Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

TT has one ugly home schedule. 
They hosted Ark-Pine Bluff and Kent State, destroying both. 
Next is what I think has to be their marquee no -conference game- Oregon State. The Beavers are 0-2, with a lower Sagarin than the shittiest B12 program. 
Their next home game is Kansas. 
Next is OSU, which probably looked a lot better on the schedule a couple of years ago. 
Then, BYU visits, and this will be a well attended game, BYU being the conference’s highest profile team now. 
Finally, UCF visits. UCF is a big school that doesn’t travel. 
 
That is quite a slate. 

Posted

if vegas would take a prop bet on byu away attendance i would wager no more thank 3k brethren in blue in lubbock for 11am or 6pm+ kick off time

 

delta does not serve LBB at all so every SLC-LBB flight pair is 5 hours at best connecting through DEN, PHX, DFW/DAL and IAH/HOU

southwest has added a single nonstop the day before the game SLC-LBB but that's a one-off, w/ no return nonstop the day after

for all but 150 people that means a full day of flying on friday and sunday

 

871 miles, 14+ hours nonstop on the road

 

search result: 85k brethren in north texas

let's see how many make the 5+ hour drive which depending on kick time requires a hotel room on friday or saturday night

Posted
51 minutes ago, statsman said:

TT has one ugly home schedule. 
They hosted Ark-Pine Bluff and Kent State, destroying both. 
Next is what I think has to be their marquee no -conference game- Oregon State. The Beavers are 0-2, with a lower Sagarin than the shittiest B12 program. 
Their next home game is Kansas. 
Next is OSU, which probably looked a lot better on the schedule a couple of years ago. 
Then, BYU visits, and this will be a well attended game, BYU being the conference’s highest profile team now. 
Finally, UCF visits. UCF is a big school that doesn’t travel. 
 
That is quite a slate. 

Favorable schedule overall, TBH, considering we don't play Iowa State at all and Kansas State/Arizona State look like they aren't nearly as good as advertised, though they are both the types of teams that can look like shit early on in the season and then catch some momentum. Hard to come back from losing at home to this year's Army team, though.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

if vegas would take a prop bet on byu away attendance i would wager no more thank 3k brethren in blue in lubbock for 11am or 6pm+ kick off time

 

delta does not serve LBB at all so every SLC-LBB flight pair is 5 hours at best connecting through DEN, PHX, DFW/DAL and IAH/HOU

southwest has added a single nonstop the day before the game SLC-LBB but that's a one-off, w/ no return nonstop the day after

for all but 150 people that means a full day of flying on friday and sunday

 

871 miles, 14+ hours nonstop on the road

 

search result: 85k brethren in north texas

let's see how many make the 5+ hour drive which depending on kick time requires a hotel room on friday or saturday night

I'll take the over on 3K BYU attendees. Maybe the resident Tech fans can report back after the game. 

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Crockett said:

I'll take the over on 3K BYU attendees. Maybe the resident Tech fans can report back after the game. 

BTW, there are around 400K members of the LDS Church in Texas. I'm sure a majority of those are in the DFW area. 

Edited by Crockett
Posted
1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

 

let's see how many make the 5+ hour drive which depending on kick time requires a hotel room on friday or saturday night

That's a significant portion of Tech fans, as well.

Hotel rooms on game weekends are a beating too, especially this late in the process.

Posted
2 hours ago, statsman said:

TT has one ugly home schedule. 
They hosted Ark-Pine Bluff and Kent State, destroying both. 
Next is what I think has to be their marquee no -conference game- Oregon State. The Beavers are 0-2, with a lower Sagarin than the shittiest B12 program. 
Their next home game is Kansas. 
Next is OSU, which probably looked a lot better on the schedule a couple of years ago. 
Then, BYU visits, and this will be a well attended game, BYU being the conference’s highest profile team now. 
Finally, UCF visits. UCF is a big school that doesn’t travel. 
 
That is quite a slate. 

They gonna pull a 2007 KU… the most overrated season/team in the history of college football

Posted

@closetojumping 

 

Bobby

The issues facing college sports are so vast and so varied, it’s hard for anyone to truly grasp each aspect and the interplay between all of them.

Yet no person is trying to alter its future (or at least guide it) more than Cody Campbell, the chairman of the Texas Tech board of regents.

For those unaware, Campbell is a native Texan who played football for Mike Leach at Tech and then entered the professional world as an oil and gas man, eventually becoming a billionaire several times over.

