Fan meeting.

[Travis]

I wouldn't mind us cutting back our administration/student affairs funding... half of them are useless anyway and they are the primary reason for all cost going up for students. 

[VideoEagle]

Can the NT hire by July 15? I'm sure they can do some narrowing down, maybe even to a single candidate. But I think there are state rules on hiring that slow the process down. I hope I'm wrong about that! 

[MeanGreenTexan]

12 minutes ago, Travis said:

I wouldn't mind us cutting back our administration/student affairs funding... half of them are useless anyway and they are the primary reason for all cost going up for students. 

That sounds like an opportunity for process improvement rather than just pulling funds/canning people from a floundering department.

[oldguystudent]

10 minutes ago, VideoEagle said:

Can the NT hire by July 15? I'm sure they can do some narrowing down, maybe even to a single candidate. But I think there are state rules on hiring that slow the process down. I hope I'm wrong about that! 

What I would envision is that they can do something like name someone as the sole finalist candidate.

[UNT78]

First, Hank doesn't have a chance as an AD, this guy is completely negative towards the alumni and is a boy scout when it comes to business. No experience doing this at the CEO level; the AD position is essentially the CEO of the athletic department. Same crap, different day, with Hank. Scheduling, the other C-USA schools are scheduling good teams to their stadiums (home and home), why not UNT. Rick has completely screwed this up, what ever he was doing it wasn't working, plain and simple. Get someone that better understands the dynamics of scheduling and making a deal; you have to be proactive and solicit other schools, not sit on your ass waiting for the phone to ring. 65 scholarships, complete unacceptable, I don't know who to blame on that one? Lastly, you have to start advertising and promoting home games, Rick said, "the alumni and citizens of Denton need to step-up and come to home games", right, you have to give them a reason for coming and we need to be playing teams that people want to see; TCU, SMU, Houston, Texas State, OSU, K-State, Iowa State and the like. A few marquis games ever season is a must; lastly, we need to win!!!

[UNT90]

25 minutes ago, VideoEagle said:

Can the NT hire by July 15? I'm sure they can do some narrowing down, maybe even to a single candidate. But I think there are state rules on hiring that slow the process down. I hope I'm wrong about that! 

July 15 is merely my hope. Mr. Securo stated the president wanted the hire done in July. 

[HoustonEagle]

2 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

I hope that Trip and Michael browse through some of these topics to look for additional feedback.  

Last night the athletic department as a whole received most of the criticism, and rightfully so.  However, in order to fix this thing and get it moving in the right direction it will take more than just a new AD.

One of the things that Benford and Littrell both mentioned was the fact that they are required to play guaranteed/paycheck games.  I don't put this requirement solely on the shoulders of the AD.  I believe this is an area that Pres Smatresk and Brint Ryan can specifically look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are really committed to having an athletic program that is competitive with our G5 peers.  

We are requiring the basketball team to raise roughly $250k via guarantee games and the football team to raise around $1M via guarantee games (paycheck - FCS).  If the university is serious about fixing this thing then fund the athletic department with enough support to eliminate these games.  According to the last numbers that I saw, the university is providing roughly $9M of institutional support.  This from a university with over $800M in annual revenues. 

If Pres Smatresk and Mr. Ryan are serious then look in the mirror and address this unnecessary burden we place on our teams.  Fund the program in such a way that they can schedule for success as well as put together the most attractive home schedules as possible.  This should be a no brainer to fix if we are really serious about making substantive change.

I think all things must be looked at relative to our peers.  I don't get upset about one or two paycheck games in football for instance as pretty much every G5 team plays one or two. 

[rws69]

Great meeting hosted by Keuhne and Sicuro (K&S), especially with the second part that was closed to athletic staff and media. Biggest issue on the complaint side was the poor performance of the ticket office. I think a new ticket manager was recently hired, so I hope the improvement process starts even before a new AD is on board. 

It was great to see an audience that included MGC members, participants on this forum, previous athletes (from 60's or earlier right up to Roger Franklin), recent graduates (some making first visit to club level), other long-time supporters, and even a few students. Trip's early comments even included the different shades of green in the school colors. Other than what has already been mentioned, other topics included improving the game day experience (especially making better use of UNT music and hospitality programs), establishing traditions, reaching out to alumni and especially former athletes, and issues with some of the facilities.

