(11-01-2017 10:26 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 06:58 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 04:11 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  Actually, we've lost a ton of donors that had given to the school for decades. The entire debacle between Hammond, McGillis, IHL, Bennett, and other factors led to a good amount I personally know stopping. And until they see actual leadership, they don't plan to give any more. To quote one, "I gave tremendous amount for over 30 years and nothing changed. Their student recruitment strategy was awful, no one listened to any of our ideas that seemed so braindead obvious even a kid could do it, and it's obvious they don't care much about losing my dollars because I haven't heard from them since." That's a pretty common thread I hear from many donors who used to have season tickets for decades and can no longer be found at the games.

Please do elaborate as to what the “The entire debacle between Hammond, McGillis, IHL, Bennett“ entails. I’ve seen those events of the past half-dozen or so years, but what, specifically, caused these people to throw in the towel after giving “tremendous amounts” for “decades?”

The problems we have today have been brewing for decades as well. The last legitimate visionary to hold the president’s office was probably McCain. McLellan, for whom I otherwise had a lot of respect, did everything possible to balance the athletic budget except actually grow income. The word “marketing” may not have even been in his vocabulary, and under his watch, our facilities fell 10 years behind our peers’. For heaven’s sake, we only played 4 home football games for years. That was atrocious. What exactly made people who contributed through all that decide, “Nope, I’m done now”? It’s ALWAYS been a battle here. Our fighting, biting, and scratching for everything we have from the day the doors opened is well-documented.

It’s also a strange paradox that one of the biggest complaints over the years has been “the big donors control everything.” Now you’re telling me people who gave huge sums of money are pissed off because they weren’t being listened to.

What caused many, from my understanding, was a buildup over the years of incompetence. We all work jobs and do our best at them. When you see pure, unadulterated laziness permeating a campus for twenty+ years and no leadership to fix it, that weighs on you. Many saw Hammond as whipping the laziness out of the Athletic Department, but he was canned because he made some big money people unhappy. Then you had Bennett brought in, who was a candidate no one on the Presidential committee wanted, but was forced on us by the IHL to be the 'diverse' pick of Mississippi. He hired McGillis, who did nothing but make us lose money through terrible IMG deals and paying this outside company to sell season tickets instead of our own people actually going out and selling those tickets, costing us more money in the process. You begin to combine all of these things happening and at one point, people say 'Enough is enough. If USM doesn't want to better itself, I'm not going to pour my money in their sinkhole.' And so they left.


Big sums can look like small sums in comparison. I've been in rooms and heard administration straight up say that if they can control Hattiesburg and the surrounding 30 mile area, we'd be okay. This is what led Martha to assign her worst recruiter to Jackson. It's created an echo chamber in Hattiesburg where any ideas that aren't from Hattiesburg are seen as ridiculous or out of touch. Meanwhile, the Eagle Club in Hattiesburg is dying (dead may be a better word, their meetings are jokes), more and more kids are choosing SEC schools over us, and we're finding out very quickly that the surrounding 30 mile radius isn't that large. In theory, sure, if everyone in that area got involved, we'd be a-okay. That's not reality though. And for decades they've made sure to keep those giving millions as happy as possible while giving the finger to those who give tens of thousands.

Short story to show a bit of the incompetence I've witnessed. I have a friend who's company owned a suite the first five years (08-12). After that, the contract came up for renewal. They had previously been paying $28,000 a year to rent the suite. McGillis comes in and tells them that the price is now going to be $31,000 a year. Note, this is after an 0-12 year where all of our conference rivals left us and were being replaced by startup programs. So, out of goodwill, this friend offers $29,000 and cites the reasons why he would never consider paying $31,000 with the product on the field and the competition we had on schedule. He even agreed to do a one year deal so that if someone found out and complained, they could say it's being rented and is available to anyone willing to pay the $31,000 at any time. McGillis refused. That suite was filled the entirety of the 2013 season by local businesses given free tickets to make sure it wasn't empty. Our AD passed on $29,000 (more than that if we account for future years) and instead gave away free tickets to people who have never shown their face on campus again. That's the incompetence that plagues our Athletic Department. I sure hope the new AD can fix things, and I haven't seen any reason so far that I believe he can't. But it's going to take a cultural shift in Hattiesburg for us to right the ship. It'll also take certain people rotating off of the IHL that will inevitably allow us to improve ourselves instead of stay where we are.

