteams didn't exist at all. However, at least with two divisions, you wouldn't be actively promoting a worse option.

  13. #13
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    1,415

    Re: team scoring

    Since I posted my last message early this morning, I've been thinking about team scoring. At first I thought perhaps we should base the grouping on team membership. That would be an incentive for teams to encourage participation. However, the location of nationals has the biggest impact on how many attend from a team. On the east coast, my team has had as many as 100 (Baltimore LC) and usually averages around 35 or so. In Federal Way, we had 11. If we had been in a small team category, we would probably have entered more relays.

    The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of basing the team category on number of "splashes" or number of events members of the team have entered. People who enter only for the distance day or people who can only enter 3 would count in proportion to how many events they entered. It might even keep me from scratching some events!

  14. #14
    Very Active Member michaelmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    574

    Re: team scoring

    Betsy

    I dont understand where you are going with basing the team championship on the number of slashes. The team that brings the most swimmers who have the most number of splashs to the championships, is that the winner?

    Or do you take the total points and divide it by the number of splashes?

    And of course, who and how is the tabulation going to be done? Just curious.


    michael
    michael moore

  15. #15
    sprint diva The Fortress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,108
    Blog Entries
    2132

    Re: team scoring

    Quote Originally Posted by some_girl View Post
    Please no. I like my club. I am proud of the work that goes into it and its competitive tradition, and I would rather not be part of some "team" that is a group in name only. Honestly, I think LMSC and state teams are bad for competition: If you want to swim relays get four people from your team to go! That way you encourage your teammates to push themselves, both in competition and training.

    (It is hilarious how many people on my team come in swearing they won't compete, get nagged into going to a team focus meet, and wind up sucked in and ready to go to nationals.)

    So I would rather superteams didn't exist at all. However, at least with two divisions, you wouldn't be actively promoting a worse option.
    I agree!! I joined my team because it was a "real" club team with good swimmers who had been on the team for years and longtime coaches. I purposefully did not join VMST, which is our state-wide umbrella team. State wide teams practice in a million different locations and have no real affinity other than the name. I'd rather swim relays with people I consider my teammates or friends. Many of our swimmers never compete. But, as with some girl's team, we all make a good showing at zones. One year everyone trained like crazy and went to nationals in Hawaii together and won the small team championship.

    So, I think the state wide or mega teams should be separated from the true clubs. I wouldn't object to going back to SML either. Arbitrariness is part of life. Some minor unfairness at the masters level is not breaking my heart.

  16. #16
    Very Active Member Peter Cruise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Nanaimo, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    1,967

    Re: team scoring

    And mine either. However, since everyone ignored it, I will restate- why keep track at all. Before you recoil in automatic horror, consider that there are evident large flaws in the system and no one (to this point) has come up with a seamless solution that satisfies everyone- so why do it? In Canada (I know, some of you automatically discount this statement) we have not, in my experience, kept track of team standings at nationals. There has been no observable suffering on the deck because of this- so why do it?
    Life keeps throwing curve balls; the trick, I'm learning, is to duck...

  17. #17
    Active Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    46

    Re: team scoring

    Wow, I'm glad to see people discussing this...I want to address a few items from the previous posts:

    (1) Number of splashes.
    When calculating score by the number of splashes, slower swimmers will still be discouraged from attending Nationals because it will weaken a team's strength, so I cannot support this option (...how ever it may be calculated, i.e., total points divided by number of splashes).

    (2) "Arbitrainess is part of life."
    This may be true, but while there is CLEAR arbitrariness in the SML team scoring, this factor is minimized (or nearly eliminated) with Mega Team/Cub Team scoring. Why deal with arbitrariness when we don't need to?

    I realize there will still be room for debate for a team like the Olympic Club who competes with swimmers from around the country even though they don't train together as long as they are really fast. But, that discussion can be saved for another day. I would still rather compete against the Olympic Club than an ENTIRE STATE. I would be fine considering the Olympic Club a club team. People have mentioned that determining what is considered a Mega Team may be difficult, but I still think it seems rather clear. PLEASE fill me in on what I'm missing.

