Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV


  • Please log in to reply
2021 replies to this topic

#1201 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 17,570 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:51 PM

How many conferences are there, 11? The ideal would be a 16 team playoff. Every conference champion, plus another 5 at large bids go to the highest ranking teams that didn't win their conference.

4 weeks of games, spread out over December and January, which is currently the bowl season. And the traditional bowls could be a part of it. So the Rose Bowl could be round 1 or 2 of the playoffs and put the PAC 12 and Big 10 champions against each other.

We'll get there some day.


that works too but I think having larger conferences would be preffered by schools because of the number of bowl games. It's why they went to just four right now.

But you are right. Someday.

#1202 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,017 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 16 October 2013 - 12:05 AM

The best part about moving to 16 team conferences would be they'd also be able to have a 8 team playoff format basically include every single conference winner. But all conferences would have to go to 16 teams.

 

 

There's no way the big conferences would give the mid majors an equal seat at the table. More likely you'd see a bit more shuffling around until you end up with 4 16 team conferences and they become a new division above 1A with their own set of scholarship rules, etc. similar to how Division I split into the I-A and I-AA (later renamed FBS and FCS) split a few decades ago.

 

Some will argue "what about teams like Boise State and Northern Illinois", since they've played BCS buster. But that ship already sailed, look at North Dakota State who plays in the FCS. They've recently been in the top 30 in Sagarin and are in the top 20 in other computer rankings this year and the last (they drop during the regular season due to SoS playing all their FCS conference foes) They could beat a lot of BCS teams, and probably only a couple teams in the country might be capable of really making them look like they don't belong on the same field. If the winner of the Sun Belt conference is given a playoff berth, why not the Bison?

 

They wouldn't get that chance because the FCS and FBS work with very different budgets, so they are rightly playing in different divisions with other schools who have budgets similar to their own. The amount of money available to even the lowliest BCS conference schools dwarfs what the richest mid major schools have access to. Their resources are much closer to what North Dakota State has access to than it is to what BCS conference schools have access to. As it is, much of the budget for mid major schools comes from the BCS teams paying to beat up on them at home a couple times a year.

 

The big conferences don't want to risk having their champion get knocked out by an overachieving mid major that got enough lucky breaks to win. They don't want the football playoff to have bracket busters like the basketball tournament.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#1203 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 448 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 19 October 2013 - 12:27 PM

So I'm thinking about calling the cable company and ordering the cheapest tv package they will sell me and getting the PAC 12 Network with it. Is there a way I could somehow get it onto one of my Directv DVRs from there? I only want 1 cable box. I don't want to pay a fortune or have a bunch of extra cables all over the house. But if I could get it to a Directv DVR then my whole home DVR service would allow me to watch it in every room. This might not be the best thread to ask, but it's sort of related I guess. More related than SEC championships and such. I'll ask in the general forum too.

Edited by BlackDynamite, 19 October 2013 - 12:29 PM.


#1204 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,870 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 19 October 2013 - 12:29 PM

In a word, no. Sorry!


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#1205 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 19 October 2013 - 01:26 PM

LOL at the automatic ticket being earned anywhere other  than on the field.

 

SEC has 7 consecutive BCS champions because they have best teams and best conference. Not even arguable.

 

No other conference even remotely close. 

 

PAC 12 is far closer to being grouped with the other(Non SEC) BCS conferences than closing gap on the SEC.

 

 

 

Now all that said I do think PAC 12 is the second best BCS conference this season and also through the last five year cycle.

 

Also would love to see D make arrangements for the PAC 12 Net to be added.

 

Just pointing out that in on field performance and caliber of NFL athletes that PAC 12 is much closer to whomever you consider to be the third best BCS Conference, than they are to the SEC.

 

Late EDIT: To correct some sloppy typos.

 

Nobody can touch the SEC's run of NC's, and if that is the only measure of on field performance everyone is a distance 2nd,  But in other ways the PAC-12 has tended to be closer to 1st than 3rd.  The following since 2000.