Big money people run everything at USM, but the big money people are withdrawing their support from USM because of the way things are run.

That's a good read EagNBran!

(11-01-2017 11:07 AM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  I don't even think there is a Hattiesburg EC chapter. As for Hammond, he did some things that cost him the job. Period. It was a lot more than pissing off big donors (though that was a factor).

Bennett is what he is (average). He hasn't had a major **** up (yet) like Saunders and Thames did. I didn't know that the presidential search board was opposed to him. Why even have a search committee when you know the decision is going to be made by a bunch of Jackson/North Mississippi big-wigs that don't give a damn about USM?


The IHL isn't going to get any better anytime soon. Our great USM governor has appointed 1 USM grad to the board. And I believe 2 USM people that Barbour appointed will rotate off in 2018. Barbour is/was much more pro-USM than Bryant.

It's interesting. Ole Miss and State people think that USM and the other schools hold them back. A lot of OM supporters wanted to break off in 2015 when Dan Jones was let go. The reason was that they felt USM and the HBCUs had a disproportionate amount of power. Of course, our people think that OM/MSU have too much power.

The guy that the IHL appointed for Ole Miss (Vitter) is mostly incompetent, but OM has enough positives to where they can survive mediocre leadership. We can't/don't.

Some of those 2018 rotations are when we'll finally be able to get something done if they right people are put in place. Currently, those are the people with conflicts of interest making sure we stay where we are.

(11-01-2017 11:10 AM)RockTheRock Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 10:26 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 06:58 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 04:11 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  Actually, we've lost a ton of donors that had given to the school for decades. The entire debacle between Hammond, McGillis, IHL, Bennett, and other factors led to a good amount I personally know stopping. And until they see actual leadership, they don't plan to give any more. To quote one, "I gave tremendous amount for over 30 years and nothing changed. Their student recruitment strategy was awful, no one listened to any of our ideas that seemed so braindead obvious even a kid could do it, and it's obvious they don't care much about losing my dollars because I haven't heard from them since." That's a pretty common thread I hear from many donors who used to have season tickets for decades and can no longer be found at the games.

Please do elaborate as to what the “The entire debacle between Hammond, McGillis, IHL, Bennett“ entails. I’ve seen those events of the past half-dozen or so years, but what, specifically, caused these people to throw in the towel after giving “tremendous amounts” for “decades?”

The problems we have today have been brewing for decades as well. The last legitimate visionary to hold the president’s office was probably McCain. McLellan, for whom I otherwise had a lot of respect, did everything possible to balance the athletic budget except actually grow income. The word “marketing” may not have even been in his vocabulary, and under his watch, our facilities fell 10 years behind our peers’. For heaven’s sake, we only played 4 home football games for years. That was atrocious. What exactly made people who contributed through all that decide, “Nope, I’m done now”? It’s ALWAYS been a battle here. Our fighting, biting, and scratching for everything we have from the day the doors opened is well-documented.

It’s also a strange paradox that one of the biggest complaints over the years has been “the big donors control everything.” Now you’re telling me people who gave huge sums of money are pissed off because they weren’t being listened to.

What caused many, from my understanding, was a buildup over the years of incompetence. We all work jobs and do our best at them. When you see pure, unadulterated laziness permeating a campus for twenty+ years and no leadership to fix it, that weighs on you. Many saw Hammond as whipping the laziness out of the Athletic Department, but he was canned because he made some big money people unhappy. Then you had Bennett brought in, who was a candidate no one on the Presidential committee wanted, but was forced on us by the IHL to be the 'diverse' pick of Mississippi. He hired McGillis, who did nothing but make us lose money through terrible IMG deals and paying this outside company to sell season tickets instead of our own people actually going out and selling those tickets, costing us more money in the process. You begin to combine all of these things happening and at one point, people say 'Enough is enough. If USM doesn't want to better itself, I'm not going to pour my money in their sinkhole.' And so they left.


