Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67

Thread: Pres. Romo Under Investigation?

              
   
   
   
  1. #51
    All American forerunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,435
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo
    Thanks
    1,108
    Thanked 1,659 Times in 784 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cory93 View Post
    That's interesting... [/Jack Sparrow voice]

    Probably unrelated, but wow. Interesting timing.

  2. #52
    Team Captain Cory93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    679
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo
    Thanks
    582
    Thanked 728 Times in 330 Posts

    Default

    Ooooh...I wonder if maybe they got sideways with each other over this issue....article is from January of 2016, so after Romo had already announced his retirement, but if this was an ongoing issue that popped up as soon as McRaven came in and got settled into his position and he and Romo butted heads over this, hmmmmm:

    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/01...op-ten-percen/

  3. #53
    Team Captain Cory93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    679
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo
    Thanks
    582
    Thanked 728 Times in 330 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by forerunner View Post
    That's interesting... [/Jack Sparrow voice]

    Probably unrelated, but wow. Interesting timing.
    agreed, probably sheer coincidence, but like I said in an earlier post, if we start to see a huge change in UT system top brass leadership, it's going to be pretty telling to me who is pushing those buttons to make it happen. Again, not saying change is a bad thing, but you can't have change just for the sake of change and you can't just run around knocking everyone off that disagrees with you because you think your perspective is right and the only one that matters.

  4. #54
    Newbie GL2Greatness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 72 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    lets go over a few things here

    1. the average tenure of a university president in the USA is 8.5 years so a president that goes on for 18 years is WELL past that period of time

    2. the average age of a university president is 61 and Romo is almost 74 so he is WELL past the average age and WELL into retirement time

    this does not mean he is not qualified to do the job or that he still could not do the job based on those factors, but when you are talking about university presidents you are generally talking about highly qualified and highly educated people so seeing one that goes WELL past the averages shows that one is looking at a president that has been through a hell of a lot

    3. it is a stressful job, it is difficult to make major transitions with a university president that has been around that long because faculty tend to try and push back against it based on personal relationships and or based on tenure and lack of desire for change

    one need only look at the decades long tenure of al (useless) hurley at caw caw caw state in Denton and what a total time waste that period was for glorified normal college state and then the difficult time his replacement (that was a bump up from his staff) had with transitioning into the presidents position

    Dr. Pohl was basically run off even though he was well qualified, had good ideas and was doing a good job simply because the long time faculty refused to change and refused to respect his leadership

    4. with the opening of A&M-SA and the increase in admissions standards for UTSA NOW is a time of great change and renewed expectations for UTSA and that really needs fresh leadership it is as simple as that

    no matter what you think of Romo personally or the job he did the fact of the matter is there are periods of time that almost universally call for change in leadership at universities and UTSA is facing one of those times

    5. Romo closed out his tenure with a lot of successes......the fund raiser, raising admissions substantially, the elevated Carnegie CLASSIFICATION (not a ranking) and others are successes

    BUT the reality is UTSA will probably need to have another fund raiser in a shorter period of time than most universities wait to start a new campaign

    the average period between campaigns is about 8 to 10 years and UTSA is going to be two years past the end of the prior one by the time they get a new president in place

    so if UTSA is aggressive about starting another then they will be looking at possibly starting one as soon as 4 years from now (6 years after the end of the last one) and that would be into an established period of transition for a new president

    the last thing you want to do is ride a president for another two years of so (is Romo really going past 76 years old) and let that hold up a capital campaign starting under a new president just getting his feet wet

    6. the merger between UTSA and the UT-HSC-SA was really turned down by the system and at that time the system was being lead by Cigaro which was the former president of UT-HSC-SA prior to being the UT Chancellor

    so if he was for it there is VERY LITTLE to make anyone believe that Romo would be able to get that idea crushed

    7. as far as what is going on with UT MD Anderson.....

