Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 4      1   2   3   4   Next
NCexile

Registered:
Posts: 643
Reply with quote  #1 
As a quant researcher (among other things) I'm pretty miffed at why the selection committee bothers with RPI.  The knock on Minnesota and JMU was their SOS yet 50% of the RPI is just that; your schedule and your opponents, collectively.  If a team's schedule is 'deficient' the RPI should reflect it.  I have also coached track and field.  Loved it since parents can't question the starters.  It's all objective . . . jump higher, run faster, throw further . . . all measurable.  It seems to me the committee is substituting its 'judgement' for the supposedly objective measure of schedule quality.  It would be like adding 'style points' to T & F.  Lets see; Julie clears 17' but the judges decided Amber looked better so it awarded first place to her although she only cleared 16'6".  If you don't trust RPI then get rid of it.  The Minnesota and JMU coaches played  a schedule that, objectively measured, qualified them to host.  They should.  There is a place for a committee but only in determining location and seeding.
Dadintow

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #2 
+1


__________________
Choose to be Positive in Life
redsoxjbf

Registered:
Posts: 68
Reply with quote  #3 
Aren't the early season tournaments in Florida like Michelle Smiths in Clearwater and the Disney ones subject to the "draw".  I know in the past JMU played in these and played Oregon, LSU, Minnesota, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee etc etc and this year they get "nobody".  That is not the coaches fault is it?  Maybe the entrants were just down and not the "in" places to play for the Power 5 teams anymore.  Certainly not the coaches fault if the competition chose to go somewhere else all of a sudden.  Of course I dont know how all this works but seems like it could just be coincidence. 
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleDawg


But they didn't.

The won a a percentage of games that, at first glance, seemed to qualify them to host.  But, when objectively measured with the RPI, It didn't.

Take your track analogy. Minnesota and JMU looked fast. But that's because they were racing below their class. When you actually checked the time clock, there wasn't much to get excited about.


No, if you want to use a track analogy I would say this.

The RPI is like a 1600 meter run or a 4x100 relay. You run four laps or or four legs, and at the end of the race the person or team with the best time wins.

What they don't do, is take just one lap or one leg of the race and say this is the most important part of the race and the winner of the race is the team that has the fastest leg or the runner with the fastest lap.

In the RPI all of the "legs or laps" are accounted for.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 1,012
Reply with quote  #5 
That would be a concern, similar to what happened in basketball this year. You can't get folks to play you, and then at the end of the year those same folks say "but you didn't play anyone". I understand that the SEC and PAC are very good softball conferences, but schools from other conferences will always have difficulty scheduling the number of top 25 or top 10 games that they mentioned in the release. I thought that RPI was developed specifically for that reason, as a method to try to find a system to balance what is physically impossible to be balanced. I guess the committee decided another route was the way to go.
Opposedtohate

Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunAmos
That would be a concern, similar to what happened in basketball this year. You can't get folks to play you, and then at the end of the year those same folks say "but you didn't play anyone". I understand that the SEC and PAC are very good softball conferences, but schools from other conferences will always have difficulty scheduling the number of top 25 or top 10 games that they mentioned in the release. I thought that RPI was developed specifically for that reason, as a method to try to find a system to balance what is physically impossible to be balanced. I guess the committee decided another route was the way to go.


The only schools that have difficulty coming up with a more difficult and challenging schedule are those that do not wish to do so.  I'm not saying you have to play 25 games against top 25 teams as do many in the toughest conferences, but neither do you have to make so many excuses for extremely weak schedules.  Just plan and execute.  I believe that is the coaches responsibility.

__________________
Strong belief that adult ncaa sports fans should be supportive instead of hateful.
gonegolfin

Registered:
Posts: 353
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCexile
As a quant researcher (among other things) I'm pretty miffed at why the selection committee bothers with RPI.  The knock on Minnesota and JMU was their SOS yet 50% of the RPI is just that; your schedule and your opponents, collectively.  If a team's schedule is 'deficient' the RPI should reflect it.  I have also coached track and field.  Loved it since parents can't question the starters.  It's all objective . . . jump higher, run faster, throw further . . . all measurable.  It seems to me the committee is substituting its 'judgement' for the supposedly objective measure of schedule quality.  It would be like adding 'style points' to T & F.  Lets see; Julie clears 17' but the judges decided Amber looked better so it awarded first place to her although she only cleared 16'6".  If you don't trust RPI then get rid of it.  The Minnesota and JMU coaches played  a schedule that, objectively measured, qualified them to host.  They should.  There is a place for a committee but only in determining location and seeding.


