Jump to content
portajohn

2021 Rumor Mill Tracker

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, klehner said:

Thanks for the perspective.  My point was that these schools make a calculation based on years of experience, and determine that there is a lower limit to academic credentials below which they have concluded that the holder of those low credentials would likely not survive (much less thrive) at their institution, regardless of the other achievements of said applicant.  They just *don't* accept people ("lowering their standards") below that lower limit.

The way a lot of this happens is they have officers talk through it, and these get discussed amongst either 2 of or all of the admissions officers at the college.  Every student is looked at, the head of admissions is there to have final say in important and/or complicated cases, and they talk through each one if it isn’t a clear deny/admit situation.  A big factor is the whether or not the College has a relationship with the High School.  Every school is different, but they spend a LOT of time making their decisions on these things, and athletes get first/early reads.

Source: Time working as a college admissions officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

An athlete I work with was told that he needed an  1170 SAT to get admission to an Ivy and another elite school.  Kid is nationally competitive in wrestling, top 10% of his class, and has a couple other qualities desired by academic institutions.

1170?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

1170?

yep.  That is what dad told me.  I had trouble believing it, but I do know that it worked out.  

Don't know what he ended up getting, but he was accepted to an Ivy and enrolled for the fall.  Again, high GPA, high class rank, national caliber athlete, and possesses a couple other traits that that colleges like to see in students.

 

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, klehner said:

You keep saying this.  Do these schools have a minimum admission standard below which they just don't accept, and they make exceptions for athletes and donor offspring by *lowering* that standard?

Here is how it works.  The University expects their overall admitted class to have a certain average SAT/ACT score and GPA.  These numbers are reported to the college board and are important for their ranking.  From their students, the athletes will on average have lower scores, and within the athletes each coach is allowed to recruit a certain number of athletes who deviate from this average.  The number and degree of deviation depends entirely on how much the sport is valued by the current administration (which directly relates to the level of donor support).  So maybe a coach is allowed one kid with an 1100-1200 SAT score, one kid with a 1200-1300 SAT score, one with 1300-1400, and the rest have to be 1400+.  The more the sport is supported the more lower scoring kids are allowed in per class (and an unsupported coach might have the Uni say zero low scoring recruits are allowed).  The reason this is difficult is that for every 1200 kid that is let in, the university needs to compensate for that with 1500-1600 kids to bring the average SAT score back up to what is expected to maintain the desired average score. This is the reality for all coaches at selective schools in all sports.

One consequence of this is that feeder prep schools know how this system works.  So what do they do?  They do not calculate GPA on their transcripts or class rank. Instead, they report grades as a stand alone, and therefore they are not considered part of the average entrance GPA. GPA for athletes coming from prep schools therefore doesn't always matter. They then put a big investment into SAT test prep.  With only a bit of effort and practice, you can raise an 1100 SAT into a 1300-1400. This is important for kids of donors as well-the system is rigged for a lot of people beyond what most know. The reason the community college transfer system at Cornell is such a great idea is that it gets around this reporting requirement for both SAT and GPA.  So scores no longer matter, since they are not part of that initial accepted class, and instead come in as transfers.   

 

5 hours ago, klehner said:

Thanks for the perspective.  My point was that these schools make a calculation based on years of experience, and determine that there is a lower limit to academic credentials below which they have concluded that the holder of those low credentials would likely not survive (much less thrive) at their institution, regardless of the other achievements of said applicant.  They just *don't* accept people ("lowering their standards") below that lower limit.

It's not about surviving.  Almost anyone can "survive" at all of the ivies with the right major and a willingness to attend class/get help from tutors.  Those universities are not designed to fail people.  All you need are Cs to pass a class, and the average GPA at this point is like 3.7 for many of the ivies.  The only way to really fail a class is to either take something that is graded on a hard curve and not do well, or just not show up to class/do the assignments in the easy classes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, klehner said:

Thanks for the perspective.  My point was that these schools make a calculation based on years of experience, and determine that there is a lower limit to academic credentials below which they have concluded that the holder of those low credentials would likely not survive (much less thrive) at their institution, regardless of the other achievements of said applicant.  They just *don't* accept people ("lowering their standards") below that lower limit.

This seems to be moving the goalposts a bit.

Of course not anyone will get accepted if they’re a recruited athlete, but many of them (along with kids of rich donors, etc) probably have worse academic credentials than like 90%+ of the other students.

Tons of kids “could survive” at Ivy League schools that don’t get accepted.  As Billy alluded to I’ve actually heard that classes at a lot of the Ivies aren’t really all that hard.  The hardest part is getting in.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Isn’t that still evidence that recruited athletes got priority though?    That wasn’t the fraud, the fraud was using those spots for people that didn’t actually play the sport.

Edit:  I can’t remember the specifics of the doc re: Stanford though.  I know they mentioned the sailing coach didn’t realize he was doing anything wrong, and IIRC there was another person from a different sport that either ended up going somewhere else or didn’t need the athlete spot or something.

 

4 hours ago, Maximus Meridius said:

I agree with you completely. If the admissions standards for athletes were not lower, the fraud could not have been committed. A student with lower test scores and grades  was able to gain admission because he was a recruited athlete.

 

2 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

The point I think being made in that post is that the entire reason for the fraud was so the celebrities could get their kids in under the guise of being recruited athletes (and having lower admission standards associated with it). It was less expensive to bribe the coaches than legally bribe the university.

I agree that Varsity Blues shows that great athletes get preference. I didn't think it was fair to bring up a criminal fraud scheme in a conversation about legitimate athletic preference, although there is some relevance.

That said (moving on to a separate related topic), there is a difference between a "recruited athlete" (a very specific term at academically elite schools) and a competitive athlete for whom sport is an important extracurricular consideration. People confuse the two. I think Varsity Blues was more about the latter, less about the former (I'm not saying the former didn't happen at all). Hence, the need to cheat so much on SATs and ACTs (recruited athletes don't need anything remotely close to scores in the 99th percentile), which was as big a part of the fraud as faking athletic credentials.

Certain elite schools literally give certain sports' head coaches a limited number of "recruited athletes" per year. This is all above board and perfectly legal--and, arguably, perfectly aligned with these elite schools' missions of building "the whole" student body. Even Harvard does this (and no, not just for crew, as a previous poster mentioned). The academic bar for these exceptional athletes is not just lowered, but substantially lowered, similar to the way it was lowered for children of families with high financial impact, e.g. legacy applicants from influential families as well as families new to a school such as the Kushners at Harvard (these special candidates are called "development" candidates and there is a literal price tag of minimum expected contribution attached to this label). Sub-1200 SATs and transcripts with some Cs is not uncommon in these cases. It is VERY hard to sneak in recruited athletes into a school a la Varsity Blues because these kids have literal spotlights on them. You can't just not show up to practice at all, as most Varsity Blues fraudulent admits did. Just like you can't just not donate as an admitted development candidate (typically, an introduction of such a candidate must be made by someone at the trustee level or by someone of similar influence). 

For every elite school (at least those with D1 sports), having strong extracurriculars is a big help, because every single Ivy and similar school (e.g. Stanford and more recently Northwestern and Duke) could put together an entire class of 4.0 students with 1500+ SATs if demonstrated academic aptitude was the only goal. Even if you are not a recruited athlete, being a team captain and a state champ helps your candidacy. Just as being on the student government, doing significant social service work (e.g. not just running bake sales), and having notable artistic talents helps.

At every elite school, separate from recruited athletes, the coach still has some influence over how strongly a particular candidate's athletics are considered, for example, sailing at Stanford (part of Varsity Blues). How else does the admissions office know whether a candidate's claims have merit than to ask the coach or wait to get a "good word" from the coach?

Back to the main topic at hand, Koll needs some recruited athletes to build Stanford wrestling and, given his hire, my bet is he gets them. On top of those, he still needs some (not ultimate) influence over kids who are not quite Stanford smart to be given favorable consideration for their wrestling, e.g. Real Woods, who also had the big admissions advantage of being a "URM" (underrepresented minority).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

Here is how it works.  The University expects their overall admitted class to have a certain average SAT/ACT score and GPA.  These numbers are reported to the college board and are important for their ranking.  From their students, the athletes will on average have lower scores, and within the athletes each coach is allowed to recruit a certain number of athletes who deviate from this average.  The number and degree of deviation depends entirely on how much the sport is valued by the current administration (which directly relates to the level of donor support).  So maybe a coach is allowed one kid with an 1100-1200 SAT score, one kid with a 1200-1300 SAT score, one with 1300-1400, and the rest have to be 1400+.  The more the sport is supported the more lower scoring kids are allowed in per class (and an unsupported coach might have the Uni say zero low scoring recruits are allowed).  The reason this is difficult is that for every 1200 kid that is let in, the university needs to compensate for that with 1500-1600 kids to bring the average SAT score back up to what is expected to maintain the desired average score. This is the reality for all coaches at selective schools in all sports.

One consequence of this is that feeder prep schools know how this system works.  So what do they do?  They do not calculate GPA on their transcripts or class rank. Instead, they report grades as a stand alone, and therefore they are not considered part of the average entrance GPA. GPA for athletes coming from prep schools therefore doesn't always matter. They then put a big investment into SAT test prep.  With only a bit of effort and practice, you can raise an 1100 SAT into a 1300-1400. This is important for kids of donors as well-the system is rigged for a lot of people beyond what most know. The reason the community college transfer system at Cornell is such a great idea is that it gets around this reporting requirement for both SAT and GPA.  So scores no longer matter, since they are not part of that initial accepted class, and instead come in as transfers.   

 

It's not about surviving.  Almost anyone can "survive" at all of the ivies with the right major and a willingness to attend class/get help from tutors.  Those universities are not designed to fail people.  All you need are Cs to pass a class, and the average GPA at this point is like 3.7 for many of the ivies.  The only way to really fail a class is to either take something that is graded on a hard curve and not do well, or just not show up to class/do the assignments in the easy classes.  

Also, SAT and ACT scores are highly vulnerable to corruption.  The last paragraph is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the rumor mill: Has anyone heard anything regarding Ryan Deakin? After a dull NCAA's, he got waxed at the last chance qualifier, and there has been no official word on whether he is returning to NU. Following him over the years, I can't think of another guy who can look so dominant for long periods and then so ordinary - good but ordinary. I mean, he had given up 2 back points in 4 years (to Hayden Hidlay, I believe) and then gets pinned by Jesse Delavecchia? He's beaten Hidlay, Yianni, David Carr, James Green! World Junior Silver. US Open champ, etc. . But he seems to fall apart at times, particularly at NCAA's. Curious if anyone has any info or insights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2021 at 10:21 AM, wrestlingnerd said:

 

 

I agree that Varsity Blues shows that great athletes get preference. I didn't think it was fair to bring up a criminal fraud scheme in a conversation about legitimate athletic preference, although there is some relevance.

That said (moving on to a separate related topic), there is a difference between a "recruited athlete" (a very specific term at academically elite schools) and a competitive athlete for whom sport is an important extracurricular consideration. People confuse the two. I think Varsity Blues was more about the latter, less about the former (I'm not saying the former didn't happen at all). Hence, the need to cheat so much on SATs and ACTs (recruited athletes don't need anything remotely close to scores in the 99th percentile), which was as big a part of the fraud as faking athletic credentials.