    A. they have had a DISASTROUS implementation of a new coding and billing software package that has cost them HUNDREDS of millions in lost billing and other revenues and there have been many other issues with the president and his wife as far as some ethics issues and some overall leadership clashes

    B. this has NOTHING to do with UTSA or anything to do with McRaven putting his own people in place.....the MD Anderson president was a poor choice, an unpopular choice and a disaster from the start and they have only gotten WORSE over time

    8. At this time I am still not sure the UTSA and UT-HSC-SA merger will go through even if it is revisited......until A&M merged their HSC (all components state wide) into College Station no university in Texas had a HSC component they were all independent of any university

    several years back before Angelo State was merged into the Texas Tech System their system actually looked at the idea of merging their HSC into the university and not having a system just being a single university standing alone not a part of a system......but when they compared the state funding it was found that would result in a significant decrease in state formula funding because HSCs are funded with a similar yet different set of formulas by the state so merging the HSC into the university would have resulted in a loss of overall funding for the combined entity and that would have not matched any potential savings from the merger so it would have been a net funding loss

    now with UT, UT-RGV and A&M all having HSCs under the administration of a university who knows if formula funding models will be looked at in the future to prevent that type of thing from happening.....but until that happens I would doubt there will be a merger of stand alone HSCs into any neighboring universities

    I would also be quite certain that of there was a merger as far as it related to NRUF funding there would be legislation in place that prevents the HSC component contributions to research and other needed metrics from counting towards NRUF qualifications

    the caw caw caw system in Denton (well dallas now haha) looked at merging their Fort Worth HSC into the Denton branch campus a few years back specifically to try and cheat their way closer towards NRUF funding

    there were several issues with that.....

    A. the funding models mentioned above

    B. the HSC NEVER wanted to be a part of the green weenie system they never wanted to be merged into it and they never wanted to be a part of the Denton branch campus

    C. I have no real proof of this, but I am about 99% sure they were told that the combined metrics would not count towards NRUF funding......after all if that was the case then UTSA could have made those metrics (or come close) by merging with UT-HSC-SA or one or the other of UTD or UTA merging with UTSW.....and the UT System was not going to have that fight on their hands between UTA and UTD and UTSW would have been against either of those mergers anyway

    D. plus there is the REALITY that the NRUF program is designed to actually bring in more research dollars from the federal level to Texas by the various participating universities......it is not simply a plan for two existing institutions to find a way to combine their EXISTING metrics and then hold their hand out to the state for more funding based on accomplishing nothing more than adding existing metrics together

    you are not truly going to elevate the NATIONAL and state wide respect for Texas universities just by cheating metrics especially when other metrics like freshman class metrics and graduation rates are still relatively poor for several of the emerging research universities in Texas

    the goal is actual MARKED improvement not just combining some numbers and hanging a billboard saying you are now better than ever

    as far as "metrics" go

    http://www.txhighereddata.org/Intera...activeMain.cfm

    one can go there and compare many many many metrics of your choice from the THECB

    also the next annual NRUF report should be out in the next few weeks and that is a comparison of progress towards NRUF funding by the 6 emerging research universities that have not qualified yet *Texas Tech and UH having already qualified)

    as an example

    of the 8 emerging research universities in Texas (Texas Tech, UH, Texas State, UTD, UTA, UTSA, UTAP and caw caw caw)

    for first time freshman in top 10% of HS class UTSA is #6 of the 8.....but not that far behind Tech and caw caw caw

    for top 25% UTSA is actually first......that is not a terrible place to be, but that has to be taken with a grain of salt as well because one needs to consider the SAT/ACT scores required by each university to obtain admission based on a 25% class ranking and how that plays into where a student can be admitted with their particular scores

    6 year graduation rates UTSA is 7th only ahead of UTEP (UTEP BADLY NEEDS A NEW PRESIDENT)

    the good news is that UTSA has been rising in 4, 5 and 6 year graduations rates for the past few years and that is WITHOUT the aid of the increased freshman class metrics that will not start to show for another year or two......those are also TOTAL graduation rates so they include other universities students may have transferred to so the UT CAP program does NOT factor into those rates (the above link has same school rates as well)

    in total research expenditures UTSA is ahead of Texas State (by a few million) and well ahead of caw caw caw and behind the rest

    if one looks at the available numbers from 2001 until 2015 the overal growth of that total research especially compared to the other UT System emerging research universities, Texas Tech and UH the growth is not very impressive

    the growth is much better than north Texas normal college Denton branch, but one has to remember they were coming off their 20 year run of a worthless president, they have churned through 3 presidents since then and the new (4th since then) president walked into a 100+ million dollar accounting scandal and they STILL have to try and make the transition to a true research university with a shit ton of worthless tenured dead wood still set against that and a shit ton more part time and adjunct faculty taking their places