Despite calls by some in this forum to increase student fees, I think any comparison with other universities needs to note a UNT advantage of having 35 thousand students. Funds can be raised by reaching out to groups that have previously been ignored. That said, I wish there is a way to insulate the new AD from the payments being made to departed personnel.

As I thought about the game-day experience on the way home last night, I recalled my prior 10-year experience as a Dallas Maverick season ticket holder. At UNT, basketball timeouts are scripted in advance and choreographed accordingly, failing to capitalize on the excitement of a media or opposition time-out during a UNT run. At Maverick games, up tempo music in played at such moments to maintain fan excitement. At UNT, that potential excitement is killed by whatever was already scripted for those timeouts. That is just one example of how the game day experience can be improved. By the way, I love the basketball band.

With regard to the hiring decision, I will trust the consultants recommendation. No matter how we feel about a decision that includes or excludes HD, I think we all need to support that decision and give it a chance to work.

Now, let's each do what we can to get Apogee filled on September 3.

Edited June 28, 2016 by rws69

[UNT78]

We absolutely should play G5 teams, but must be a home and home period! 

[TreeFiddy]

45 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

But this is exactly what it is.   It is black & white.    There is a fixed budget.  
The budget allocates <$x-amount> to every program at the University (let alone facilities and other expenses).   If you're saying the University needs to give more money to athletics, and the budget remains fixed, then you are saying they must take money from some other program/programs.

Again, 
There are private funds/donors out there to augment the Athletics department.  It's the Athletic Director's job to find them.  

As long as we're comparing what other schools do: The Mean Green Club #s are PATHETIC.  Let's work on getting those #'s up to the level of the booster clubs for those other schools you mention.   Then, we won't need to bother with asking the University for more money.

The second bolded point is a nasty perception.   And when on the outside looking in, perception is reality... even if false.  It's tough to argue against you here because we have not had the proper leadership to prove that perception wrong.

As for fishing or cutting bait... I agree.  We have an opportunity now to get a guy in here who knows how to run a trotline rather than using a cane pole with a dead worm.

I don't disagree that the new AD shoulders some of the responsibility.  MGC numbers are a joke. Season ticket numbers are a joke.  Customer service is a joke.  The number of BMDs is better than it was, but still a joke for the number of alumni that we have and the wealth in the surrounding counties.

Someone already pointed out an area where funds could potentially be redirected from that is not a direct impact on an academic program.  I am sure there are plenty of examples other than the student affairs example.  I trust the Pres to find the funds.  We are only talking about roughly $1M to eliminate guarantee/paycheck games for football and basketball.  It does not seem to be an insurmountable number.  

If you want the AD to eventually pick up the tab, then set some performance/fund raising goals so that the funds are eventually replaced by the AD, but reality is that if you choose to require that the program fund it by themselves from the start then you just prolong the process.

Look at what are considered to be the top 20-25 programs at the G5 level.  Study them.  See why they are successful.  See how our metrics compare to theirs.  Set performance goals to bring our numbers in line with theirs.

 

[UNT90]

12 minutes ago, HoustonEagle said:

I think all things must be looked at relative to our peers.  I don't get upset about one or two paycheck games in football for instance as pretty much every G5 team plays one or two. 

But our peers are all playing P5s at home. UNT is not.

[MeanGreenTexan]

3 minutes ago, TreeFiddy said:

I don't disagree that the new AD shoulders some of the responsibility.  MGC numbers are a joke. Season ticket numbers are a joke.  Customer service is a joke.  The number of BMDs is better than it was, but still a joke for the number of alumni that we have and the wealth in the surrounding counties.

Someone already pointed out an area where funds could potentially be redirected from that is not a direct impact on an academic program.  I am sure there are plenty of examples other than the student affairs example.  I trust the Pres to find the funds.  We are only talking about roughly $1M to eliminate guarantee/paycheck games for football and basketball.  It does not seem to be an insurmountable number.  

If you want the AD to eventually pick up the tab, then set some performance/fund raising goals so that the funds are eventually replaced by the AD, but reality is that if you choose to require that the program fund it by themselves from the start then you just prolong the process.

Look at what are considered to be the top 20-25 programs at the G5 level.  Study them.  See why they are successful.  See how our metrics compare to theirs.  Set performance goals to bring our numbers in line with theirs.