    (3) "Mega teams are bad for competition."
    As I stated before, in my ideal world we would all compete with our club team. I completely agree that TRAINING WITH FRIENDS IN PREPARATION FOR NATIONALS is half of the fun of going to Nationals. I truly don't understand the benefit - on a personal level - of training all year with friends and then going to Nationals to compete (on a team or relay) with people you've never even met. Who cares?

    I obviously enjoy competing with my club team, and if Team Pacific actually materializes, my team will surely opt out of competing as part of it because we are our own cohesive unit, we are proud of what we can accomplish through our own hard work, and we are truly a family that I LOVE. Joining a larger force in order to score more points does nothing for me. Where's the team pride in that?

    Does the USMS Championship Committee and the rest of the LMSC Mega Teams really want to egg on California to create "Team Pacific" or "California Masters"? How boring would that be?

    I apologize if my passion spills into this post, but I am still just waiting for someone to present an argument against Mega Team/Club Team scoring. Is there one?

  18. #18
    sprint diva The Fortress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,108
    Blog Entries
    2132

    Re: team scoring

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Cruise View Post
    And mine either. However, since everyone ignored it, I will restate- why keep track at all. Before you recoil in automatic horror, consider that there are evident large flaws in the system and no one (to this point) has come up with a seamless solution that satisfies everyone- so why do it? In Canada (I know, some of you automatically discount this statement) we have not, in my experience, kept track of team standings at nationals. There has been no observable suffering on the deck because of this- so why do it?
    I wouldn't be bothered by this at all.

    I guess in an ideal world if you could keep things somewhat "fair," it would be fun for club teams to go head to head or do battle in long standing rivalries, and my team does that sometimes. This year (like last) we finished second at zones in the medium sized team category. Gave it the old college try, everyone cheered like crazy and no one worried more than a nanosecond about coming in second. (The cheering would no doubt have occurred without scoring as well.) I think the team competition may bring out more swimmers, so that is a benefit. But generally, I'm happy to swim my events, do a relay or two with my team and call it a day. I'm not sweating standings and that's not why I show up at meets. I also don't want to be forced to swim 8 events a day just to garner points if I find it to be physically detrimental.

    Personally, I dislike the concept of superteams. I guess if if we're going to keep score, they should be separated from the true club teams. Although when they win, everyone knows why. I can't get too worked up about team scoring. And if someone wants to join a superteam to swim relays because their club team doesn't have enough swimmers, I don't care, fine. However, I wouldn't join a superteam team to swim with strangers. Now, if we had a forum posters relay for Team Hottub, I would consider that. Otherwise, nah. I'll do relays with my team if and when enough people show up and are sufficiently inspired to do it. I did enjoy my first mixed 200+ year relay at a local meet last December. No thanks to Team Mid-Atlantic or Team Virginia.
    Last edited by The Fortress; June 4th, 2007 at 10:50 AM.

  19. #19
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    1,415

    Re: team scoring

    Michael,
    I meant using number of splashes to separate teams into Large, Medium, and Small. I don't know the solution to the team scoring problem. I just know that the top 10 teams doesn't seem to be working, and I like discussing other concepts.
    Betsy

  20. #20
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    378
    Blog Entries
    18

    Re: team scoring

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Cruise View Post
    And mine either. However, since everyone ignored it, I will restate- why keep track at all. Before you recoil in automatic horror, consider that there are evident large flaws in the system and no one (to this point) has come up with a seamless solution that satisfies everyone- so why do it? In Canada (I know, some of you automatically discount this statement) we have not, in my experience, kept track of team standings at nationals. There has been no observable suffering on the deck because of this- so why do it?
    I dunno. At nationals I don't pay much attention, but at New Englands (where scoring is divided between the NEM superteam and other clubs), competing as a team is half the fun. It encourages some folks to swim 16 events and be silly; it encourages everyone because scoring goes 16 deep, so you can contribute without being "fast." We all cheer like crazy and have a wonderful time. Maybe with the right mix, nationals could be like that too.

Page 1 of 16 1234511 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •