[url= https://twitter.com/FearTheWaveBlog/stat...77505]Link[/url]

(02-16-2016 03:45 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  [url= https://twitter.com/FearTheWaveBlog/stat...77505]Link[/url]

There is a serious financial crisis in state government in Louisiana, and higher education in general is somewhere below having good dog catchers in the state's revenue distribution scheme. The newly elected governor is running around the state threatening folks that if we don't agree to tax ourselves out the wazzu, he will have no choice but to close the doors on higher education.

Since every department in state government is constitutionally protected against budget cuts except higher education and public health, he may have a point.

This is not a new development, just a new governor who would want higher taxes, even if the economy were booming.

As to a direct response to your question, no one is really sure how each school will be affected. I can give you some educated guesses, but they are just guesses.

La Tech has seen a gradual decline over the last few years in academics, no doubt fueled by the draconian budget cuts during that time. The recently released Carnegie classification drop reflects that, and I expect that Tech will also lose their Tier 1 status with USN&WR this fall when the new ranking is released.

Both ULM and UL have fared somewhat better than Tech.

ULM has actually improved academics to the point of being reclassified upward by Carnegie. They did have to eliminate a few programs, but they did a good job of identifying their strengths and building on them.

UL is still fiscally in pretty good shape by comparison. Like ULM, UL has streamlined some operations, identified and built upon strengths, and has increased its lead over all other UL system schools in research dollars, foundation dollars and facilities.

As to athletics [since this is an athletics board], all three schools will be impacted to some degree. My best guess is that all three schools will be forced to drastically reduce institutional support for athletics. Unlike most other schools, none of the three have student fees for athletics, so all institutional support is at the complete discretion of the school's administration.

If each school cuts its institutional support in half, both Tech and ULM will lose something on the order of 25% of their athletic budget. UL will lose about 13%.

Both ULM and UL are relatively new to the idea of broad based funding of athletics through private donations. I know the Cajun's organization is only 8 years old, and I believe the Warhawk's group is even younger. Even so, UL generated over $10,000,000 in private donations to athletics last year, and I understand that ULM generated around $4,000,000. The Cajun's organization is rather broad-based, with perhaps 75% of its $2,100,000 in unrestricted donations coming from donors giving $5,000 or less. I am not sure about the ULM group.

Tech's outside funding organization has been around a lot longer; but I have been told that it is very top heavy, with the vast majority of its unrestricted donations being made by a very small group of people. Depending on how those people are affected by the price of crude oil, that could be very good or very bad for Tech.

I do not know how Tech or ULM are addressing the problem. I do know that UL has a publicly stated goal of a self-sufficient athletic program. I also know that there are extremely well informed and competent people now consulting with the university on what steps the school can take to achieve that goal without killing athletics. I am also certain that no currently scheduled facilities improvements have been cancelled or cut back, and that the largest such improvement was recently approved internally by the school at a budget number significantly higher than what was proposed just last year.

In sum, I expect that the results of the current economic crisis will be similar to the last one in the 1980's; LSU and UL will be relatively unscathed, and the rest of the schools in the state will suffer to varying degrees depending on the competence of their administrations and the generosity of their donors.

Would it alleviate the states financial burden if Loser Tech closed its doors?

Just thinking out loud....looking for ideas...

(02-17-2016 08:18 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Would it alleviate the states financial burden if Loser Tech closed its doors?

Just thinking out loud....looking for ideas...

Honestly the best financial strategy would be to consolidate schools.

North La: ULM, LTUrd and LSUS merge into 1.
South La: UL, McNeese, Nicholls and LSUA merge.
Nola Area: UNO, SUNO, Delgado and SeLU into 1.
HBCU: Southern & Grambling merge under SU

Then you have LSU who still reigns supreme.

Refocus empty campuses into vocational schools to address the ever widening skills gap.

(02-17-2016 08:18 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Would it alleviate the states financial burden if Loser Tech closed its doors?

Just thinking out loud....looking for ideas...

Brilliant.....they should listen to you.

(02-17-2016 04:33 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 03:45 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  [url= https://twitter.com/FearTheWaveBlog/stat...77505]Link[/url]

There is a serious financial crisis in state government in Louisiana, and higher education in general is somewhere below having good dog catchers in the state's revenue distribution scheme. The newly elected governor is running around the state threatening folks that if we don't agree to tax ourselves out the wazzu, he will have no choice but to close the doors on higher education.

Since every department in state government is constitutionally protected against budget cuts except higher education and public health, he may have a point.

This is not a new development, just a new governor who would want higher taxes, even if the economy were booming.

As to a direct response to your question, no one is really sure how each school will be affected. I can give you some educated guesses, but they are just guesses.

La Tech has seen a gradual decline over the last few years in academics, no doubt fueled by the draconian budget cuts during that time. The recently released Carnegie classification drop reflects that, and I expect that Tech will also lose their Tier 1 status with USN&WR this fall when the new ranking is released.

Both ULM and UL have fared somewhat better than Tech.

ULM has actually improved academics to the point of being reclassified upward by Carnegie. They did have to eliminate a few programs, but they did a good job of identifying their strengths and building on them.

UL is still fiscally in pretty good shape by comparison. Like ULM, UL has streamlined some operations, identified and built upon strengths, and has increased its lead over all other UL system schools in research dollars, foundation dollars and facilities.

As to athletics [since this is an athletics board], all three schools will be impacted to some degree. My best guess is that all three schools will be forced to drastically reduce institutional support for athletics. Unlike most other schools, none of the three have student fees for athletics, so all institutional support is at the complete discretion of the school's administration.

If each school cuts its institutional support in half, both Tech and ULM will lose something on the order of 25% of their athletic budget. UL will lose about 13%.

Both ULM and UL are relatively new to the idea of broad based funding of athletics through private donations. I know the Cajun's organization is only 8 years old, and I believe the Warhawk's group is even younger. Even so, UL generated over $10,000,000 in private donations to athletics last year, and I understand that ULM generated around $4,000,000. The Cajun's organization is rather broad-based, with perhaps 75% of its $2,100,000 in unrestricted donations coming from donors giving $5,000 or less. I am not sure about the ULM group.

Tech's outside funding organization has been around a lot longer; but I have been told that it is very top heavy, with the vast majority of its unrestricted donations being made by a very small group of people. Depending on how those people are affected by the price of crude oil, that could be very good or very bad for Tech.

I do not know how Tech or ULM are addressing the problem. I do know that UL has a publicly stated goal of a self-sufficient athletic program. I also know that there are extremely well informed and competent people now consulting with the university on what steps the school can take to achieve that goal without killing athletics. I am also certain that no currently scheduled facilities improvements have been cancelled or cut back, and that the largest such improvement was recently approved internally by the school at a budget number significantly higher than what was proposed just last year.

In sum, I expect that the results of the current economic crisis will be similar to the last one in the 1980's; LSU and UL will be relatively unscathed, and the rest of the schools in the state will suffer to varying degrees depending on the competence of their administrations and the generosity of their donors.

Very good, well thought out post that covers all areas of the subject. I may just have to 'borrow' it some day.

Interesting read:

http://m.fox8live.com/wvuefox8/db_375883...ue#display

How do you guys use Auxiliary funds to pay for athletics? I know that Auxiliaries usually make "profits" but in Georgia at least, those monies are set aside for refreshment and renewal of Auxiliary facilities and other capital needs.

(02-18-2016 10:56 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  How do you guys use Auxiliary funds to pay for athletics? I know that Auxiliaries usually make "profits" but in Georgia at least, those monies are set aside for refreshment and renewal of Auxiliary facilities and other capital needs.

The linked article contains your answer. The state does not limit the use of auxiliary revenue. However; I would not place too much stock in that article. The numbers they show are way out of line with the official numbers reported by the State Auditor. The numbers shown for UL and ULM are close, but according to the State Auditor, LTU athletics received $7,800,000 in direct institutional support and an additional $1,900,000 in "indirect institutional support" [whatever that is] for the year shown in that article.

Both UL and ULM had insignificant [<$100,000] indirect institutional support.