Big sums can look like small sums in comparison. I've been in rooms and heard administration straight up say that if they can control Hattiesburg and the surrounding 30 mile area, we'd be okay. This is what led Martha to assign her worst recruiter to Jackson. It's created an echo chamber in Hattiesburg where any ideas that aren't from Hattiesburg are seen as ridiculous or out of touch. Meanwhile, the Eagle Club in Hattiesburg is dying (dead may be a better word, their meetings are jokes), more and more kids are choosing SEC schools over us, and we're finding out very quickly that the surrounding 30 mile radius isn't that large. In theory, sure, if everyone in that area got involved, we'd be a-okay. That's not reality though. And for decades they've made sure to keep those giving millions as happy as possible while giving the finger to those who give tens of thousands.

Short story to show a bit of the incompetence I've witnessed. I have a friend who's company owned a suite the first five years (08-12). After that, the contract came up for renewal. They had previously been paying $28,000 a year to rent the suite. McGillis comes in and tells them that the price is now going to be $31,000 a year. Note, this is after an 0-12 year where all of our conference rivals left us and were being replaced by startup programs. So, out of goodwill, this friend offers $29,000 and cites the reasons why he would never consider paying $31,000 with the product on the field and the competition we had on schedule. He even agreed to do a one year deal so that if someone found out and complained, they could say it's being rented and is available to anyone willing to pay the $31,000 at any time. McGillis refused. That suite was filled the entirety of the 2013 season by local businesses given free tickets to make sure it wasn't empty. Our AD passed on $29,000 (more than that if we account for future years) and instead gave away free tickets to people who have never shown their face on campus again. That's the incompetence that plagues our Athletic Department. I sure hope the new AD can fix things, and I haven't seen any reason so far that I believe he can't. But it's going to take a cultural shift in Hattiesburg for us to right the ship. It'll also take certain people rotating off of the IHL that will inevitably allow us to improve ourselves instead of stay where we are.

Big money people run everything at USM, but the big money people are withdrawing their support from USM because of the way things are run.

There's money and there's big money. Big money runs things. The money is leaving.

(11-01-2017 10:16 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 10:11 AM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  I think it's funny that people in the Metro Jackson area drop 15-20k on private school only for their kid to go to Ole Miss or State. Not a very good investment IMO. You want your kid to go to an elite university if you're spending that kind of money on HS.

I think parents pay $15-$20K on private school in the metro jackson area so their kids won't get shot.

I know it shouldn't, but that cracked me up.

(11-01-2017 10:16 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 10:11 AM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  I think it's funny that people in the Metro Jackson area drop 15-20k on private school only for their kid to go to Ole Miss or State. Not a very good investment IMO. You want your kid to go to an elite university if you're spending that kind of money on HS.

I think parents pay $15-$20K on private school in the metro jackson area so their kids won't get shot.

I like picking fun at the Metro area.

Lack of pretentiousness is something that USM has over Ole Miss and State. A lot of that is because USM virtually has no students from St. Andrew's, Prep, JA, etc.

(11-01-2017 10:26 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  Short story to show a bit of the incompetence I've witnessed. I have a friend who's company owned a suite the first five years (08-12). After that, the contract came up for renewal. They had previously been paying $28,000 a year to rent the suite. McGillis comes in and tells them that the price is now going to be $31,000 a year. Note, this is after an 0-12 year where all of our conference rivals left us and were being replaced by startup programs. So, out of goodwill, this friend offers $29,000 and cites the reasons why he would never consider paying $31,000 with the product on the field and the competition we had on schedule. He even agreed to do a one year deal so that if someone found out and complained, they could say it's being rented and is available to anyone willing to pay the $31,000 at any time. McGillis refused. That suite was filled the entirety of the 2013 season by local businesses given free tickets to make sure it wasn't empty. Our AD passed on $29,000 (more than that if we account for future years) and instead gave away free tickets to people who have never shown their face on campus again. That's the incompetence that plagues our Athletic Department. I sure hope the new AD can fix things, and I haven't seen any reason so far that I believe he can't. But it's going to take a cultural shift in Hattiesburg for us to right the ship. It'll also take certain people rotating off of the IHL that will inevitably allow us to improve ourselves instead of stay where we are.

So, do you suppose the suite that your friend didn't lease stayed empty because he wouldn't pay $2k more for the suite?