It sounds as if we have some similarity in backgrounds. I have a computer science/math/statistics background practicing in AI, machine learning (really statistical learning), and data science. I also have a significant amount of experience in the financial markets.

I address this ... and the redundancy of the selection committee's process (emphasizing RPI and SOS as separate metrics/criteria) here.

A few points ...

1) SOS is not 50% of RPI ... it is nearly (but not quite) 75% of RPI. Thus, winning counts for just over 25% (not nearly enough). The reason it is not exactly 75% SOS and 25% winning, despite the 25/50/25 formula weights ... your own winning percentage (WP) contributes to your own OOWP through your opponents' OWP (minus the games played against those opponents).

2) You are exactly right when you say the intent of the RPI is to capture this schedule strength along with the value of winning into a composite metric. If it cannot do this, you need to replace it with something that does. Meanwhile, you have the selection committee tinkering with the criteria by introducing other variables/metrics that actually exacerbate the problem. They do not understand the redundancy they are introducing into the process.

3) The style points you mention is a reasonable analogy.

4) And yes ... the RPI is deficient ... in a variety of ways. It measures SOS poorly ... as it does not go far enough (OOWP ... only two levels deep). This is why playing a team ranked considerably lower in the RPI can help your SOS more than playing a team ranked considerably higher in the RPI (and everything in between).  Because the RPI overstates a poorly measured SOS, this means it understates winning ... which is why teams with mediocre winning percentages can find themselves in the Top 32 RPI. All these schools are required to do is schedule ... winning is secondary. And when the committee views winning 1/3 of your Top 25 games as a positive for national seed consideration because they are focusing on the # of wins and mostly ignoring losses (per their statements), the philosophy of "just schedule/winning is secondary" is ingrained even more into the process. And this evolves into a closed re-inforcing, self perpetuating system.

Brian







3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,266
Reply with quote  #8 
You have 5 weeks of open scheduling opportunity. If the ONLY games played in a season were in conference ... then there would be a legit gripe
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 6,864
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redsoxjbf
Aren't the early season tournaments in Florida like Michelle Smiths in Clearwater and the Disney ones subject to the "draw".  I know in the past JMU played in these and played Oregon, LSU, Minnesota, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee etc etc and this year they get "nobody".  That is not the coaches fault is it?  Maybe the entrants were just down and not the "in" places to play for the Power 5 teams anymore.  Certainly not the coaches fault if the competition chose to go somewhere else all of a sudden.  Of course I dont know how all this works but seems like it could just be coincidence. 

There is not a draw for these tournaments.  The coaches negotiate extensively with the Tournament director.

First round is for which teams are even included in the tournament.  A lot of coaches weigh in on who should and should not be invited.  

The 'better' run tournaments were the ones that could keep the higher ranked teams coming back year after year.  Back 20 years ago that was AZ, UCLA, ASU, Cal, Stanford, UW.  Nowadays way more complex.  Plus some of the higher end southern teams like to host tournaments. 

After the teams are chosen then the schedule negotiation begins.   Some teams are just not willing to play some other teams.  Even that cannot always be met, but the TD is there to fill his tournament with the highest ranked teams.



__________________
Can always tell when fresh is drunk and tired. Gets low energy and says 'sh1t' a lot,
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 6,864
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonegolfin


It sounds as if we have some similarity in backgrounds. I have a computer science/math/statistics background practicing in AI, machine learning (really statistical learning), and data science. I also have a significant amount of experience in the financial markets.

I address this ... and the redundancy of the selection committee's process (emphasizing RPI and SOS as separate metrics/criteria) here.

A few points ...

1) SOS is not 50% of RPI ... it is nearly (but not quite) 75% of RPI. Thus, winning counts for just over 25% (not nearly enough). The reason it is not exactly 75% SOS and 25% winning, despite the 25/50/25 formula weights ... your own winning percentage (WP) contributes to your own OOWP through your opponents' OWP (minus the games played against those opponents).

2) You are exactly right when you say the intent of the RPI is to capture this schedule strength along with the value of winning into a composite metric. If it cannot do this, you need to replace it with something that does. Meanwhile, you have the selection committee tinkering with the criteria by introducing other variables/metrics that actually exacerbate the problem. They do not understand the redundancy they are introducing into the process.

3) The style points you mention is a reasonable analogy.