    the growth compared to Texas State was "better", but one needs to remember that Texas State was only just starting to offer ANY doctorates back in 2001 so their growth of both doctorate programs and research funding has been impressive as has their ability to start new meaningful degree programs and to shift "faculty lines" away from yesteryear majors to new needed majors and degree programs (something caw caw state is struggling with)

    so that is a negative on Romo for sure

    when one looks at Federal, State, Private, Institutional and Restricted (the NRUF metric) research numbers UTSA is basically down at number 6 or 7 on the list generally being ahead of caw caw caw and Texas State and usually well below most other UT System Emerging Research universities

    in endowment UTSA is last ($122 million) among the emerging research universities even after the fund raiser and UTA has a posted (on their WWW) plan to get theirs to to $500 million by 2020 which I am not sure how they plan to do it, but that is very aggressive and UTA has not had a fundraiser in forever IF EVER

    caw caw, Texas Tech and UTD have just ended fundraisers recently and Texas State did a year or so before that and UH is in the middle of one now......so that leaves UTEP and UTA that have not had one in the last decade or more and with the dead wood leading UTEP she probably does not like to hit "the poors" up for money so they will probably never have one with her and UTA seems to be hinting at a major aggressive one......UTSA probably should have been a bit more aggressive to the tune of $50 million or so on the one they just ended and they probably should have had a larger goal for actual endowment dollars instead of available to spend now dollars

    I think the REALITY is no matter what you think of Romo personally or the job he did or any "circumstances" one can point to that may have prevented UTSA from being as aggressive or advancing as fast as some other UT System emerging research universities or other Texas emerging research universities he made a really good push at the end when the opportunity was there and that push is over and it is time for new fresh leadership to take over and to set new goals, make fresh evaluations, chop some dead wood and keep advancing UTSA when the time is NOW to do so

    I think whatever the "issue" is that has come to light is probably more related to some old tired piece of shit that has always had it in for him threatening him to advance them a spot or two before he retires (and before that piece of shit probably retires in a few years) and Romo told them to F off and their payback was to shit on him as he is stepping down and to tarnish his legacy a bit

    you know some old hag that is well above her pay grade already and that thinks she deserves to keep advancing up the ranks just for existing and thinks that Romo has been "holding her back" (when he probably should have fired her ass or send her back to a teaching position and out of an administrative roll years ago) and when she figured out fresh blood is on the way in and will probably send her back to teaching faculty on day #2 after they see how useless she is she got pissed off and shitted on Romo

    I think it has absolutely nothing to do with McRaven trying to make a change faster than planned even IF McRaven talked to him about stepping down and letting fresh blood come in after 18 years as president and at the age of 74

    and the REALITY is fresh blood is needed there is simply only so far that a university president can advance a university in their tenure

    because of the nature of higher education especially these days it is simply too hard for one person to take a university through several stages of growth and advancement....eventually faculty revolt, they get stagnant, the personal relationships and favors get bruised or run out and it is time to move on

    Romo made a great final push and he should get a great deal of credit for that......was it made too late....I think one can make an argument both ways on that based on the voerall higher ed picture in San Antonio, but it was a great final push especially for someone that was 14 years in and 70 years old or so when he started it......but his time was now no matter what that is just how it is and I think it is extremely hard to argue against that unless one wants to make the MAJOR mistake of thinking he could do it again for another plateau or that he deserves to ride off into the sunset on his own schedule like deadwood at caw caw caw did or like is happening at UTEP now

    the days of a university president being able to ride the pine after major accomplishments while others do the heavy lifting below him are OVER and any student, alumni or supporter that feels different is making a major mistake that could take a decade or more to rectify

    alsoI do not know if the UT System would want to move him, but Guy Bailey at UT-RGV would be a MAJOR catch for UTSA as president he was great for Tech, he has been great for UT-RGV and Alabama wanted him badly, but sadly his wife became extremely ill and passed on just after he took over at Alabama which is why he was available for UT-RGV after she passed on and he had stepped down at Alabama

  5. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to GL2Greatness For This Useful Post:


  6. #55
    All Conference Rowdy's Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    1,844
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo
    Thanks
    1,084
    Thanked 2,272 Times in 953 Posts

    Default

    ^^^^ A lot of good points related to why Dr. Romo was asked to step down from his position as president of UTSA. The scandal only accelerated the process.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Rowdy's Castle For This Useful Post:


  8. #56
    Graduate Assistant LRP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    830
    Posts
    3,962
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo
    Thanks
    1,499
    Thanked 3,639 Times in 1,668 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GL2Greatness View Post
    lets go over a few things here

    1. the average tenure of a university president in the USA is 8.5 years so a president that goes on for 18 years is WELL past that period of time

    2. the average age of a university president is 61 and Romo is almost 74 so he is WELL past the average age and WELL into retirement time

    this does not mean he is not qualified to do the job or that he still could not do the job based on those factors, but when you are talking about university presidents you are generally talking about highly qualified and highly educated people so seeing one that goes WELL past the averages shows that one is looking at a president that has been through a hell of a lot

    3. it is a stressful job, it is difficult to make major transitions with a university president that has been around that long because faculty tend to try and push back against it based on personal relationships and or based on tenure and lack of desire for change

    one need only look at the decades long tenure of al (useless) hurley at caw caw caw state in Denton and what a total time waste that period was for glorified normal college state and then the difficult time his replacement (that was a bump up from his staff) had with transitioning into the presidents position

    Dr. Pohl was basically run off even though he was well qualified, had good ideas and was doing a good job simply because the long time faculty refused to change and refused to respect his leadership

    4. with the opening of A&M-SA and the increase in admissions standards for UTSA NOW is a time of great change and renewed expectations for UTSA and that really needs fresh leadership it is as simple as that

    no matter what you think of Romo personally or the job he did the fact of the matter is there are periods of time that almost universally call for change in leadership at universities and UTSA is facing one of those times

    5. Romo closed out his tenure with a lot of successes......the fund raiser, raising admissions substantially, the elevated Carnegie CLASSIFICATION (not a ranking) and others are successes

    BUT the reality is UTSA will probably need to have another fund raiser in a shorter period of time than most universities wait to start a new campaign

    the average period between campaigns is about 8 to 10 years and UTSA is going to be two years past the end of the prior one by the time they get a new president in place

    so if UTSA is aggressive about starting another then they will be looking at possibly starting one as soon as 4 years from now (6 years after the end of the last one) and that would be into an established period of transition for a new president

    the last thing you want to do is ride a president for another two years of so (is Romo really going past 76 years old) and let that hold up a capital campaign starting under a new president just getting his feet wet

    6. the merger between UTSA and the UT-HSC-SA was really turned down by the system and at that time the system was being lead by Cigaro which was the former president of UT-HSC-SA prior to being the UT Chancellor

    so if he was for it there is VERY LITTLE to make anyone believe that Romo would be able to get that idea crushed

    7. as far as what is going on with UT MD Anderson.....

    A. they have had a DISASTROUS implementation of a new coding and billing software package that has cost them HUNDREDS of millions in lost billing and other revenues and there have been many other issues with the president and his wife as far as some ethics issues and some overall leadership clashes

    B. this has NOTHING to do with UTSA or anything to do with McRaven putting his own people in place.....the MD Anderson president was a poor choice, an unpopular choice and a disaster from the start and they have only gotten WORSE over time

    8. At this time I am still not sure the UTSA and UT-HSC-SA merger will go through even if it is revisited......until A&M merged their HSC (all components state wide) into College Station no university in Texas had a HSC component they were all independent of any university

    several years back before Angelo State was merged into the Texas Tech System their system actually looked at the idea of merging their HSC into the university and not having a system just being a single university standing alone not a part of a system......but when they compared the state funding it was found that would result in a significant decrease in state formula funding because HSCs are funded with a similar yet different set of formulas by the state so merging the HSC into the university would have resulted in a loss of overall funding for the combined entity and that would have not matched any potential savings from the merger so it would have been a net funding loss

    now with UT, UT-RGV and A&M all having HSCs under the administration of a university who knows if formula funding models will be looked at in the future to prevent that type of thing from happening.....but until that happens I would doubt there will be a merger of stand alone HSCs into any neighboring universities

    I would also be quite certain that of there was a merger as far as it related to NRUF funding there would be legislation in place that prevents the HSC component contributions to research and other needed metrics from counting towards NRUF qualifications

    the caw caw caw system in Denton (well dallas now haha) looked at merging their Fort Worth HSC into the Denton branch campus a few years back specifically to try and cheat their way closer towards NRUF funding

    there were several issues with that.....