(11-01-2017 05:17 PM)ProfessorEagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 10:26 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  Short story to show a bit of the incompetence I've witnessed. I have a friend who's company owned a suite the first five years (08-12). After that, the contract came up for renewal. They had previously been paying $28,000 a year to rent the suite. McGillis comes in and tells them that the price is now going to be $31,000 a year. Note, this is after an 0-12 year where all of our conference rivals left us and were being replaced by startup programs. So, out of goodwill, this friend offers $29,000 and cites the reasons why he would never consider paying $31,000 with the product on the field and the competition we had on schedule. He even agreed to do a one year deal so that if someone found out and complained, they could say it's being rented and is available to anyone willing to pay the $31,000 at any time. McGillis refused. That suite was filled the entirety of the 2013 season by local businesses given free tickets to make sure it wasn't empty. Our AD passed on $29,000 (more than that if we account for future years) and instead gave away free tickets to people who have never shown their face on campus again. That's the incompetence that plagues our Athletic Department. I sure hope the new AD can fix things, and I haven't seen any reason so far that I believe he can't. But it's going to take a cultural shift in Hattiesburg for us to right the ship. It'll also take certain people rotating off of the IHL that will inevitably allow us to improve ourselves instead of stay where we are.

So, do you suppose the suite that your friend didn't lease stayed empty because he wouldn't pay $2k more for the suite?

I believe it stayed empty because prior leadership decided they'd rather give away free suite tickets than take $29,000 guaranteed.

(11-01-2017 11:10 AM)RockTheRock Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 10:26 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 06:58 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 04:11 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  Actually, we've lost a ton of donors that had given to the school for decades. The entire debacle between Hammond, McGillis, IHL, Bennett, and other factors led to a good amount I personally know stopping. And until they see actual leadership, they don't plan to give any more. To quote one, "I gave tremendous amount for over 30 years and nothing changed. Their student recruitment strategy was awful, no one listened to any of our ideas that seemed so braindead obvious even a kid could do it, and it's obvious they don't care much about losing my dollars because I haven't heard from them since." That's a pretty common thread I hear from many donors who used to have season tickets for decades and can no longer be found at the games.

Please do elaborate as to what the “The entire debacle between Hammond, McGillis, IHL, Bennett“ entails. I’ve seen those events of the past half-dozen or so years, but what, specifically, caused these people to throw in the towel after giving “tremendous amounts” for “decades?”

The problems we have today have been brewing for decades as well. The last legitimate visionary to hold the president’s office was probably McCain. McLellan, for whom I otherwise had a lot of respect, did everything possible to balance the athletic budget except actually grow income. The word “marketing” may not have even been in his vocabulary, and under his watch, our facilities fell 10 years behind our peers’. For heaven’s sake, we only played 4 home football games for years. That was atrocious. What exactly made people who contributed through all that decide, “Nope, I’m done now”? It’s ALWAYS been a battle here. Our fighting, biting, and scratching for everything we have from the day the doors opened is well-documented.

It’s also a strange paradox that one of the biggest complaints over the years has been “the big donors control everything.” Now you’re telling me people who gave huge sums of money are pissed off because they weren’t being listened to.

What caused many, from my understanding, was a buildup over the years of incompetence. We all work jobs and do our best at them. When you see pure, unadulterated laziness permeating a campus for twenty+ years and no leadership to fix it, that weighs on you. Many saw Hammond as whipping the laziness out of the Athletic Department, but he was canned because he made some big money people unhappy. Then you had Bennett brought in, who was a candidate no one on the Presidential committee wanted, but was forced on us by the IHL to be the 'diverse' pick of Mississippi. He hired McGillis, who did nothing but make us lose money through terrible IMG deals and paying this outside company to sell season tickets instead of our own people actually going out and selling those tickets, costing us more money in the process. You begin to combine all of these things happening and at one point, people say 'Enough is enough. If USM doesn't want to better itself, I'm not going to pour my money in their sinkhole.' And so they left.