 

Teams in final AP Top 4:

1.  SEC - 16

2.  PAC-12 - 14

3.  Big-12 - 8

 

Teams in final AP Top 4 (based on current conference affiliation)

1.  SEC - 17

2.  PAC-12 - 16

3.  Big-12 - 8

 

Non-Conference Wins against Year Top-12 Teams

1.  PAC-12 - 21

2.  SEC - 20

3.  Big-12 - 14

 

Non-conference Winning Pct against "Big-6" conference teams:

1.  SEC - 56.2%

2.  PAC-12 - 55.3%

3.  Big-12 - 51.3%

 

The biggest issue the PAC-12 has had is not making it into the NCG.  4 times they've had a team that finished in the final Top 2 that didn't go to the BCS NCG.


Edited by chillyfl, 19 October 2013 - 05:33 PM.


#1206 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,366 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 19 October 2013 - 01:42 PM

Nobody can touch the SEC's run of NC's, and if that is the only measure of on field performance everyone is a distance 2nd,  But in other ways the PAC-12 has tended to be closer to 1st than 3rd.  The following since 2000.

 

Teams in final AP Top 4:

1.  SEC - 16

2.  PAC-12 - 14

3.  Big-12 - 8

 

Teams in final AP Top 4 (based on current conference affiliation)

1.  SEC - 17

2.  PAC-12 - 16

3.  Big-12 - 8

 

Non-Conference Wins against Year Top-12 Teams

1.  PAC-12 - 21

2.  SEC - 20

3.  Big-12 - 14

 

Non-conference Winning Pct against "Big-6" conference teams:

1.  SEC - 56.2%

2.  PAC-12 - 55.3%

3.  Big-12 - 51.3%

 

That biggest issue the PAC-12 has had is not making it into the NCG.  4 times they've had a team that finished in the final Top 2 that didn't go to the BCS NCG.

Do you mean final poll after bowls or final before selection? Because being top 2, specifically 2, means very little to justify your position because someone has to lose the 1 2 matchup and when 3 4 or 5 lose, then a team jumps them.


If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#1207 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 17,570 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:25 PM

Nobody can touch the SEC's run of NC's, and if that is the only measure of on field performance everyone is a distance 2nd, But in other ways the PAC-12 has tended to be closer to 1st than 3rd. The following since 2000.

Teams in final AP Top 4:
1. SEC - 16
2. PAC-12 - 14
3. Big-12 - 8

Teams in final AP Top 4 (based on current conference affiliation)
1. SEC - 17
2. PAC-12 - 16
3. Big-12 - 8

Non-Conference Wins against Year Top-12 Teams
1. PAC-12 - 21
2. SEC - 20
3. Big-12 - 14

Non-conference Winning Pct against "Big-6" conference teams:
1. SEC - 56.2%
2. PAC-12 - 55.3%
3. Big-12 - 51.3%

That biggest issue the PAC-12 has had is not making it into the NCG. 4 times they've had a team that finished in the final Top 2 that didn't go to the BCS NCG.


Hence my point the PAC 12 is in the same class as sec. People don't seem to get that the sec is so isolated in general with who they play and such in non conference games and the pac12 gets left out of the ncg if they have a one loss but that doesn't mean squat if its an sec team. Like I said before, put the best sec and best pac12 team in the championship game every year the last 10 years and it'll be pretty even split IMHO. Statistically what you just posted shows they are basically even. The big12 is quite a bit behind, but still strong.

Again, can't wait for next year and the playoff system, just which it was 8 teams instead of 4 (or more)

#1208 OFFLINE   jagrim

jagrim

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,886 posts
Joined: Aug 25, 2006

Posted 19 October 2013 - 04:33 PM

You just have to love this thread. It really makes my day.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk
  • sigma1914 and pdxBeav like this

#1209 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 19 October 2013 - 06:44 PM

Do you mean final poll after bowls or final before selection? Because being top 2, specifically 2, means very little to justify your position because someone has to lose the 1 2 matchup and when 3 4 or 5 lose, then a team jumps them.