I spoke to Campbell, who has been running national TV advertisements for two weeks opposing the Score Act during college football games, yesterday evening.

At the crux of Campbell’s argument are several vital suppositions:

1. College sports is a public trust. The people (you and I, and every other fan out there) own the assets since most of the universities are taxpayer funded or state-owned.

Sure, there are private schools like Harvard, SMU or Rice sprinkled in.

But Texans effectively own UT, A&M, Tech, etc. In fact, most of college football nation-wide is comprised of large state universities. For example, 15 of the 16 schools in the SEC are public entities.

So as owners of these universities, the public’s interest should come first.

That’s important because it deals with us - every single one of us - being stewards of the opportunities for future generations of students, whether that’s football, rowing, basketball, softball, baseball, volleyball, etc.

2. Campbell believes the current system is financially unsustainable for way too many colleges.

Most schools rely on football and basketball to prop up revenue for the rest of their athletic department. But if some schools can no longer compete at the highest level in those two sports, their revenue will dwindle. The concern is that Olympic sports will be cut either at the outset or eventually in a futile attempt to fund the revenue-makers.

The hardships, according to Campbell, are creating what amounts to a financial death spiral for college sports as we know it.

3. Players deserve a real seat at the table. The current involvement of student athletes in NCAA committees is both minimal and largely performative.

If there are two players and 10 beauracrats on a committee, who is anyone really listening to?

**

So what is Campbell actually proposing?

First, he’s trying to tackle the financial issue.

Campbell believes that TV and media rights holders are getting a steal.

College football is by all accounts the second most popular sport in America behind only the NFL.

Yet college sports media rights (all sports, not just football) are sold for less than half of what the fourth most popular sport (the NBA) receives.

According to Campbell, college sports receives approximately $5bn per year in media rights agreements from its various partners. The NBA, a less popular sport, by contrast is in the $10bn range.

How does that occur?

Market segmentation.

College football rights are sold in piecemeal fashion. The SEC does its own deal with ESPN. The Big 10, the Big 12, etc., all do the same.

Campbell believes, and he says consultants back these claims, if college football pooled its rights together, instead of working separately, that there would effectively be an additional $7bn in financial value created annually (or $70bn  over a 10-year time frame).

College sports would go from making $5bn a year to $12bn, thus being justly paid for being the second most popular sport. And that extra cash could be used to not only keep giving opportunities to all sports at all levels, it could also pay athletes their fair share of NIL.

On the surface, that sounds like a financial windfall, and a healthy plan for all.

But some, like the SEC and Big 10, likely think they would be carrying too much of the weight of other conferences. Why should Texas or Ohio State prop up Fresno State?

Well, Campbell is not naive. He doesn’t think all parties should be treated the same in every single aspect. He said obviously some schools or conferences might share disproportionately in the additional money that media pooling would provide.

And that’s where the negotiating would and should begin in Campbell’s mind.

Surely, the Big 12 will ask for more money than the SEC thinks the Big 12 deserves. And vice versa. Just like the conferences have jockeyed for guaranteed slots in an expanded college football playoff.

Campbell seems to welcome the negotiation on those topics. But he can’t do that unless (or until) the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 is repealed or amended.

**

Outside of the financial value brought about by the pooling of media rights, Campbell also believes there are other benefits to be gained by a repealing of the broadcast act.

He thinks college football could then exert more control over the future of the game rather than ceding too much of that to the TV networks.

The NFL is seen as a forward-thinking league who controls its media partners whereas college football is largely seen as a reactive one where the networks define the sport.

In college football, the tail wags the dog way too often.

Things such as times of games, match-ups, etc., could be easily altered.

For example, should Texas really be playing a 2:30 game at home in late August just because TV execs say so?

**

Campbell believes financial change is just one part of the long-term solution to college sports.

He believes there should be a parallel push for a new governing body other than the NCAA. The NCAA is “painfully beauracratic”, he says.

For example, he says they recently reduced the number of subcommittees to rule on an issue from roughly 90 to down to 30.

Thirty subcommittees? Good luck getting everyone on board in a timely manner.

No wonder it took the NCAA 3+ years and millions of dollars to deal with something as clear cut as the Michigan sign-stealing scandal.

As part of a new governance, there should be true athlete representation and negotiation. That representation would cover everything from salary cap, to bargaining rights, scholarship minimums for all sports, and everything in between.