I would also point out that both UL and ULM have made significant capital improvements in on campus facilities not related to athletics in the last 6-8 years. I am not sure of the dollar value at ULM, but UL has invested over $200,000,000 in on campus facilities not related to athletics which have been built in that time frame.

Not that I trust government very much, but I tend to believe that the numbers reported to the NCAA and those reported as audited by the State, both of which show LTU with roughly $10,000,000 in institutional support, are likely more accurate than those in this article. The audited numbers [and NCAA numbers] for ULM and UL are in line with the numbers in the article.

(02-18-2016 11:58 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 10:56 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  How do you guys use Auxiliary funds to pay for athletics? I know that Auxiliaries usually make "profits" but in Georgia at least, those monies are set aside for refreshment and renewal of Auxiliary facilities and other capital needs.

The linked article contains your answer. The state does not limit the use of auxiliary revenue. However; I would not place too much stock in that article. The numbers they show are way out of line with the official numbers reported by the State Auditor. The numbers shown for UL and ULM are close, but according to the State Auditor, LTU athletics received $7,800,000 in direct institutional support and an additional $1,900,000 in "indirect institutional support" [whatever that is] for the year shown in that article.

Both UL and ULM had insignificant [<$100,000] indirect institutional support.

I would also point out that both UL and ULM have made significant capital improvements in on campus facilities not related to athletics in the last 6-8 years. I am not sure of the dollar value at ULM, but UL has invested over $200,000,000 in on campus facilities not related to athletics which have been built in that time frame.

Not that I trust government very much, but I tend to believe that the numbers reported to the NCAA and those reported as audited by the State, both of which show LTU with roughly $10,000,000 in institutional support, are likely more accurate than those in this article. The audited numbers [and NCAA numbers] for ULM and UL are in line with the numbers in the article.

This is great info. Wish it was shared on RP as well.

(02-18-2016 02:38 PM)LaCajunsFan Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 11:58 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 10:56 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  How do you guys use Auxiliary funds to pay for athletics? I know that Auxiliaries usually make "profits" but in Georgia at least, those monies are set aside for refreshment and renewal of Auxiliary facilities and other capital needs.

The linked article contains your answer. The state does not limit the use of auxiliary revenue. However; I would not place too much stock in that article. The numbers they show are way out of line with the official numbers reported by the State Auditor. The numbers shown for UL and ULM are close, but according to the State Auditor, LTU athletics received $7,800,000 in direct institutional support and an additional $1,900,000 in "indirect institutional support" [whatever that is] for the year shown in that article.

Both UL and ULM had insignificant [<$100,000] indirect institutional support.

I would also point out that both UL and ULM have made significant capital improvements in on campus facilities not related to athletics in the last 6-8 years. I am not sure of the dollar value at ULM, but UL has invested over $200,000,000 in on campus facilities not related to athletics which have been built in that time frame.

Not that I trust government very much, but I tend to believe that the numbers reported to the NCAA and those reported as audited by the State, both of which show LTU with roughly $10,000,000 in institutional support, are likely more accurate than those in this article. The audited numbers [and NCAA numbers] for ULM and UL are in line with the numbers in the article.

This is great info. Wish it was shared on RP as well.

Cajun Monkee has a similar post on RP

I probably phrased my question poorly, I understand that the state law doesn't prohibit Auxiliaries from providing funds to Athletics, and I am aware that they often have fairly large reserves, but they also have a large physical plant and or capital that they have to keep up using those reserves, so I was just wondering how they justify putting a dent in their needed reserves to fund athletics. Maybe they are doing a large transfer and letting Athletics pay them back year after year using donated funds? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I work in higher ed on the adminstration and finance side, and I'm trying to understand the mechanics of how this works. My concern would be that if the Auxiliary Services have enough money coming in to fund their yearly operations, and sack away a reserve for capital, and transfer some funds annually to athletics; then in fact the students are paying an athletic fee in the form of too high prices for Auxiliary services, and at at some point, a student group or legislator is going to recognize that and cause a stink.

(02-17-2016 09:12 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 08:18 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Would it alleviate the states financial burden if Loser Tech closed its doors?

Just thinking out loud....looking for ideas...