    A. the funding models mentioned above

    B. the HSC NEVER wanted to be a part of the green weenie system they never wanted to be merged into it and they never wanted to be a part of the Denton branch campus

    C. I have no real proof of this, but I am about 99% sure they were told that the combined metrics would not count towards NRUF funding......after all if that was the case then UTSA could have made those metrics (or come close) by merging with UT-HSC-SA or one or the other of UTD or UTA merging with UTSW.....and the UT System was not going to have that fight on their hands between UTA and UTD and UTSW would have been against either of those mergers anyway

    D. plus there is the REALITY that the NRUF program is designed to actually bring in more research dollars from the federal level to Texas by the various participating universities......it is not simply a plan for two existing institutions to find a way to combine their EXISTING metrics and then hold their hand out to the state for more funding based on accomplishing nothing more than adding existing metrics together

    you are not truly going to elevate the NATIONAL and state wide respect for Texas universities just by cheating metrics especially when other metrics like freshman class metrics and graduation rates are still relatively poor for several of the emerging research universities in Texas

    the goal is actual MARKED improvement not just combining some numbers and hanging a billboard saying you are now better than ever

    as far as "metrics" go

    http://www.txhighereddata.org/Intera...activeMain.cfm

    one can go there and compare many many many metrics of your choice from the THECB

    also the next annual NRUF report should be out in the next few weeks and that is a comparison of progress towards NRUF funding by the 6 emerging research universities that have not qualified yet *Texas Tech and UH having already qualified)

    as an example

    of the 8 emerging research universities in Texas (Texas Tech, UH, Texas State, UTD, UTA, UTSA, UTAP and caw caw caw)

    for first time freshman in top 10% of HS class UTSA is #6 of the 8.....but not that far behind Tech and caw caw caw

    for top 25% UTSA is actually first......that is not a terrible place to be, but that has to be taken with a grain of salt as well because one needs to consider the SAT/ACT scores required by each university to obtain admission based on a 25% class ranking and how that plays into where a student can be admitted with their particular scores

    6 year graduation rates UTSA is 7th only ahead of UTEP (UTEP BADLY NEEDS A NEW PRESIDENT)

    the good news is that UTSA has been rising in 4, 5 and 6 year graduations rates for the past few years and that is WITHOUT the aid of the increased freshman class metrics that will not start to show for another year or two......those are also TOTAL graduation rates so they include other universities students may have transferred to so the UT CAP program does NOT factor into those rates (the above link has same school rates as well)

    in total research expenditures UTSA is ahead of Texas State (by a few million) and well ahead of caw caw caw and behind the rest

    if one looks at the available numbers from 2001 until 2015 the overal growth of that total research especially compared to the other UT System emerging research universities, Texas Tech and UH the growth is not very impressive

    the growth is much better than north Texas normal college Denton branch, but one has to remember they were coming off their 20 year run of a worthless president, they have churned through 3 presidents since then and the new (4th since then) president walked into a 100+ million dollar accounting scandal and they STILL have to try and make the transition to a true research university with a shit ton of worthless tenured dead wood still set against that and a shit ton more part time and adjunct faculty taking their places

    the growth compared to Texas State was "better", but one needs to remember that Texas State was only just starting to offer ANY doctorates back in 2001 so their growth of both doctorate programs and research funding has been impressive as has their ability to start new meaningful degree programs and to shift "faculty lines" away from yesteryear majors to new needed majors and degree programs (something caw caw state is struggling with)

    so that is a negative on Romo for sure

    when one looks at Federal, State, Private, Institutional and Restricted (the NRUF metric) research numbers UTSA is basically down at number 6 or 7 on the list generally being ahead of caw caw caw and Texas State and usually well below most other UT System Emerging Research universities

    in endowment UTSA is last ($122 million) among the emerging research universities even after the fund raiser and UTA has a posted (on their WWW) plan to get theirs to to $500 million by 2020 which I am not sure how they plan to do it, but that is very aggressive and UTA has not had a fundraiser in forever IF EVER

    caw caw, Texas Tech and UTD have just ended fundraisers recently and Texas State did a year or so before that and UH is in the middle of one now......so that leaves UTEP and UTA that have not had one in the last decade or more and with the dead wood leading UTEP she probably does not like to hit "the poors" up for money so they will probably never have one with her and UTA seems to be hinting at a major aggressive one......UTSA probably should have been a bit more aggressive to the tune of $50 million or so on the one they just ended and they probably should have had a larger goal for actual endowment dollars instead of available to spend now dollars