 

8 teams (in 15 years) have won BCS National Championships as #2 in the BCS poll before the bowls.  That is a pretty low success rate of the polls (and computers) being able to differentiate between #1 and #2.  So after the bowls, 4 times the voters felt a PAC-12 team should have been in the top 2, vice the loser of the NCG (the loser doesn't always drop out of the top 2).  What success rate would those 4 teams have had against the NC?  We don't know, but if pre-bowl polls are any indication, the #2 team has around a 50/50 chance against the #1 team.  Had a 4 team playoff been in place during the last 15 years, it would have helped the PAC-12 more than any other conference in terms of actually allowing their best teams a chance to prove it on the field.



#1210 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,870 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 19 October 2013 - 07:30 PM

I conclude that FB, being played but once a week over a short period, is not at all conducive for determining which is the very best team. A few years are exceptions. 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#1211 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,017 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:07 PM

There is no such thing as the "very best team". Unless every time you do a playoff you would get the same results, all you are finding is the team that won its playoff games. That doesn't make them the best team, anymore than a team who knocks off the #1 ranked team deserves to automatically take over that #1 ranking.

 

Adding teams to the playoff will only make things worse for determining the most deserving champion. The first time the 8 or 16 seed knocked off the 1 seed, people would realize that adding more and more teams makes it less likely, not more likely, to end up with the most deserving team as NC. Just look at March Madness, and how often a 1 seed gets knocked out before reaching the sweet 16. The same thing could happen in football if you let in enough teams, as all the upsets in the past couple weeks (and happen every season) demonstrate in football any team can lose on any given day. That doesn't mean they're a worse team than the team that beat them, only that they got beat on that day.

 

Everyone hated the system where the voters voted for the "mythical national champion", but that's really probably as fair as anything else, and arguing over which team deserves to be ranked #1 was one of the best things about college football, that's been lost since the BCS NC game was created. As is shown by all the Pac 12 fans whining here about getting shut out of the NC game recently, playing the NC game didn't stop that. A four way playoff won't either, fans of the 5 seed will whine, and eventually we'll get an 8 way playoff, then fans of the 9 seed will whine.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#1212 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 17,570 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 19 October 2013 - 10:30 PM

There is no such thing as the "very best team". Unless every time you do a playoff you would get the same results, all you are finding is the team that won its playoff games. That doesn't make them the best team, anymore than a team who knocks off the #1 ranked team deserves to automatically take over that #1 ranking.

Adding teams to the playoff will only make things worse for determining the most deserving champion. The first time the 8 or 16 seed knocked off the 1 seed, people would realize that adding more and more teams makes it less likely, not more likely, to end up with the most deserving team as NC. Just look at March Madness, and how often a 1 seed gets knocked out before reaching the sweet 16. The same thing could happen in football if you let in enough teams, as all the upsets in the past couple weeks (and happen every season) demonstrate in football any team can lose on any given day. That doesn't mean they're a worse team than the team that beat them, only that they got beat on that day.

Everyone hated the system where the voters voted for the "mythical national champion", but that's really probably as fair as anything else, and arguing over which team deserves to be ranked #1 was one of the best things about college football, that's been lost since the BCS NC game was created. As is shown by all the Pac 12 fans whining here about getting shut out of the NC game recently, playing the NC game didn't stop that. A four way playoff won't either, fans of the 5 seed will whine, and eventually we'll get an 8 way playoff, then fans of the 9 seed will whine.


Its the very best team any one year. And that changes every year. But people seem to say that the sec has all the best teams every year, which is false. They aren't better top to bottom every year. Never have been never will be. No one conference can say that. And that's the point. You can only decide one year fort he next, but the bcs and coaches poll etc decides a lot based on preconceived notions that the sec is better every year. Hence its completely flawed, as you so nicely pointed out.


the whole point of march madness is to show you who can win so many games in a row under all the pressure. If you can't do that,you aren't the best for the year. Any number one seed that losses before the sweet 16 didn't deserve to make it there because they just where not good enoug for the entire time you have to be at your best. The winner every year played their best for a month strait. No one else did.