Honestly the best financial strategy would be to consolidate schools.

North La: ULM, LTUrd and LSUS merge into 1.
South La: UL, McNeese, Nicholls and LSUA merge.
Nola Area: UNO, SUNO, Delgado and SeLU into 1.
HBCU: Southern & Grambling merge under SU

Then you have LSU who still reigns supreme.

Refocus empty campuses into vocational schools to address the ever widening skills gap.

From an outsiders perspective, it does seem to make sense to merge Tech and Monroe, they're only about 35 miles apart, or roughly half the distance UT-Pan Am and Brownsville were when they merged. Would have a combined enrollment a little over 20,000 - or close to 25,000 if you include LSU-Shreveport in the merger. At this point you've got a school bigger than the current UL and (IMO) more likely to succeed as an institution than any of the existing schools.

Neither Ruston or Monroe are very large towns, and a doubling of the local student population would surely cause some issues on whichever town the merged school was in, while at the same time cause the other town to lose a great amount of its economy so I understand this isn't a win-win situation. I would love to know if there were any studies being done on the possibility of a merger though.

As for the Southland schools, I know even less about them. I'm probably a little controversial but I think all HBCUs should be merged with other schools where available. We shouldn't have any need for 'separate but equal' anymore, and (without looking at any facts) I'd venture to say most HBCUs aren't equal to their corresponding 'white' campuses. High schools were integrated a couple of generations ago, its beyond time to do the same with the state universities.

EDIT: Just realized where Grambling State is located, I always thought it farther south. A merger of Grambling, Tech, Monroe, and Shreveport gives you a university of nearly 30,000 students. A large university to support the I-20 corridor just makes too much sense in my opinion.

(02-18-2016 07:49 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:12 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 08:18 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Would it alleviate the states financial burden if Loser Tech closed its doors?

Just thinking out loud....looking for ideas...

Honestly the best financial strategy would be to consolidate schools.

North La: ULM, LTUrd and LSUS merge into 1.
South La: UL, McNeese, Nicholls and LSUA merge.
Nola Area: UNO, SUNO, Delgado and SeLU into 1.
HBCU: Southern & Grambling merge under SU

Then you have LSU who still reigns supreme.

Refocus empty campuses into vocational schools to address the ever widening skills gap.

From an outsiders perspective, it does seem to make sense to merge Tech and Monroe, they're only about 35 miles apart, or roughly half the distance UT-Pan Am and Brownsville were when they merged. Would have a combined enrollment a little over 20,000 - or close to 25,000 if you include LSU-Shreveport in the merger. At this point you've got a school bigger than the current UL and (IMO) more likely to succeed as an institution than any of the existing schools.

Neither Ruston or Monroe are very large towns, and a doubling of the local student population would surely cause some issues on whichever town the merged school was in, while at the same time cause the other town to lose a great amount of its economy so I understand this isn't a win-win situation. I would love to know if there were any studies being done on the possibility of a merger though.

As for the Southland schools, I know even less about them. I'm probably a little controversial but I think all HBCUs should be merged with other schools where available. We shouldn't have any need for 'separate but equal' anymore, and (without looking at any facts) I'd venture to say most HBCUs aren't equal to their corresponding 'white' campuses. High schools were integrated a couple of generations ago, its beyond time to do the same with the state universities.

EDIT: Just realized where Grambling State is located, I always thought it farther south. A merger of Grambling, Tech, Monroe, and Shreveport gives you a university of nearly 30,000 students. A large university to support the I-20 corridor just makes too much sense in my opinion.

I've said before: you need to consider more than just geography when talking consolidation. That said, you are not that far off:

1. Lsus: combine ltur, and NWST into LSUS, in Shreveport which can properly support a school that size, as well be very accessible to (all via I20 & I49). seems kinda logical to keep it part of the lsu system.

2. Combine LSUe into LSUS and limit it to a 4 year school only. Now lsu has a foot print in the s & n, and a 4 yr school in the middle. All very easily accessible via the current interstate system.

3. Mcneese and Nichols become part of UL, but are kept to bachelors degree, non research colleges. ULM mission remains the same, but is managed and otherwise becomes part of UL. Grambling also becomes 4 yr only, but also managed via ULM....more of a branch of ULM.