Certain elite schools literally give certain sports' head coaches a limited number of "recruited athletes" per year. This is all above board and perfectly legal--and, arguably, perfectly aligned with these elite schools' missions of building "the whole" student body. Even Harvard does this (and no, not just for crew, as a previous poster mentioned). The academic bar for these exceptional athletes is not just lowered, but substantially lowered, similar to the way it was lowered for children of families with high financial impact, e.g. legacy applicants from influential families as well as families new to a school such as the Kushners at Harvard (these special candidates are called "development" candidates and there is a literal price tag of minimum expected contribution attached to this label). Sub-1200 SATs and transcripts with some Cs is not uncommon in these cases. It is VERY hard to sneak in recruited athletes into a school a la Varsity Blues because these kids have literal spotlights on them. You can't just not show up to practice at all, as most Varsity Blues fraudulent admits did. Just like you can't just not donate as an admitted development candidate (typically, an introduction of such a candidate must be made by someone at the trustee level or by someone of similar influence). 

For every elite school (at least those with D1 sports), having strong extracurriculars is a big help, because every single Ivy and similar school (e.g. Stanford and more recently Northwestern and Duke) could put together an entire class of 4.0 students with 1500+ SATs if demonstrated academic aptitude was the only goal. Even if you are not a recruited athlete, being a team captain and a state champ helps your candidacy. Just as being on the student government, doing significant social service work (e.g. not just running bake sales), and having notable artistic talents helps.

At every elite school, separate from recruited athletes, the coach still has some influence over how strongly a particular candidate's athletics are considered, for example, sailing at Stanford (part of Varsity Blues). How else does the admissions office know whether a candidate's claims have merit than to ask the coach or wait to get a "good word" from the coach?

Back to the main topic at hand, Koll needs some recruited athletes to build Stanford wrestling and, given his hire, my bet is he gets them. On top of those, he still needs some (not ultimate) influence over kids who are not quite Stanford smart to be given favorable consideration for their wrestling, e.g. Real Woods, who also had the big admissions advantage of being a "URM" (underrepresented minority).

 

Yeah I thought we were talking specifically about "recruited athletes."  I know in the Real Woods doc Ray Blake says they don't have "slots," but that they were able to write a recommendation letter or something.

I believe there were other schools (maybe not Stanford) in the Varsity Blues doc though where the students involved were considered "recruited athletes."  I believe Georgetown and Yale among others including some of the other not necessarily elite academic schools like USC and UCLA, but could be wrong.

I know the Yale soccer coach was mentioned a bunch, and that does seem that was the case - https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/where-is-rudy-meredith-now-operation-varsity-blues

This was actually an interesting article regarding Varsity Blues and Georgetown tennis, may have been posted here previously honestly - https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-unseen-student-victims-of-the-varsity-blues-college-admissions-scandal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yeah I thought we were talking specifically about "recruited athletes."  I know in the Real Woods doc Ray Blake says they don't have "slots," but that they were able to write a recommendation letter or something.

That's what I mean. There are two types of athletic preference: special consideration for having a well-rounded application and "slots" (recruited athletes in preferred sports, either because a major donor is sponsoring/endowing the team or because the sport legitimately enhances the school's profile, e.g. football or basketball). Woods hits the former pretty hard, since he gets points for having strong extracurriculars (wrestling) and for being of Hispanic descent (diversity). By points, I mean literal points, since elite schools score their candidates through the first screen with a point-based system before the applications make it to a committee. Having even one extra point is the difference between in or out at a school like Stanford, so every point is huge. At all elite schools, recruited athletes don't even go through the first point-based screen.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2021 at 5:42 AM, Billyhoyle said:

Alright let’s just simplify the discussion. Do you or do you not agree that it is currently much easier to get into Cornell than Stanford for wrestling. If you agree, we are on the same page. I thought you did not by bringing up Lang. 
 

For Koll to take the Stanford job and be competitive, he will need them to lower the admission standards. 