 

Agree.  
The crappy part is that the process has already been prolonged by the previous administration due to signed contracts through 2021.   So, as long as the new guy can get those funds before then (and really, if we hire the right person, why can't they?) we're good!

[Cerebus]

I just want to point out that a university is not priced in terms of supply and demand.  It takes $10,000 to startup a new English professor.  It takes $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 to startup a lab based professor in Chemistry or Biology, more if they are a major established researcher who is going to want to bring along a ton of post docs, graduates students and other tenure professors in a cluster.  

The University does not charge an undergraduate in Biology 100x times more than it charges a English Lit undergraduate, even though it costs much more to draw them here and educate them.  Yes lab fees help cover some of the costs of the student labs, but it doesn't cover it all, and it doesn't even get close to covering up the startup costs for the research labs, which undergraduates have no access to.  

The University makes a decision that even though every single student is going to take English courses, and only a small minority are going to step into a Chemistry classroom, a successful Chemistry program is important enough to the prestige of the University that every single student is going to help pay for it through general tuition.  This also happens with plenty of other processes.  For example the majority of students don't use the Rec Center, or the Health Clinic.  Most of them don't even know about the Talon High Performance Cluster (a sweet, sweet supercomputer), almost none of them will ever get to use it, yet they all pay for it.

So yes, it is pretty common for a University to use fees, tuition, and other general funds from state and federal sources to pay for institutions and processes that are not used by the majority of the students.   The University leadership makes those decisions to create a dynamic, well rounded institution that brings value to the degree itself.  A degree from NT may not bring as much value as a degree from Harvard (and in fact there are a few degrees in which a degree from NT means more) but it sure brings more value than a degree from Hardin Simmons, or God forbid someplace like Devry or UTSA.  

So to my points.  First, I find the argument that a Athletics program must pay for all of it's cost is specious.  Only about 25 programs in the nation can do so, which means even the majority of the P5 can't.  We can argue whether it makes and damn sense or not (it doesn't) for potential undergraduates and the general public to consider the athletic program so highly when they evaluate the quality of a degree.   What you can't really argue is that it does.    If the University leadership wants to spend money on a program, be it Talon or Athletics, to raise the prestige of the institution and the value of the degrees then confer, it makes sense.

Second, we are only having this discussion because our MGC levels are incredibly bad.  300,000+ living alumni, ~1000 members.  Good leadership and outreach can cover a huge portion of what we need by just slightly increasing our percentage of people who give in to even the lowest of levels.   So yes, while I do agree increasing fees should be an option, they should be around option #5.  Option #1 should be increasing giving at all levels from alumni.    Fix MGC/season ticket funds and we no longer have the huge holes we have now.

When RV first came here he stated that to become a true power we need 10,000 MGC members.  He was right about that, he just got no where close to achieving that number.  I hope the search for our new AD is really centered around finding who can leverage our alumni base by getting them into the MGC.

 

[GrandGreen]

The away guarantee football game and basketball games serve more purposes than revenue.   Players want to play these games and they provide a lot more publicity win or lose than peer G5 games.   There are also advantages to playing the best in order to get better.  

I actually like NT playing one a year in football and a couple in basketball.  These games don't kill team ratings and provide a great measure of were a program is.    

 

[TreeFiddy]

I hear what you are saying but we have been following that approach for decades. I am all for trying a different approach and seeing what happens. 

[DentonLurker]

I agree that the football away guarantee game needs to end. I can't imagine a single player out there thinking they'd rather get their teeth kicked in at Alabama vs playing Houston at Apogee or even at Houston with a chance to win. Road trips are all business for players. I can't imagine they get some extra joy out of playing at some particular opponent venue. They just want to compete. I think putting them in position to win games is better than getting their teeth kicked in. Basketball is a different beast. A player or two on the court makes all the difference in potential outcome of the game, so I think you go play the big boys in basketball. You have a much better chance of the huge upset in basketball vs football.

As far as the powder puff home football games, I can't imagine the buyouts being ridiculous to get out of an Apogee home game vs ACU and others. I say write the check and get out of those, assuming you have someone to backfill into the gap. Pay the buyouts and improve the fan experience for home games against people who fans would like to see.