**

Campbell’s argument is sound and well thought out.

But it is concerning to the two major players in college football - the SEC and Big 10.

Both of those leagues would likely have to cede some of their control over league members and their ability to negotiate their own TV deals to a pooled-party.

Despite the potential financial windfall, the loss of control (or the threat of it) may be a bridge too far for the SEC or Big 10.

So that is why college sports is stuck. College football is a great sport but it’s unable to effectively define its own future because too many folks want to protect their piece of the pie.

**

Solutions must be negotiated.

Here’s a potential financial solution:

If the pooling of money could create an additional $7bn in revenue, why not apportion the additional revenue on the same pro rata basis as current TV networks do?

Would that work?

Is that enough to keep not just the football team afloat but also the volleyball team at Fresno State fully funded? Is that enough to make NIL legitimate at Texas,  Ohio State and Texas Tech in football and basketball?

I don’t know. But at least it’s a starting point for a discussion.

Whatever rout this takes, we know that rules need to be changed. And convention needs to be challenged.

Some smart folks need to get in a room and figure it out, not just keep kicking the can down the road.

**

To be clear, I’m not taking sides with Campbell, the SEC or the Big 10 here.

I simply want what’s best for college sports for the long term.

And what is that in my mind?

Not reducing opportunities for students across the country, increasing athlete representation, and exerting control over networks in the interest of what is best for the game and the universities.

The goals sound so simple.

How do we get there is the issue.

**

Thanks to Cody Campbell for his willingness to discuss this topic.

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

@closetojumping 

 

Bobby

The issues facing college sports are so vast and so varied, it’s hard for anyone to truly grasp each aspect and the interplay between all of them.

Yet no person is trying to alter its future (or at least guide it) more than Cody Campbell, the chairman of the Texas Tech board of regents.

For those unaware, Campbell is a native Texan who played football for Mike Leach at Tech and then entered the professional world as an oil and gas man, eventually becoming a billionaire several times over.

I spoke to Campbell, who has been running national TV advertisements for two weeks opposing the Score Act during college football games, yesterday evening.

At the crux of Campbell’s argument are several vital suppositions:

1. College sports is a public trust. The people (you and I, and every other fan out there) own the assets since most of the universities are taxpayer funded or state-owned.

Sure, there are private schools like Harvard, SMU or Rice sprinkled in.

But Texans effectively own UT, A&M, Tech, etc. In fact, most of college football nation-wide is comprised of large state universities. For example, 15 of the 16 schools in the SEC are public entities.

So as owners of these universities, the public’s interest should come first.

That’s important because it deals with us - every single one of us - being stewards of the opportunities for future generations of students, whether that’s football, rowing, basketball, softball, baseball, volleyball, etc.

2. Campbell believes the current system is financially unsustainable for way too many colleges.

Most schools rely on football and basketball to prop up revenue for the rest of their athletic department. But if some schools can no longer compete at the highest level in those two sports, their revenue will dwindle. The concern is that Olympic sports will be cut either at the outset or eventually in a futile attempt to fund the revenue-makers.

The hardships, according to Campbell, are creating what amounts to a financial death spiral for college sports as we know it.

3. Players deserve a real seat at the table. The current involvement of student athletes in NCAA committees is both minimal and largely performative.

If there are two players and 10 beauracrats on a committee, who is anyone really listening to?

**

So what is Campbell actually proposing?

First, he’s trying to tackle the financial issue.

Campbell believes that TV and media rights holders are getting a steal.

College football is by all accounts the second most popular sport in America behind only the NFL.

Yet college sports media rights (all sports, not just football) are sold for less than half of what the fourth most popular sport (the NBA) receives.

According to Campbell, college sports receives approximately $5bn per year in media rights agreements from its various partners. The NBA, a less popular sport, by contrast is in the $10bn range.

How does that occur?

Market segmentation.

College football rights are sold in piecemeal fashion. The SEC does its own deal with ESPN. The Big 10, the Big 12, etc., all do the same.

Campbell believes, and he says consultants back these claims, if college football pooled its rights together, instead of working separately, that there would effectively be an additional $7bn in financial value created annually (or $70bn  over a 10-year time frame).

College sports would go from making $5bn a year to $12bn, thus being justly paid for being the second most popular sport. And that extra cash could be used to not only keep giving opportunities to all sports at all levels, it could also pay athletes their fair share of NIL.

On the surface, that sounds like a financial windfall, and a healthy plan for all.