4. Keep SLU and sumo as is, but merge all into UNO. Get rid of suno law school.

4 systems spread out evenly, with good combinations of 2 & 4 yrs schools, plus full fledged universities evenly distributed and easily and accessible to all.

Makes perfect sense if you think about it rationally.

(02-18-2016 08:17 PM)LaCajunsFan Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 07:49 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:12 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 08:18 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Would it alleviate the states financial burden if Loser Tech closed its doors?

Just thinking out loud....looking for ideas...

Honestly the best financial strategy would be to consolidate schools.

North La: ULM, LTUrd and LSUS merge into 1.
South La: UL, McNeese, Nicholls and LSUA merge.
Nola Area: UNO, SUNO, Delgado and SeLU into 1.
HBCU: Southern & Grambling merge under SU

Then you have LSU who still reigns supreme.

Refocus empty campuses into vocational schools to address the ever widening skills gap.

From an outsiders perspective, it does seem to make sense to merge Tech and Monroe, they're only about 35 miles apart, or roughly half the distance UT-Pan Am and Brownsville were when they merged. Would have a combined enrollment a little over 20,000 - or close to 25,000 if you include LSU-Shreveport in the merger. At this point you've got a school bigger than the current UL and (IMO) more likely to succeed as an institution than any of the existing schools.

Neither Ruston or Monroe are very large towns, and a doubling of the local student population would surely cause some issues on whichever town the merged school was in, while at the same time cause the other town to lose a great amount of its economy so I understand this isn't a win-win situation. I would love to know if there were any studies being done on the possibility of a merger though.

As for the Southland schools, I know even less about them. I'm probably a little controversial but I think all HBCUs should be merged with other schools where available. We shouldn't have any need for 'separate but equal' anymore, and (without looking at any facts) I'd venture to say most HBCUs aren't equal to their corresponding 'white' campuses. High schools were integrated a couple of generations ago, its beyond time to do the same with the state universities.

EDIT: Just realized where Grambling State is located, I always thought it farther south. A merger of Grambling, Tech, Monroe, and Shreveport gives you a university of nearly 30,000 students. A large university to support the I-20 corridor just makes too much sense in my opinion.

I've said before: you need to consider more than just geography when talking consolidation. That said, you are not that far off:

1. Lsus: combine ltur, and NWST into LSUS, in Shreveport which can properly support a school that size, as well be very accessible to (all via I20 & I49). seems kinda logical to keep it part of the lsu system.

2. Combine LSUe into LSUS and limit it to a 4 year school only. Now lsu has a foot print in the s & n, and a 4 yr school in the middle. All very easily accessible via the current interstate system.

3. Mcneese and Nichols become part of UL, but are kept to bachelors degree, non research colleges. ULM mission remains the same, but is managed and otherwise becomes part of UL. Grambling also becomes 4 yr only, but also managed via ULM....more of a branch of ULM.

4. Keep SLU and sumo as is, but merge all into UNO. Get rid of suno law school.

4 systems spread out evenly, with good combinations of 2 & 4 yrs schools, plus full fledged universities evenly distributed and easily and accessible to all.

Makes perfect sense if you think about it rationally.

I'd think you'd have an argument from NWST versus LSUA. They are not that far apart and have a much more recognized history and curriculum.

(02-19-2016 11:15 AM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 08:17 PM)LaCajunsFan Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 07:49 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:12 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 08:18 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Would it alleviate the states financial burden if Loser Tech closed its doors?

Just thinking out loud....looking for ideas...

Honestly the best financial strategy would be to consolidate schools.

North La: ULM, LTUrd and LSUS merge into 1.
South La: UL, McNeese, Nicholls and LSUA merge.
Nola Area: UNO, SUNO, Delgado and SeLU into 1.
HBCU: Southern & Grambling merge under SU

Then you have LSU who still reigns supreme.

Refocus empty campuses into vocational schools to address the ever widening skills gap.