Not necessarily, just make sure to recruit the right guys. Borelli has been doing a good job at that, which shows it can be done. McKenna, Griffith, Abas, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2021 at 7:12 AM, Husker_Du said:

actually - yes - i screwed that up. 

there are some 'slots' at some major academic wrestling schools. Brown, for instance. UNC.

so you're right, there is precedence. 

but Stanford. i'm interested in Stanford. can anyone point to evidence that they have 'slots'? (legit question)

While maybe they don't have slots, coaches do have preferred recruits that, under Borelli, almost all get accepted. Stanford wrestling has two categories of recruits. The guys the coaches really want, and the guys that the coaches will support. The number varies each year partially depending on size of graduating class. Admissions will mostly admit the guys the coaches really want (given that they qualify academically). The second group that the coaches support have a roughly 50% chance of getting accepted, varying depending on year. In a larger year it's been up to 8 in the first group and 3 of 5 in the second. A smaller year has been 6 in the first and 2/4 in the second group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Boquist said:

While maybe they don't have slots, coaches do have preferred recruits that, under Borelli, almost all get accepted. Stanford wrestling has two categories of recruits. The guys the coaches really want, and the guys that the coaches will support. The number varies each year partially depending on size of graduating class. Admissions will mostly admit the guys the coaches really want (given that they qualify academically). The second group that the coaches support have a roughly 50% chance of getting accepted, varying depending on year. In a larger year it's been up to 8 in the first group and 3 of 5 in the second. A smaller year has been 6 in the first and 2/4 in the second group.

thanks for the info.

i definitely don't know exactly how it works. what i do know is that Stanford didn't get Patrick Glory in and yet Princeton did. so idk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

thanks for the info.

i definitely don't know exactly how it works. what i do know is that Stanford didn't get Patrick Glory in and yet Princeton did. so idk. 

Post Novo and up until now, Princeton has been easier to get into for a top recruit than Stanford (easier than all the ivies except Cornell).  It appears as if Stanford may be able to compete now that the alumni have sent a strong signal of financial support.  $$$ talks at these schools.

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Boquist said:

While maybe they don't have slots, coaches do have preferred recruits that, under Borelli, almost all get accepted. Stanford wrestling has two categories of recruits. The guys the coaches really want, and the guys that the coaches will support. The number varies each year partially depending on size of graduating class. Admissions will mostly admit the guys the coaches really want (given that they qualify academically). The second group that the coaches support have a roughly 50% chance of getting accepted, varying depending on year. In a larger year it's been up to 8 in the first group and 3 of 5 in the second. A smaller year has been 6 in the first and 2/4 in the second group.

Exactly. This is what I was saying regarding the distinction between recruited athlete--pretty much a shoo-in assuming academics aren't catastrophic (for Stanford)--and "good word from coach" athletes (acknowledged by the staff as having legit athletic credentials, i.e. +1 or even +2 points in the admissions scorecard). If Stanford got one of the former a year, they might give Koll as many as three a year if he starts lighting up the Pac-12 and producing regular AAs, thereby galvanizing the sleeper alumni donors who put up the $13M. Cornell, under Koll, had preferred sport status (which means more recruited athlete slots), "good word from coach" admits (again, more than other sports because of wrestling's preferred status), and transfers from TC3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Exactly. This is what I was saying regarding the distinction between recruited athlete--pretty much a shoo-in assuming academics aren't catastrophic (for Stanford)--and "good word from coach" athletes (acknowledged by the staff as having legit athletic credentials, i.e. +1 or even +2 points in the admissions scorecard). If Stanford got one of the former a year, they might give Koll as many as three a year if he starts lighting up the Pac-12 and producing regular AAs, thereby galvanizing the sleeper alumni donors who put up the $13M. Cornell, under Koll, had preferred sport status (which means more recruited athlete slots), "good word from coach" admits (again, more than other sports because of wrestling's preferred status), and transfers from TC3.

Maybe I'm nitpicking but I'm a little confused because earlier you said "Koll needs some recruited athletes to build Stanford wrestling and, given his hire, my bet is he gets them. On top of those, he still needs some (not ultimate) influence over kids who are not quite Stanford smart to be given favorable consideration for their wrestling."   