Truth is pro sports like basketball and hockey and baseball have a a better system with multi game series for each round, but that's not possible with football, except that it is kind of. You take the winners of a conference, which means they had to win more than any other team and win a game against the other best team in their conference. That's as close to a series as you can get to get to a final round. But that isn't how it happens today.

With the new playoff system, you Now have all top teams and at that point, if you can't win, it's not cause you had a bad day and the other team played above their heads, it's because you couldn't play at that level when you needed to even though you are supposed to be that good. Im Fine with as big a playoff system that allows only one champion team from each conference. If they went beyond that or allow two teams from any on conference then it would not fly. If you came I second in your conference, tuff luck, your not the best in that conference. If you where you would have won the games you had to to win the conference.

And you make any PAC 12 fans point with your argument. You don't think they belong there because you think the sec is better, but without having to truly prove it every year with a proper playoff system you really don't have a real way to say our teams are always better under pressure as well as during the regular season. Also, my whole issue all along is that the sec does get a pass for a single one game loss, but the pac12 does not. Big double standard, and its about to go away with a playoff system. I hope.

Look USC should have beat Texas that year, but they didn't, which means Texas won when it counted. Good for them. But at least it was a proper match up. Two sec teams was stupid. The had their chance, and winning a do over was meaningless. They lost when it counted the first time, they should not have gotten a second chance, the PAC12 an no other conference does. I didn't see a single sec game today that couldn't have been won by either Stanford or Oregon. Unit you won't see a Stanford Oregon title game. Zero chance of that. Even if Stanford had beaten Utah last week.

#1213 OFFLINE   yosoyellobo

yosoyellobo

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 2,223 posts
  • LocationJacksonville Fl
Joined: Nov 01, 2006

Posted 19 October 2013 - 10:49 PM

I would like a playoff with at least sixteen teams. Don't really care who wins just hate the bowl system.

#1214 OFFLINE   DC_SnDvl

DC_SnDvl

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 276 posts
Joined: Aug 17, 2006

Posted 20 October 2013 - 05:48 AM

You just have to love this thread. It really makes my day.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk

I would love if we didn't have this thread (because we had the network on Directv)



#1215 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 448 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 20 October 2013 - 02:12 PM

There is no such thing as the "very best team". Unless every time you do a playoff you would get the same results, all you are finding is the team that won its playoff games. That doesn't make them the best team, anymore than a team who knocks off the #1 ranked team deserves to automatically take over that #1 ranking.

Adding teams to the playoff will only make things worse for determining the most deserving champion. The first time the 8 or 16 seed knocked off the 1 seed, people would realize that adding more and more teams makes it less likely, not more likely, to end up with the most deserving team as NC. Just look at March Madness, and how often a 1 seed gets knocked out before reaching the sweet 16. The same thing could happen in football if you let in enough teams, as all the upsets in the past couple weeks (and happen every season) demonstrate in football any team can lose on any given day. That doesn't mean they're a worse team than the team that beat them, only that they got beat on that day.

Everyone hated the system where the voters voted for the "mythical national champion", but that's really probably as fair as anything else, and arguing over which team deserves to be ranked #1 was one of the best things about college football, that's been lost since the BCS NC game was created. As is shown by all the Pac 12 fans whining here about getting shut out of the NC game recently, playing the NC game didn't stop that. A four way playoff won't either, fans of the 5 seed will whine, and eventually we'll get an 8 way playoff, then fans of the 9 seed will whine.

The championship is won or lost on the field in a playoff. If your team loses, you can't complain too much.

Right now, Oregon fans have a legitimate complaint that their team deserved to be there last year and the year before. Utah actually went undefeated a few years ago abs that didn't get them in.

If a #8 seed wins it all, so be it. They earned it on the field.

#1216 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,366 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 20 October 2013 - 02:18 PM

The championship is won or lost on the field in a playoff. If your team loses, you can't complain too much.

Right now, Oregon fans have a legitimate complaint that their team deserved to be there last year and the year before. Utah actually went undefeated a few years ago abs that didn't get them in.

If a #8 seed wins it all, so be it. They earned it on the field.

Utah wasn't even P12 that year. They were in the weak MWC... a non automatic qualifying conference.