4) And yes ... the RPI is deficient ... in a variety of ways. It measures SOS poorly ... as it does not go far enough (OOWP ... only two levels deep). This is why playing a team ranked considerably lower in the RPI can help your SOS more than playing a team ranked considerably higher in the RPI (and everything in between).  Because the RPI overstates a poorly measured SOS, this means it understates winning ... which is why teams with mediocre winning percentages can find themselves in the Top 32 RPI. All these schools are required to do is schedule ... winning is secondary. And when the committee views winning 1/3 of your Top 25 games as a positive for national seed consideration because they are focusing on the # of wins and mostly ignoring losses (per their statements), the philosophy of "just schedule/winning is secondary" is ingrained even more into the process. 

Brian








I hope it is not a 'style' thing as you guys are classifying it.  I hope the committee is considering, a bit, what is best for the sport.  What is best for the sport is to have the best television audience draw, possible matchups on the televised games, the regional finals, and supers.  

That means if you send Notre Dame to Michigan and slight Louisville by sending them to a different regional, they are going try to make that happen (from last year).   The ULL to LSU is another example. 



__________________
Can always tell when fresh is drunk and tired. Gets low energy and says 'sh1t' a lot,
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
You have 5 weeks of open scheduling opportunity. If the ONLY games played in a season were in conference ... then there would be a legit gripe


Here is the rub 3LT. If Midwest or East Coast mid major goes to these tournaments they are viewed as the "easy games". So they get to play a couple of those big teams then the rest are "easy on easy" when the P5 plays P5. So going to play 5 or 6 games at the Kajikawa (or whatever) a mid major ends up hurting their RPI because they get to play Oregon St and Mizzou then the remainder of the schedule is W. Michigan, Butler and Weber St.

The 5 weeks of open scheduling is great if you play at a P5 school because your football teams pay for you to be gone for 5 weeks, mid majors budgets don't cover 5 cross country trips. So instead, you go to Auburn, aTm, and Oklahoma on a bus for the weekend, they pay for your hotels and meals, you get 1 or 2 against the host team and 2 or 3 against the other mids there. Net result for your RPI is the same and your expenses are reduced.

Then factor in midweek games when the conference season starts, you can pick up a game or two against the local big boys, but the rest have to be filled with other local mid and low majors.

Minnesota is different than the mids but it isn't quite as simple as schedule better.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,266
Reply with quote  #12 
My post is related to why teams host or not ... so, I don't think a jmu, ull, Minnesota, michigan would be considered the "jv" competition. Btw, the kajikawa is like odonnell's thing in orlando... has fallen off the cliff the past couple years
markfree

Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #13 
"You have 5 weeks of open scheduling opportunity. If the ONLY games played in a season were in conference ... then there would be a legit gripe" You are obviously smart, but you are showing an alarming lack of understanding. Schedules are made up to two years in advance. There is no way to know who is going to be where. Minny scheduled Texas at Texas twice. LSU at LSU. Washington at Washington twice. Oregon State at Oregon State. Cal at Cal. Fresno who was #17 in the country a year ago at Fresno twice. They also have no control over who Texas also brings to that weekend. They have no control over who LSU brings to also play. They have no control over who Washington brings. They have no control over who Fresno brings. But with all that said they also beat FAU who was top 25 AT THE TIME. They beat Cal Poly's Sierra Hyland. Come on man. You are so locked in here that you can't see what this is really all about.
AleDawg

Registered:
Posts: 401
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
Here is the rub 3LT. If Midwest or East Coast mid major goes to these tournaments they are viewed as the "easy games". So they get to play a couple of those big teams then the rest are "easy on easy" when the P5 plays P5. So going to play 5 or 6 games at the Kajikawa (or whatever) a mid major ends up hurting their RPI because they get to play Oregon St and Mizzou then the remainder of the schedule is W. Michigan, Butler and Weber St. The 5 weeks of open scheduling is great if you play at a P5 school because your football teams pay for you to be gone for 5 weeks, mid majors budgets don't cover 5 cross country trips. So instead, you go to Auburn, aTm, and Oklahoma on a bus for the weekend, they pay for your hotels and meals, you get 1 or 2 against the host team and 2 or 3 against the other mids there. Net result for your RPI is the same and your expenses are reduced. Then factor in midweek games when the conference season starts, you can pick up a game or two against the local big boys, but the rest have to be filled with other local mid and low majors. Minnesota is different than the mids but it isn't quite as simple as schedule better.


IDK

At the Nutter this year one team played: LSU, Texas, Michigan, St. Johns, Stanford.

Another played Ohio St, UCSB, Northwestern, Missouri and Texas.

Another played Oregon, UCLA, Cal, Arkansas, St Mary's.

One was an east coast mid-major another a major P5 Team and another a midwest mid-major.

I really don't think any of these schedules are RPI killers.