Big sums can look like small sums in comparison. I've been in rooms and heard administration straight up say that if they can control Hattiesburg and the surrounding 30 mile area, we'd be okay. This is what led Martha to assign her worst recruiter to Jackson. It's created an echo chamber in Hattiesburg where any ideas that aren't from Hattiesburg are seen as ridiculous or out of touch. Meanwhile, the Eagle Club in Hattiesburg is dying (dead may be a better word, their meetings are jokes), more and more kids are choosing SEC schools over us, and we're finding out very quickly that the surrounding 30 mile radius isn't that large. In theory, sure, if everyone in that area got involved, we'd be a-okay. That's not reality though. And for decades they've made sure to keep those giving millions as happy as possible while giving the finger to those who give tens of thousands.

Short story to show a bit of the incompetence I've witnessed. I have a friend who's company owned a suite the first five years (08-12). After that, the contract came up for renewal. They had previously been paying $28,000 a year to rent the suite. McGillis comes in and tells them that the price is now going to be $31,000 a year. Note, this is after an 0-12 year where all of our conference rivals left us and were being replaced by startup programs. So, out of goodwill, this friend offers $29,000 and cites the reasons why he would never consider paying $31,000 with the product on the field and the competition we had on schedule. He even agreed to do a one year deal so that if someone found out and complained, they could say it's being rented and is available to anyone willing to pay the $31,000 at any time. McGillis refused. That suite was filled the entirety of the 2013 season by local businesses given free tickets to make sure it wasn't empty. Our AD passed on $29,000 (more than that if we account for future years) and instead gave away free tickets to people who have never shown their face on campus again. That's the incompetence that plagues our Athletic Department. I sure hope the new AD can fix things, and I haven't seen any reason so far that I believe he can't. But it's going to take a cultural shift in Hattiesburg for us to right the ship. It'll also take certain people rotating off of the IHL that will inevitably allow us to improve ourselves instead of stay where we are.

Big money people run everything at USM, but the big money people are withdrawing their support from USM because of the way things are run.

And in many cases, the big money was never really that big. Some had a lot of sway for a relatively small contribution.

(11-01-2017 05:18 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 05:17 PM)ProfessorEagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 10:26 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  Short story to show a bit of the incompetence I've witnessed. I have a friend who's company owned a suite the first five years (08-12). After that, the contract came up for renewal. They had previously been paying $28,000 a year to rent the suite. McGillis comes in and tells them that the price is now going to be $31,000 a year. Note, this is after an 0-12 year where all of our conference rivals left us and were being replaced by startup programs. So, out of goodwill, this friend offers $29,000 and cites the reasons why he would never consider paying $31,000 with the product on the field and the competition we had on schedule. He even agreed to do a one year deal so that if someone found out and complained, they could say it's being rented and is available to anyone willing to pay the $31,000 at any time. McGillis refused. That suite was filled the entirety of the 2013 season by local businesses given free tickets to make sure it wasn't empty. Our AD passed on $29,000 (more than that if we account for future years) and instead gave away free tickets to people who have never shown their face on campus again. That's the incompetence that plagues our Athletic Department. I sure hope the new AD can fix things, and I haven't seen any reason so far that I believe he can't. But it's going to take a cultural shift in Hattiesburg for us to right the ship. It'll also take certain people rotating off of the IHL that will inevitably allow us to improve ourselves instead of stay where we are.

So, do you suppose the suite that your friend didn't lease stayed empty because he wouldn't pay $2k more for the suite?

I believe it stayed empty because prior leadership decided they'd rather give away free suite tickets than take $29,000 guaranteed.

I think that is doubtful. I have never seen an empty suite and I understand there was a waiting list in recent years. Maybe that isn't the case now, but those suites all seem to filled to brim when I go up there.

(11-01-2017 05:21 PM)ProfessorEagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 05:18 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 05:17 PM)ProfessorEagle Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 10:26 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  Short story to show a bit of the incompetence I've witnessed. I have a friend who's company owned a suite the first five years (08-12). After that, the contract came up for renewal. They had previously been paying $28,000 a year to rent the suite. McGillis comes in and tells them that the price is now going to be $31,000 a year. Note, this is after an 0-12 year where all of our conference rivals left us and were being replaced by startup programs. So, out of goodwill, this friend offers $29,000 and cites the reasons why he would never consider paying $31,000 with the product on the field and the competition we had on schedule. He even agreed to do a one year deal so that if someone found out and complained, they could say it's being rented and is available to anyone willing to pay the $31,000 at any time. McGillis refused. That suite was filled the entirety of the 2013 season by local businesses given free tickets to make sure it wasn't empty. Our AD passed on $29,000 (more than that if we account for future years) and instead gave away free tickets to people who have never shown their face on campus again. That's the incompetence that plagues our Athletic Department. I sure hope the new AD can fix things, and I haven't seen any reason so far that I believe he can't. But it's going to take a cultural shift in Hattiesburg for us to right the ship. It'll also take certain people rotating off of the IHL that will inevitably allow us to improve ourselves instead of stay where we are.