[MeanGreenTexan]

29 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

I just want to point out that a university is not priced in terms of supply and demand.  It takes $10,000 to startup a new English professor.  It takes $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 to startup a lab based professor in Chemistry or Biology, more if they are a major established researcher who is going to want to bring along a ton of post docs, graduates students and other tenure professors in a cluster.  

The University does not charge an undergraduate in Biology 100x times more than it charges a English Lit undergraduate, even though it costs much more to draw them here and educate them.  Yes lab fees help cover some of the costs of the student labs, but it doesn't cover it all, and it doesn't even get close to covering up the startup costs for the research labs, which undergraduates have no access to.  

The University makes a decision that even though every single student is going to take English courses, and only a small minority are going to step into a Chemistry classroom, a successful Chemistry program is important enough to the prestige of the University that every single student is going to help pay for it through general tuition.  This also happens with plenty of other processes.  For example the majority of students don't use the Rec Center, or the Health Clinic.  Most of them don't even know about the Talon High Performance Cluster (a sweet, sweet supercomputer), almost none of them will ever get to use it, yet they all pay for it.

So yes, it is pretty common for a University to use fees, tuition, and other general funds from state and federal sources to pay for institutions and processes that are not used by the majority of the students.   The University leadership makes those decisions to create a dynamic, well rounded institution that brings value to the degree itself.  A degree from NT may not bring as much value as a degree from Harvard (and in fact there are a few degrees in which a degree from NT means more) but it sure brings more value than a degree from Hardin Simmons, or God forbid someplace like Devry or UTSA.  

So to my points.  First, I find the argument that a Athletics program must pay for all of it's cost is specious.  Only about 25 programs in the nation can do so, which means even the majority of the P5 can't.  We can argue whether it makes and damn sense or not (it doesn't) for potential undergraduates and the general public to consider the athletic program so highly when they evaluate the quality of a degree.   What you can't really argue is that it does.    If the University leadership wants to spend money on a program, be it Talon or Athletics, to raise the prestige of the institution and the value of the degrees then confer, it makes sense.

Second, we are only having this discussion because our MGC levels are incredibly bad.  300,000+ living alumni, ~1000 members.  Good leadership and outreach can cover a huge portion of what we need by just slightly increasing our percentage of people who give in to even the lowest of levels.   So yes, while I do agree increasing fees should be an option, they should be around option #5.  Option #1 should be increasing giving at all levels from alumni.    Fix MGC/season ticket funds and we no longer have the huge holes we have now.

When RV first came here he stated that to become a true power we need 10,000 MGC members.  He was right about that, he just got no where close to achieving that number.  I hope the search for our new AD is really centered around finding who can leverage our alumni base by getting them into the MGC.

 

I think this is a general reply to what Tree Fiddy & I were chatting about, so I'll chime in.

Point 1) I'm certainly not saying the University should withdraw what they're already providing to really test the new AD's fundraising efforts.  The University (mainly the students) already give alot to the University.  Want them to give more?  You must either cut funding elsewhere, or increase revenue to increase the budget from which you're drawing... which probably means increasing the student fee, which is already "competitive".  We don't need to max it out.

Point 2) Agree.   And if the new AD is the right guy, he'll also hire folks who can get those numbers up where they need to be.  And I bet it brings in enough money that we wouldn't even have to consider asking for more funds from the University.

[Harry]

27 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

I just want to point out that a university is not priced in terms of supply and demand.  It takes $10,000 to startup a new English professor.  It takes $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 to startup a lab based professor in Chemistry or Biology, more if they are a major established researcher who is going to want to bring along a ton of post docs, graduates students and other tenure professors in a cluster.  

The University does not charge an undergraduate in Biology 100x times more than it charges a English Lit undergraduate, even though it costs much more to draw them here and educate them.  Yes lab fees help cover some of the costs of the student labs, but it doesn't cover it all, and it doesn't even get close to covering up the startup costs for the research labs, which undergraduates have no access to.  

The University makes a decision that even though every single student is going to take English courses, and only a small minority are going to step into a Chemistry classroom, a successful Chemistry program is important enough to the prestige of the University that every single student is going to help pay for it through general tuition.  This also happens with plenty of other processes.  For example the majority of students don't use the Rec Center, or the Health Clinic.  Most of them don't even know about the Talon High Performance Cluster (a sweet, sweet supercomputer), almost none of them will ever get to use it, yet they all pay for it.