To me your prior quote is making it sound like Stanford didn't already have that, but according to the post you quoted, it basically sounds like they did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Maybe I'm nitpicking but I'm a little confused because earlier you said "Koll needs some recruited athletes to build Stanford wrestling and, given his hire, my bet is he gets them. On top of those, he still needs some (not ultimate) influence over kids who are not quite Stanford smart to be given favorable consideration for their wrestling."   

To me your prior quote is making it sound like Stanford didn't already have that, but according to the post you quoted, it basically sounds like they did?

Nobody here knows with certainty what Stanford admissions will or won't do and what they did in prior years. Any comments here, including mine, are necessarily directional but not perfectly accurate. For fringe sports that are not regularly held in high regard by the school, admissions treatment can vary year to year.

I said "IF" Stanford "got one" [slot], maybe under Koll they'd get three once he starts winning and getting alumni excited. That is not inconsistent with anything I said. My point: start winning and getting alumni excited, get more status as a sport.

On top of slots, if in fact they have any or will allot any, wrestlers who are not recruited athletes can still go through the regular admissions process with an advantage. Getting +1 from the wrestling coaches is a huge advantage. An extremely high number of applicants have 1400+ SATs and 3.9+ GPAs, so other admissions attributes are really the only way regular candidates differentiate themselves. Being a wrestler that a varsity coach validates as a prospect can be the difference between immediate neg and making it to the next round. Guys like Real Woods then, who didn't have the academics can still make it if they have other points. For one, sometimes +1 can be +2 for sports in certain schools (I know for a fact Stanford is one of them, or at least used to be up until two years ago). Every elite school will give preference to underrepresented minorities. At least +1 there. Some schools (Stanford being one) will even give some preference for applicants from different socieconomic backgrounds in the interest of DEI. The point is that even one extra point is big, and if you have 10 guys who are applying and can get even a couple in that way, and you also have a slot or three, you can start building a good lineup in short order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Nobody here knows with certainty what Stanford admissions will or won't do and what they did in prior years. Any comments here, including mine, are necessarily directional but not perfectly accurate. For fringe sports that are not regularly held in high regard by the school, admissions treatment can vary year to year.

thread ender. nailed it. anything else is speculation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Nobody here knows with certainty what Stanford admissions will or won't do and what they did in prior years. Any comments here, including mine, are necessarily directional but not perfectly accurate. For fringe sports that are not regularly held in high regard by the school, admissions treatment can vary year to year.

I said "IF" Stanford "got one" [slot], maybe under Koll they'd get three once he starts winning and getting alumni excited. That is not inconsistent with anything I said. My point: start winning and getting alumni excited, get more status as a sport.

On top of slots, if in fact they have any or will allot any, wrestlers who are not recruited athletes can still go through the regular admissions process with an advantage. Getting +1 from the wrestling coaches is a huge advantage. An extremely high number of applicants have 1400+ SATs and 3.9+ GPAs, so other admissions attributes are really the only way regular candidates differentiate themselves. Being a wrestler that a varsity coach validates as a prospect can be the difference between immediate neg and making it to the next round. Guys like Real Woods then, who didn't have the academics can still make it if they have other points. For one, sometimes +1 can be +2 for sports in certain schools (I know for a fact Stanford is one of them, or at least used to be up until two years ago). Every elite school will give preference to underrepresented minorities. At least +1 there. Some schools (Stanford being one) will even give some preference for applicants from different socieconomic backgrounds in the interest of DEI. The point is that even one extra point is big, and if you have 10 guys who are applying and can get even a couple in that way, and you also have a slot or three, you can start building a good lineup in short order.

There are a few things we do know. Unlike many schools, Stanford admissions office won't guarantee coaches that they will admit the second level supported athletes. So it is important for a coach to choose to support athletes in this second group that are admissible. I'm pretty sure that in the recent past the coaches have known the first choice athletes will be admitted. I don't think Stanford admissions is going to change things much in the future even if Stanford wins Pac 12. The other sports at Stanford are often nationally competitive as well. The number of admits I mentioned earlier in both categories will probably continue to be in the ballpark of what to expect. Learning how to work with admissions was Borelli's major accomplishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...