__________________
"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."
CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 1,012
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfree
"You have 5 weeks of open scheduling opportunity. If the ONLY games played in a season were in conference ... then there would be a legit gripe" You are obviously smart, but you are showing an alarming lack of understanding. Schedules are made up to two years in advance. There is no way to know who is going to be where. Minny scheduled Texas at Texas twice. LSU at LSU. Washington at Washington twice. Oregon State at Oregon State. Cal at Cal. Fresno who was #17 in the country a year ago at Fresno twice. They also have no control over who Texas also brings to that weekend. They have no control over who LSU brings to also play. They have no control over who Washington brings. They have no control over who Fresno brings. But with all that said they also beat FAU who was top 25 AT THE TIME. They beat Cal Poly's Sierra Hyland. Come on man. You are so locked in here that you can't see what this is really all about.


The answer is simple. It's easier to say just schedule better but not pick up the phone when called to set up a series.
Scorekeeper

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #16 
I watched a bit of Allister's news conference yesterday and they scheduled some 2016 Top 25 teams this year and those teams didn't rank this year: Texas and Fresno State.  

I guess she should have paid more attention to this website as she would know that Texas isn't very good anymore.

I believe the Nebraska thread had a discussion about Nebraska playing too many top teams, given their ability and that perhaps Minnesota should have swapped pre-season schedules.  I think Nebraska was 1-10 vs Top 25; perhaps Minnesota would have been 5-6, which would have given them the magic 4.
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
My post is related to why teams host or not ... so, I don't think a jmu, ull, Minnesota, michigan would be considered the "jv" competition. Btw, the kajikawa is like odonnell's thing in orlando... has fallen off the cliff the past couple years


ULL and JMU are in the same boat, they won't get 5 games against P5 those few weekends. As far as Kajikawa, it was an example. What was Oregon's schedule at the Nutter this year?

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
Opposedtohate

Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
Here is the rub 3LT. If Midwest or East Coast mid major goes to these tournaments they are viewed as the "easy games". So they get to play a couple of those big teams then the rest are "easy on easy" when the P5 plays P5. So going to play 5 or 6 games at the Kajikawa (or whatever) a mid major ends up hurting their RPI because they get to play Oregon St and Mizzou then the remainder of the schedule is W. Michigan, Butler and Weber St. The 5 weeks of open scheduling is great if you play at a P5 school because your football teams pay for you to be gone for 5 weeks, mid majors budgets don't cover 5 cross country trips. So instead, you go to Auburn, aTm, and Oklahoma on a bus for the weekend, they pay for your hotels and meals, you get 1 or 2 against the host team and 2 or 3 against the other mids there. Net result for your RPI is the same and your expenses are reduced. Then factor in midweek games when the conference season starts, you can pick up a game or two against the local big boys, but the rest have to be filled with other local mid and low majors. Minnesota is different than the mids but it isn't quite as simple as schedule better.


I'm not sure what Oregon State's RPI ended up being, but playing Mizzou would actually have helped the mid-majors, particularly if they beat the tigers.  Even though that was not a good illustration of your point, I think reasonable people would agree that it is likely more difficult for non P5 teams to set a challenging schedule.  They just need to make it a point and do so, even if it means working harder at that component of your coaching and/or AD job.

__________________
Strong belief that adult ncaa sports fans should be supportive instead of hateful.
gonegolfin

Registered:
Posts: 353
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opposedtohate

I'm not sure what Oregon State's RPI ended up being, but playing Mizzou would actually have helped the mid-majors, particularly if they beat the tigers.  


No, it would not! This is something that is lost on so many folks. Scheduling a Mizzou for a mid-major in the same RPI range (Ex. Texas State ... worse if it is Minnesota, JMU, or Louisiana) is somewhat damaging to their RPI if they win ... and if they lose, it is quite damaging. Mid-majors need to avoid the bottom tiers (and sometimes mid tiers) of the top conferences.

You cannot get fooled into focusing on the ranking of the opponent. You need to determine how that opponent is going to impact your SOS (not good if it is Mizzou) and the probability of a win. There are many examples of teams ranked 100+ in the RPI that would be much more beneficial to a team's SOS than Mizzou's.

Brian
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,621
Reply with quote  #20 
If some of these other tournaments have been sliding off, it is maybe because, increasingly, the Nutter and the Garman have become one-stop shops for harvesting RPI juice and Top-25/50 opponents. There is also the Puerto Vallarta College Challenge at the start of the season, which scrapes off a lot of the cream. UW was at all three, plus scheduled Minnesota twice at home and Bama twice on the road. If not for getting run-ruled at home by Stanford, they might have been seeded #4 (but #6 is alright).