So yes, it is pretty common for a University to use fees, tuition, and other general funds from state and federal sources to pay for institutions and processes that are not used by the majority of the students.   The University leadership makes those decisions to create a dynamic, well rounded institution that brings value to the degree itself.  A degree from NT may not bring as much value as a degree from Harvard (and in fact there are a few degrees in which a degree from NT means more) but it sure brings more value than a degree from Hardin Simmons, or God forbid someplace like Devry or UTSA.  

So to my points.  First, I find the argument that a Athletics program must pay for all of it's cost is specious.  Only about 25 programs in the nation can do so, which means even the majority of the P5 can't.  We can argue whether it makes and damn sense or not (it doesn't) for potential undergraduates and the general public to consider the athletic program so highly when they evaluate the quality of a degree.   What you can't really argue is that it does.    If the University leadership wants to spend money on a program, be it Talon or Athletics, to raise the prestige of the institution and the value of the degrees then confer, it makes sense.

Second, we are only having this discussion because our MGC levels are incredibly bad.  300,000+ living alumni, ~1000 members.  Good leadership and outreach can cover a huge portion of what we need by just slightly increasing our percentage of people who give in to even the lowest of levels.   So yes, while I do agree increasing fees should be an option, they should be around option #5.  Option #1 should be increasing giving at all levels from alumni.    Fix MGC/season ticket funds and we no longer have the huge holes we have now.

When RV first came here he stated that to become a true power we need 10,000 MGC members.  He was right about that, he just got no where close to achieving that number.  I hope the search for our new AD is really centered around finding who can leverage our alumni base by getting them into the MGC.

 

Great post.  My only comment is that the new AD needs to build the MGC and I agree.

My point is that you have to win.  When you win, you will see more interest in the MGC and more people willing to join. 

The new AD does no inherit a winning program and so he/she will have to build an infrastructure that can support more activity than currently exists now or in the immediate future.   They are basically starting from scratch.

My point is we have to get our arms around how to best position ourselves to win.  I'n not talking about a national championship, but winning in C-USA.  Littrell is doing his best to address this through systems and recruiting.  What about Smatresk, the BOR etc?  Has anyone looked at a successful program to determine what steps they took that led them to the next level.

The meeting last night was terrific in that it allowed many of our fans to share thoughts and ideas on how to best position ourselves for the future,  One in particular, specifically brought up Houston and what  they have been able to accomplish over the last decade.  He suggested we should try to learn from a program like that who shares much in common with UNT (size, metropolitan area, pro sports competition etc, G5).  I thought that was a very good suggestion and Trip and Michael seemed to  think so as well.

It sometimes feels like we are searching in the dark without a map.  I would like us to have a plan that has been proven to be successful and see us all get behind it.  It needs to be realistic.  Part of the problem with the last regime was the goals were so lofty that once we didn't even come close they were scrapped.

The meeting last night convinced me that we have so many loyal and smart fans that we should really try to involve them in the process.  It seems like there has been too much of a separation between the leadership and the fanbase.  Come up with a blueprint for success and empower the fans to be a part of the process either financially or with their time.

[MeanGreenTexan]

10 minutes ago, TreeFiddy said:

I hear what you are saying but we have been following that approach for decades. I am all for trying a different approach and seeing what happens. 

well, actually we've been failing at that approach for 1.5 decades.  The different approach will be the new Athletic Director's ability to find donors, hopefully.  
If the next guy is a failure as well, then our administration needs to take a long look in the mirror and decide if the journey is worth it and either pony up or fold and be a great FCS school.

[Harry]

9 minutes ago, DentonLurker said:

I agree that the football away guarantee game needs to end. I can't imagine a single player out there thinking they'd rather get their teeth kicked in at Alabama vs playing Houston at Apogee or even at Houston with a chance to win. Road trips are all business for players. I can't imagine they get some extra joy out of playing at some particular opponent venue. They just want to compete. I think putting them in position to win games is better than getting their teeth kicked in. Basketball is a different beast. A player or two on the court makes all the difference in potential outcome of the game, so I think you go play the big boys in basketball. You have a much better chance of the huge upset in basketball vs football.