From an outsiders perspective, it does seem to make sense to merge Tech and Monroe, they're only about 35 miles apart, or roughly half the distance UT-Pan Am and Brownsville were when they merged. Would have a combined enrollment a little over 20,000 - or close to 25,000 if you include LSU-Shreveport in the merger. At this point you've got a school bigger than the current UL and (IMO) more likely to succeed as an institution than any of the existing schools.

Neither Ruston or Monroe are very large towns, and a doubling of the local student population would surely cause some issues on whichever town the merged school was in, while at the same time cause the other town to lose a great amount of its economy so I understand this isn't a win-win situation. I would love to know if there were any studies being done on the possibility of a merger though.

As for the Southland schools, I know even less about them. I'm probably a little controversial but I think all HBCUs should be merged with other schools where available. We shouldn't have any need for 'separate but equal' anymore, and (without looking at any facts) I'd venture to say most HBCUs aren't equal to their corresponding 'white' campuses. High schools were integrated a couple of generations ago, its beyond time to do the same with the state universities.

EDIT: Just realized where Grambling State is located, I always thought it farther south. A merger of Grambling, Tech, Monroe, and Shreveport gives you a university of nearly 30,000 students. A large university to support the I-20 corridor just makes too much sense in my opinion.

I've said before: you need to consider more than just geography when talking consolidation. That said, you are not that far off:

1. Lsus: combine ltur, and NWST into LSUS, in Shreveport which can properly support a school that size, as well be very accessible to (all via I20 & I49). seems kinda logical to keep it part of the lsu system.

2. Combine LSUe into LSUS and limit it to a 4 year school only. Now lsu has a foot print in the s & n, and a 4 yr school in the middle. All very easily accessible via the current interstate system.

3. Mcneese and Nichols become part of UL, but are kept to bachelors degree, non research colleges. ULM mission remains the same, but is managed and otherwise becomes part of UL. Grambling also becomes 4 yr only, but also managed via ULM....more of a branch of ULM.

4. Keep SLU and sumo as is, but merge all into UNO. Get rid of suno law school.

4 systems spread out evenly, with good combinations of 2 & 4 yrs schools, plus full fledged universities evenly distributed and easily and accessible to all.

Makes perfect sense if you think about it rationally.

I'd think you'd have an argument from NWST versus LSUA. They are not that far apart and have a much more recognized history and curriculum.

Yes....I agree with that and keep going back and forth from that. Plus, I just realized I had a typo in first post: I meant to say combine LSUe into Lsua, not LSUS. So let me rephrase my scenario in regards to them:

1. My favorite option would be to consolidate lsuE and lsuA into nwst, making it a 4 yr college only.

2. Or, move everything to lsuA....but only because Alex is a little more centrally located.

Plus I think natchitoches is just a way cooler college town, hands down better than Ruston or even Alex.

Maybe they could all merge and become the University of Louisiana.

(02-18-2016 03:29 PM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  I probably phrased my question poorly, I understand that the state law doesn't prohibit Auxiliaries from providing funds to Athletics, and I am aware that they often have fairly large reserves, but they also have a large physical plant and or capital that they have to keep up using those reserves, so I was just wondering how they justify putting a dent in their needed reserves to fund athletics. Maybe they are doing a large transfer and letting Athletics pay them back year after year using donated funds? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I work in higher ed on the adminstration and finance side, and I'm trying to understand the mechanics of how this works. My concern would be that if the Auxiliary Services have enough money coming in to fund their yearly operations, and sack away a reserve for capital, and transfer some funds annually to athletics; then in fact the students are paying an athletic fee in the form of too high prices for Auxiliary services, and at at some point, a student group or legislator is going to recognize that and cause a stink.

does anyone have any info regarding what I posted above? I have a professional curiosity, as I stated, and it seems the conversation is drifting away to more consolidation talk, so I wanted to "bump" this part, thanks.

(02-19-2016 03:30 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  Maybe they could all merge and become the University of Louisiana.

Yeah, why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

Oh, it's already happened. Okay.

(02-19-2016 03:30 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  Maybe they could all merge and become the University of Louisiana.

Ha. No one proposed anything close to that.

But that is just an inkling why this issue never gets resolved. Logic and reason get thrown out the window.