While the NCAA still uses RPI to sort the field, they are now relying much more on SoS (Part 2 of RPI) and Top 10/25/50 wins to set the seeds. This was the "head fake" - first sort vs final culling. Note that this is being done due to the weakness of RPI as a seeding tool. This does, however, disadvantage Mid-Majors, who now can't just float up on RPI to host.
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleDawg


IDK

At the Nutter this year one team played: LSU, Texas, Michigan, St. Johns, Stanford.

Another played Ohio St, UCSB, Northwestern, Missouri and Texas.

Another played Oregon, UCLA, Cal, Arkansas, St Mary's.

One was an east coast mid-major another a major P5 Team and another a midwest mid-major.

I really don't think any of these schedules are RPI killers.


Because you are thinking of it as P5 opponents. Playing UCSB, Northwestern and Missouri doesn't help an RPI as much as you think. The sub 500 Wildcats and barely 500 Tigers and Gauchos hurts.

Playing teams with RPIs in the 30s and 40s is only beneficial if they have good W/L records. The bump you get in OOWP is insignificant and lost by the hit in OWP.

Missouri gets a huge bump considering what more than 60% of their RPI is calculated on what their opponents do. But by playing Missouri you only get benefit of 25%


Playing 45-15 Fordham and 32-16 St John's in a midweek DH does more for the OWP than playing Northwestern and Missouri at the Nutter, especially if you win, and is a whole lot less expensive.






__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,266
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad


ULL and JMU are in the same boat, they won't get 5 games against P5 those few weekends. As far as Kajikawa, it was an example. What was Oregon's schedule at the Nutter this year?
oregon Played the first week, by intent, being so young in the circle
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,266
Reply with quote  #23 
Nutter made a lot of money this week
CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 1,012
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
Nutter made a lot of money this week


I wouldn't say that. We quit playing because it doesn't make sense to travel across the country with the possibility of playing one or at most two top 50 teams and have three that make the trip a wasted effort.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,266
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad


ULL and JMU are in the same boat, they won't get 5 games against P5 those few weekends. As far as Kajikawa, it was an example. What was Oregon's schedule at the Nutter this year?
ull and jmu would not be shunted to des Moines or Pawtucket at nutter. But that is just my opinion.

My point is this... Minnesota was in Fresno instead of the second week of the nutter. That made the difference this year. If you have a bad conference, you have to gun for that event, and... you can't be hung up on home and home series with the big programs. You have to travel without reciprocation if need be
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,621
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunAmos


I wouldn't say that. We quit playing because it doesn't make sense to travel across the country with the possibility of playing one or at most two top 50 teams and have three that make the trip a wasted effort.


That's only true from a pure RPI basis - RPI will get you into the field, but to host you need wins against equivalent or better competition. For that, increasingly, you need to go to the Nutter and the Garman. Yes, it is an added expense, and one many Mid-Majors don't want to foot.
gonegolfin

Registered:
Posts: 353
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa

While the NCAA still uses RPI to sort the field, they are now relying much more on SoS (Part 2 of RPI) and Top 10/25/50 wins to set the seeds. This was the "head fake" - first sort vs final culling. Note that this is being done due to the weakness of RPI as a seeding tool. This does, however, disadvantage Mid-Majors, who now can't just float up on RPI to host.


Actually, SOS being parts 2, 3, and 4 of a 4-part RPI.

And now with SOS being considered as another set of criteria (apart from RPI itself), they make the problem worse. They are essentially saying that SOS should be much more than 75% ... further de-empasizing winning.

Brian
AleDawg

Registered:
Posts: 401
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
Because you are thinking of it as P5 opponents. Playing UCSB, Northwestern and Missouri doesn't help an RPI as much as you think. The sub 500 Wildcats and barely 500 Tigers and Gauchos hurts.


It was UW that played this schedule.

Bethune Cookman and Kent State with the other 2 respectively.

Perhaps if I cared to run the numbers (and I don't) your point would come true that neither of these schedules is a huge RPI boost.

__________________
"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleDawg


It was UW that played this schedule.

Bethune Cookman and Kent State with the other 2 respectively.

Perhaps if I cared to run the numbers (and I don't) your point would come true that neither of these schedules is a huge RPI boost.


Great. That doesn't mean if ULL or JMU played that schedule that their RPI would have improved enough to host.

You don't have to run the numbers, Brian confirmed what I said in his post. I'll take his word for it.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,266
Reply with quote  #30 

Still Missouri will always have a great OWP (10th this year), and that won't change much. So, how bad IS it to have scheduled them this year?

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.