As far as the powder puff home football games, I can't imagine the buyouts being ridiculous to get out of an Apogee home game vs ACU and others. I say write the check and get out of those, assuming you have someone to backfill into the gap. Pay the buyouts and improve the fan experience for home games against people who fans would like to see.

You make a good point.  Benford touched on this last night, stating that we were one of the few programs in C-USA who had to generate x amount from away games to support the budget.  Teams like UTEP don't have to play these games, and thus they play many more games at home and often against lessor competition which boosts their wins and confidence.  Again, if we would be more transparent, and if we knew what the number was we needed to hit to get rid of need of these payday games was, we might be in a better position to raise money or secure donations to offset it.

Also, Trip mentioned how UofH beat his alma mater Oklahoma State and how that win sort of propelled them to another level.  I think if you are us, you have to win a game like that to raise the program to another level.  We just have not been able to do that and hopefully that will change in the near future.

[MeanGreenTexan]

7 minutes ago, Harry said:

Great post.  My only comment is that the new AD needs to build the MGC and I agree.

My point is that you have to win.  When you win, you will see more interest in the MGC and more people willing to join. 

The new AD does no inherit a winning program and so he/she will have to build an infrastructure that can support more activity than currently exists now or in the immediate future.   They are basically starting from scratch.

My point is we have to get our arms around how to best position ourselves to win.  I'n not talking about a national championship, but winning in C-USA.  Littrell is doing his best to address this through systems and recruiting.  What about Smatresk, the BOR etc?  Has anyone looked at a successful program to determine what steps they took that led them to the next level.

The meeting last night was terrific in that it allowed many of our fans to share thoughts and ideas on how to best position ourselves for the future,  One in particular, specifically brought up Houston and what  they have been able to accomplish over the last decade.  He suggested we should try to learn from a program like that who shares much in common with UNT (size, metropolitan area, pro sports competition etc, G5).  I thought that was a very good suggestion and Trip and Michael seemed to  think so as well.

It sometimes feels like we are searching in the dark without a map.  I would like us to have a plan that has been proven to be successful and see us all get behind it.  It needs to be realistic.  Part of the problem with the last regime was the goals were so lofty that once we didn't even come close they were scrapped.

The meeting last night convinced me that we have so many loyal and smart fans that we should really try to involve them in the process.  It seems like there has been too much of a separation between the leadership and the fanbase.  Come up with a blueprint for success and empower the fans to be a part of the process either financially or with their time.

Harry,
There will likely need to be some turnip-bleeding first before we can get the bandwagon jumpers.   The new AD cannot sit back and wait for Littrell to win.

[greenjoe]

I was glad to hear the question to Tony Benford, to the effect, "How do you recruit knowing this may be your last season ?"  I was more impressed with TB last night than ever before.  Not to say I'm on board with him as head BB coach, just that I liked his answers better last night.  He knows what he's up against.

 

I enjoyed getting together with my Mean Green friends.  Something like a club.  Yeah.  A Mean Green Club that could meet once every 10 years or so.

 

My favorite answer last night was given by Seth Littrell.  "I've been to the best basketball schools in the country."

 

The question I didn't ask was, why must we give coaches and, I guess, a new AD a 5 year contract ?  As I've stated, if they get a better deal they're gone with or without a contract.  It only hamstrings the University. 

[Harry]

1 minute ago, greenjoe said:

The question I didn't ask was, why must we give coaches and, I guess, a new AD a 5 year contract ?  As I've stated, if they get a better deal they're gone with or without a contract.  It only hamstrings the University. 

I can tell you my understanding of this.  The D-I / FBS college football coaching marketplace standard indicates that you at minimum need to offer a 5-year contract to a newly hired coach.  You don't have to, but understand that some of the better candidates will not interview for the job if you do not.  It is really simple economics.

[UNT90]

1 hour ago, GrandGreen said:

The away guarantee football game and basketball games serve more purposes than revenue.   Players want to play these games and they provide a lot more publicity win or lose than peer G5 games.   There are also advantages to playing the best in order to get better.  

I actually like NT playing one a year in football and a couple in basketball.  These games don't kill team ratings and provide a great measure of were a program is.    

 

Guess what? Other conference mates are playing these games AT HOME!

How do you not get that we are falling behind EVERY CUSA school?

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

I noticed that most of the big money donors were absent last night.