    I think the REALITY is no matter what you think of Romo personally or the job he did or any "circumstances" one can point to that may have prevented UTSA from being as aggressive or advancing as fast as some other UT System emerging research universities or other Texas emerging research universities he made a really good push at the end when the opportunity was there and that push is over and it is time for new fresh leadership to take over and to set new goals, make fresh evaluations, chop some dead wood and keep advancing UTSA when the time is NOW to do so

    I think whatever the "issue" is that has come to light is probably more related to some old tired piece of shit that has always had it in for him threatening him to advance them a spot or two before he retires (and before that piece of shit probably retires in a few years) and Romo told them to F off and their payback was to shit on him as he is stepping down and to tarnish his legacy a bit

    you know some old hag that is well above her pay grade already and that thinks she deserves to keep advancing up the ranks just for existing and thinks that Romo has been "holding her back" (when he probably should have fired her ass or send her back to a teaching position and out of an administrative roll years ago) and when she figured out fresh blood is on the way in and will probably send her back to teaching faculty on day #2 after they see how useless she is she got pissed off and shitted on Romo

    I think it has absolutely nothing to do with McRaven trying to make a change faster than planned even IF McRaven talked to him about stepping down and letting fresh blood come in after 18 years as president and at the age of 74

    and the REALITY is fresh blood is needed there is simply only so far that a university president can advance a university in their tenure

    because of the nature of higher education especially these days it is simply too hard for one person to take a university through several stages of growth and advancement....eventually faculty revolt, they get stagnant, the personal relationships and favors get bruised or run out and it is time to move on

    Romo made a great final push and he should get a great deal of credit for that......was it made too late....I think one can make an argument both ways on that based on the voerall higher ed picture in San Antonio, but it was a great final push especially for someone that was 14 years in and 70 years old or so when he started it......but his time was now no matter what that is just how it is and I think it is extremely hard to argue against that unless one wants to make the MAJOR mistake of thinking he could do it again for another plateau or that he deserves to ride off into the sunset on his own schedule like deadwood at caw caw caw did or like is happening at UTEP now

    the days of a university president being able to ride the pine after major accomplishments while others do the heavy lifting below him are OVER and any student, alumni or supporter that feels different is making a major mistake that could take a decade or more to rectify

    alsoI do not know if the UT System would want to move him, but Guy Bailey at UT-RGV would be a MAJOR catch for UTSA as president he was great for Tech, he has been great for UT-RGV and Alabama wanted him badly, but sadly his wife became extremely ill and passed on just after he took over at Alabama which is why he was available for UT-RGV after she passed on and he had stepped down at Alabama
    Excellent post. Thank you for dispelling the tinfoil hat theory. It makes us look like retards whenever it's mentioned on RT. McRaven has some very aggressive goals for the UT System and if he is successful, UTSA will be a lot better off for it. We should all be supporting his efforts as it is in UTSA's best interest.
    Busy playing Cyberball at the Roost.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LRP For This Useful Post:


  10. #57
    Graduate Assistant LRP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    830
    Posts
    3,962
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo
    Thanks
    1,499
    Thanked 3,639 Times in 1,668 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JagRunner View Post
    Was this really all over hugs? LOL SMH
    I knew a guy from work that had a reputation for giving hugs and brushing against a girls bra strap for a cheap thrill. There are a lot of pervy dudes out there and it's wrong to automatically dismiss something as benign.
    Busy playing Cyberball at the Roost.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to LRP For This Useful Post:


  12. #58
    Team Captain GTRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Helotes
    Posts
    708
    Sports Logo Sports Logo
    Thanks
    1,130
    Thanked 695 Times in 344 Posts

    Default

    GL2Greatness, you get a standing ovation right here in my living room.

  13. #59
    Team Captain GTRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Helotes
    Posts
    708
    Sports Logo Sports Logo
    Thanks
    1,130
    Thanked 695 Times in 344 Posts

  14. #60
    Team Captain Cory93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    679
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo
    Thanks
    582
    Thanked 728 Times in 330 Posts

    Default

    UGH....Wonder what the full article says...anyone check out the pics in the slideshow? Crazy how far the University came in such a short time....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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