But some, like the SEC and Big 10, likely think they would be carrying too much of the weight of other conferences. Why should Texas or Ohio State prop up Fresno State?

Well, Campbell is not naive. He doesn’t think all parties should be treated the same in every single aspect. He said obviously some schools or conferences might share disproportionately in the additional money that media pooling would provide.

And that’s where the negotiating would and should begin in Campbell’s mind.

Surely, the Big 12 will ask for more money than the SEC thinks the Big 12 deserves. And vice versa. Just like the conferences have jockeyed for guaranteed slots in an expanded college football playoff.

Campbell seems to welcome the negotiation on those topics. But he can’t do that unless (or until) the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 is repealed or amended.

**

Outside of the financial value brought about by the pooling of media rights, Campbell also believes there are other benefits to be gained by a repealing of the broadcast act.

He thinks college football could then exert more control over the future of the game rather than ceding too much of that to the TV networks.

The NFL is seen as a forward-thinking league who controls its media partners whereas college football is largely seen as a reactive one where the networks define the sport.

In college football, the tail wags the dog way too often.

Things such as times of games, match-ups, etc., could be easily altered.

For example, should Texas really be playing a 2:30 game at home in late August just because TV execs say so?

**

Campbell believes financial change is just one part of the long-term solution to college sports.

He believes there should be a parallel push for a new governing body other than the NCAA. The NCAA is “painfully beauracratic”, he says.

For example, he says they recently reduced the number of subcommittees to rule on an issue from roughly 90 to down to 30.

Thirty subcommittees? Good luck getting everyone on board in a timely manner.

No wonder it took the NCAA 3+ years and millions of dollars to deal with something as clear cut as the Michigan sign-stealing scandal.

As part of a new governance, there should be true athlete representation and negotiation. That representation would cover everything from salary cap, to bargaining rights, scholarship minimums for all sports, and everything in between.

**

Campbell’s argument is sound and well thought out.

But it is concerning to the two major players in college football - the SEC and Big 10.

Both of those leagues would likely have to cede some of their control over league members and their ability to negotiate their own TV deals to a pooled-party.

Despite the potential financial windfall, the loss of control (or the threat of it) may be a bridge too far for the SEC or Big 10.

So that is why college sports is stuck. College football is a great sport but it’s unable to effectively define its own future because too many folks want to protect their piece of the pie.

**

Solutions must be negotiated.

Here’s a potential financial solution:

If the pooling of money could create an additional $7bn in revenue, why not apportion the additional revenue on the same pro rata basis as current TV networks do?

Would that work?

Is that enough to keep not just the football team afloat but also the volleyball team at Fresno State fully funded? Is that enough to make NIL legitimate at Texas,  Ohio State and Texas Tech in football and basketball?

I don’t know. But at least it’s a starting point for a discussion.

Whatever rout this takes, we know that rules need to be changed. And convention needs to be challenged.

Some smart folks need to get in a room and figure it out, not just keep kicking the can down the road.

**

To be clear, I’m not taking sides with Campbell, the SEC or the Big 10 here.

I simply want what’s best for college sports for the long term.

And what is that in my mind?

Not reducing opportunities for students across the country, increasing athlete representation, and exerting control over networks in the interest of what is best for the game and the universities.

The goals sound so simple.

How do we get there is the issue.

**

Thanks to Cody Campbell for his willingness to discuss this topic.

 

 

 

 

Read All That GIF by Dead Meat James

Posted
33 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

@closetojumping 

 

Bobby

The issues facing college sports are so vast and so varied, it’s hard for anyone to truly grasp each aspect and the interplay between all of them.

Yet no person is trying to alter its future (or at least guide it) more than Cody Campbell, the chairman of the Texas Tech board of regents.

For those unaware, Campbell is a native Texan who played football for Mike Leach at Tech and then entered the professional world as an oil and gas man, eventually becoming a billionaire several times over.

I spoke to Campbell, who has been running national TV advertisements for two weeks opposing the Score Act during college football games, yesterday evening.

At the crux of Campbell’s argument are several vital suppositions:

1. College sports is a public trust. The people (you and I, and every other fan out there) own the assets since most of the universities are taxpayer funded or state-owned.

Sure, there are private schools like Harvard, SMU or Rice sprinkled in.

But Texans effectively own UT, A&M, Tech, etc. In fact, most of college football nation-wide is comprised of large state universities. For example, 15 of the 16 schools in the SEC are public entities.