If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#1217 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,366 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 20 October 2013 - 02:23 PM

The SEC sure has been weak this year. P12 has surely been as good, if not better, thus far. I'd rank the conferences as a whole...

 

1a P12

1b SEC

3 Big 12

4 ACC


If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#1218 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,911 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 20 October 2013 - 04:00 PM

Pac-12 not giving ground in DirecTV dispute

For the first Saturday this season, both the Arizona and Arizona State football games were carried by Pac-12 Networks. Both were pivotal meetings for the state teams. Both went unseen by stay-at-home fans with DirecTV.

Conference Commissioner Larry Scott, who attended the ASU-Washington game at Sun Devil Stadium, understands fans’ frustration about the lack of a deal between the conference and the satellite distributor but said there is no way the Pac-12 will settle for a lesser agreement just to have a deal done.

“We won’t do that,” he said. “First of all, we have an obligation to over 50 distributors we already have deals with on the same basis. And in fairness and legally, we can’t do a different deal that we wouldn’t have done for someone else.”

Scott said “eventually I believe (DirecTV) will take the network” and said the conference came into the process knowing there likely would be holdouts. He mentioned that he recently spoke to the president of the NFL Network, who acknowledged his negotiations with Time Warner Cable took eight years to get done.

As a DirecTV subscriber, I have only one reaction.

Gulp. …


http://www.azcentral...tv-dispute.html

#1219 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 20 October 2013 - 04:22 PM

Pac-12 not giving ground in DirecTV dispute
Both were pivotal meetings for the state teams. Both went unseen by stay-at-home fans with DirecTV.

 

Impossible, there are no pivotal meetings on the PAC-12 Network, just ask D*.



#1220 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 690 posts
  • LocationStanislaus County Farmland
Joined: Jan 19, 2007

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:34 PM

What we won't get to see 10/26 thanks to geniuses at D*:

Utah @ USC 4p (ET), 1pm (PT)

Arizona (again) @ Colorado 8p (ET), 5 p (PT)

 

I was looking at the PAC 12 Net's basketball schedule in November and December & we're going to get shut out of seeing on average eight-to-10 games a week during the non-conference schedule.



#1221 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,870 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:41 PM

Oh, the humanity! (re FB)

 

I am, however, actually glad I don't watch any BktBl until March Madness. PAC12 won't do me much good then. 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#1222 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,366 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:12 PM

What we won't get to see 10/26 thanks to geniuses at D*:

Utah @ USC 4p (ET), 1pm (PT)

Arizona (again) @ Colorado 8p (ET), 5 p (PT)

 

I was looking at the PAC 12 Net's basketball schedule in November and December & we're going to get shut out of seeing on average eight-to-10 games a week during the non-conference schedule.

Both snoozer games.... including my Wildcats. My point, nationally extremely uninteresting games.


If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#1223 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 690 posts
  • LocationStanislaus County Farmland
Joined: Jan 19, 2007

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:52 PM

Both snoozer games.... including my Wildcats. My point, nationally extremely uninteresting games.

Your opinion

Utah has a big win against Stanford and USC is always interesting to watch, especially at home.



#1224 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 448 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:58 PM

Both snoozer games.... including my Wildcats. My point, nationally extremely uninteresting games.

I'll bet you $50 Colorado beats Arizona, and Utah beats USC.

Just kidding, but that's how easy it is to make any game really interesting.

#1225 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:30 PM

Both snoozer games.... including my Wildcats. My point, nationally extremely uninteresting games.

 

What exactly constitutes a "nationally extremely interesting" game.  Arguable the only ones next Saturday are UCLA/Oregon and Missouri/South Carolina.  But there are still a lot of other games that casual football fans will watch.

 

The NC State/Florida State and Alabama/Tennessee are both expected to be blowouts.  Unless one of those two games unexpectedly winds up being close (like the Stanford/Utah game a couple weeks ago on the P12N) then USC/Utah is what I'll be watching during that time slot, because to me it is the most interesting game available at that time.






Protected By... spam firewall...And...