So, do you suppose the suite that your friend didn't lease stayed empty because he wouldn't pay $2k more for the suite?

I believe it stayed empty because prior leadership decided they'd rather give away free suite tickets than take $29,000 guaranteed.

I think that is doubtful. I have never seen an empty suite and I understand there was a waiting list in recent years. Maybe that isn't the case now, but those suites all seem to filled to brim when I go up there.

They did fill it. They gave the tickets to local businesses for free.

(11-01-2017 10:26 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  What caused many, from my understanding, was a buildup over the years of incompetence. We all work jobs and do our best at them. When you see pure, unadulterated laziness permeating a campus for twenty+ years and no leadership to fix it, that weighs on you.

That doesn't explain a significant number of people all pulling out at once. If it was simple fatigue, it stands to reason some would have bailed 5 years earlier or 5 years later. An mass exodus would have to be caused by a keystone event or a sequence of events occurring over a very short period of time.

Quote:Many saw Hammond as whipping the laziness out of the Athletic Department, but he was canned because he made some big money people unhappy.

He was canned because his tenure was a disaster, and anybody who knows anything and doesn't carry his jock strap knows it. He made very public accusations that the state auditor's office failed to corroborate, causing seismic rifts in support and bringing embarrassment to the university that could've been easily avoided had he not tried to ram his way though campus like it was Fallujah (RIP USMmmm). Lawsuits were filed about unprofessional behavior. At CUSA meetings, he was the contextual equivalent to Trump at the G20: the unqualified outsider nobody really wanted to deal with. It also bears mentioning that Tyndall was 100% his hire and he was interim AD when Johnson was hired.

Ironically, there was "big money" involved in Hammond's hire. It was openly--proudly, in fact-- discussed on EaglePost that it was former Hattiesburg Mayor Bobby Chain who put Hammond's full-time hire over the top with Lucas. Yes, somehow the former mayor convinced the President Emeritus to hire the former quarterback so everyone could celebrate how the "good ol' boy network" was no longer in control. Also, Wookies don't live on Endor.

Quote:Then you had Bennett brought in, who was a candidate no one on the Presidential committee wanted, but was forced on us by the IHL to be the 'diverse' pick of Mississippi.

I ain't touching the "diverse pick" part. I will say that pulling support for USM based on a hire that was forced upon USM by outside forces also reminds us Wookies don't live on Endor.

Quote:He hired McGillis, who did nothing but make us lose money through terrible IMG deals and paying this outside company to sell season tickets instead of our own people actually going out and selling those tickets, costing us more money in the process. You begin to combine all of these things happening and at one point, people say 'Enough is enough. If USM doesn't want to better itself, I'm not going to pour my money in their sinkhole.' And so they left.

The problem with that is Bennett saw all that and said, "Enough is enough" himself. McGillis is no longer here. If McGillis was the issue, that's been addressed quite definitively.

Quote: And for decades they've made sure to keep those giving millions as happy as possible while giving the finger to those who give tens of thousands.

Ideally, you'd like to have everybody pulling the rope in the same direction, but if forced to choose between keeping one group or the other happy, the choice is obvious there.

Quote:Short story to show a bit of the incompetence I've witnessed. I have a friend who's company owned a suite the first five years (08-12). After that, the contract came up for renewal. They had previously been paying $28,000 a year to rent the suite. McGillis comes in and tells them that the price is now going to be $31,000 a year. Note, this is after an 0-12 year where all of our conference rivals left us and were being replaced by startup programs. So, out of goodwill, this friend offers $29,000 and cites the reasons why he would never consider paying $31,000 with the product on the field and the competition we had on schedule. He even agreed to do a one year deal so that if someone found out and complained, they could say it's being rented and is available to anyone willing to pay the $31,000 at any time. McGillis refused. That suite was filled the entirety of the 2013 season by local businesses given free tickets to make sure it wasn't empty. Our AD passed on $29,000 (more than that if we account for future years) and instead gave away free tickets to people who have never shown their face on campus again.

I can't get too upset about this. The price was the price. Haggling with one would open up a pandora's box with everyone who stepped up and paid the $31K. I view the suites just like I view the other tickets. If you don't value your own product, you can't expect anyone else to do it. I don't know who these people are who supposedly never showed their face on campus again, but if, say, the department took the unsold suite and put it to use as a hospitality suite to make pitches to potential sponsors and that sort of thing, I don't have a problem with it.

But again, here we have the bigger issue: Am I safe in saying the person who originally bought the suite desired a higher-caliber product on the field and a better conference home, and all that jazz? If so, he apparently didn't want any of it enough to pay a 3% increase toward the cause. Like I've said a thousand times, eventually people have to put their money where their mouths are, both figuratively and literally, in this whole situation.

(11-02-2017 02:05 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  Like I've said a thousand times, eventually people have to put their money where their mouths are, both figuratively and literally, in this whole situation.

This is it in a nutshell. Our fans want much more than they are willing to pay for and they want to see the results first even if they would be willing to pay for it. One popular excuse for the poor attendance at the Kentucky game, a rare visit from an SEC foe, was because the AD jacked up the price for this game. I think ticket prices ranged from $30 to $50 which was $10 more than a normal game. Our ticket prices are ridiculously low. A friend of mine shared this pic on Facebook of an Auburn-Georgia ticket from 1991 and 2017. The cost in 1991 was $18 and 2017 was $120. I think our tickets were around this much or maybe a little less in 1991 but our fans balk at paying twice that for a single game?
  23131647_10212955388656225_5849548195051574338_n.jpg (Size: 94.74 KB / Downloads: 5)

(11-02-2017 02:05 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  Eventually people have to put their money where their mouths are, both figuratively and literally, in this whole situation

Or not, as they are now.

Eventually, USM is going to need to accept who they are and be happy with it.

(11-02-2017 05:10 PM)Black Diamond Reb Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:05 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  Eventually people have to put their money where their mouths are, both figuratively and literally, in this whole situation

Or not, as they are now.

Eventually, USM is going to need to accept who they are and be happy with it.

or just wilt on the vine and die. Check out the RIF ( reduction in force ) letter from Bennett today.

(11-02-2017 05:14 PM)CajunEagle Wrote:  Check out the RIF ( reduction in force ) letter from Bennett today.

"I'm all in, but some of you won't be?" Thanks Flamingo.

(11-02-2017 05:10 PM)Black Diamond Reb Wrote:  Eventually, USM is going to need to accept who they are and be happy with it.

That is the other option.

(11-02-2017 05:10 PM)Black Diamond Reb Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:05 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  Eventually people have to put their money where their mouths are, both figuratively and literally, in this whole situation

Or not, as they are now.

Eventually, USM is going to need to accept who they are and be happy with it.

Who are we, Mark?

We are La Tech, UAB, Louisiana-Lafayette, FIU, Georgia State, Charlotte, and UTEP. Our mediocre performance, our lack of money, our hires, and our attendance all generally mirror these schools.

We have won CUSA ONE TIME in the last 14 years. ONE TIME.

We are not Houston, UCF, ECU, TCU. In fact, we are so far away from them now that we aren't even a stain on the bedsheets to them.

We are a baseball school. A good one, not a great one. With proper investments and stability we can become a perennial contender. It's the only sport in which our resources are viable.

Life is easier when you make peace with these facts.

(11-03-2017 08:39 AM)ProfessorEagle Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 05:10 PM)Black Diamond Reb Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:05 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  Eventually people have to put their money where their mouths are, both figuratively and literally, in this whole situation

Or not, as they are now.

Eventually, USM is going to need to accept who they are and be happy with it.

Who are we, Mark?

20K fans, decaying facilities, aging fan base in a crippling "conference". Little avenue for much needed revenue gains to even maintain status quo. Difficulty in keeping the 20K that WANT to be here engaged, much less growing followers that can opt for Baton Rouge, Tuscaloosa, and Starkville for athletic entertainment.