So as owners of these universities, the public’s interest should come first.

That’s important because it deals with us - every single one of us - being stewards of the opportunities for future generations of students, whether that’s football, rowing, basketball, softball, baseball, volleyball, etc.

2. Campbell believes the current system is financially unsustainable for way too many colleges.

Most schools rely on football and basketball to prop up revenue for the rest of their athletic department. But if some schools can no longer compete at the highest level in those two sports, their revenue will dwindle. The concern is that Olympic sports will be cut either at the outset or eventually in a futile attempt to fund the revenue-makers.

The hardships, according to Campbell, are creating what amounts to a financial death spiral for college sports as we know it.

3. Players deserve a real seat at the table. The current involvement of student athletes in NCAA committees is both minimal and largely performative.

If there are two players and 10 beauracrats on a committee, who is anyone really listening to?

**

So what is Campbell actually proposing?

First, he’s trying to tackle the financial issue.

Campbell believes that TV and media rights holders are getting a steal.

College football is by all accounts the second most popular sport in America behind only the NFL.

Yet college sports media rights (all sports, not just football) are sold for less than half of what the fourth most popular sport (the NBA) receives.

According to Campbell, college sports receives approximately $5bn per year in media rights agreements from its various partners. The NBA, a less popular sport, by contrast is in the $10bn range.

How does that occur?

Market segmentation.

College football rights are sold in piecemeal fashion. The SEC does its own deal with ESPN. The Big 10, the Big 12, etc., all do the same.

Campbell believes, and he says consultants back these claims, if college football pooled its rights together, instead of working separately, that there would effectively be an additional $7bn in financial value created annually (or $70bn  over a 10-year time frame).

College sports would go from making $5bn a year to $12bn, thus being justly paid for being the second most popular sport. And that extra cash could be used to not only keep giving opportunities to all sports at all levels, it could also pay athletes their fair share of NIL.

On the surface, that sounds like a financial windfall, and a healthy plan for all.

But some, like the SEC and Big 10, likely think they would be carrying too much of the weight of other conferences. Why should Texas or Ohio State prop up Fresno State?

Well, Campbell is not naive. He doesn’t think all parties should be treated the same in every single aspect. He said obviously some schools or conferences might share disproportionately in the additional money that media pooling would provide.

And that’s where the negotiating would and should begin in Campbell’s mind.

Surely, the Big 12 will ask for more money than the SEC thinks the Big 12 deserves. And vice versa. Just like the conferences have jockeyed for guaranteed slots in an expanded college football playoff.

Campbell seems to welcome the negotiation on those topics. But he can’t do that unless (or until) the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 is repealed or amended.

**

Outside of the financial value brought about by the pooling of media rights, Campbell also believes there are other benefits to be gained by a repealing of the broadcast act.

He thinks college football could then exert more control over the future of the game rather than ceding too much of that to the TV networks.

The NFL is seen as a forward-thinking league who controls its media partners whereas college football is largely seen as a reactive one where the networks define the sport.

In college football, the tail wags the dog way too often.

Things such as times of games, match-ups, etc., could be easily altered.

For example, should Texas really be playing a 2:30 game at home in late August just because TV execs say so?

**

Campbell believes financial change is just one part of the long-term solution to college sports.

He believes there should be a parallel push for a new governing body other than the NCAA. The NCAA is “painfully beauracratic”, he says.

For example, he says they recently reduced the number of subcommittees to rule on an issue from roughly 90 to down to 30.

Thirty subcommittees? Good luck getting everyone on board in a timely manner.

No wonder it took the NCAA 3+ years and millions of dollars to deal with something as clear cut as the Michigan sign-stealing scandal.

As part of a new governance, there should be true athlete representation and negotiation. That representation would cover everything from salary cap, to bargaining rights, scholarship minimums for all sports, and everything in between.

**

Campbell’s argument is sound and well thought out.

But it is concerning to the two major players in college football - the SEC and Big 10.

Both of those leagues would likely have to cede some of their control over league members and their ability to negotiate their own TV deals to a pooled-party.

Despite the potential financial windfall, the loss of control (or the threat of it) may be a bridge too far for the SEC or Big 10.

So that is why college sports is stuck. College football is a great sport but it’s unable to effectively define its own future because too many folks want to protect their piece of the pie.

**

Solutions must be negotiated.

Here’s a potential financial solution:

If the pooling of money could create an additional $7bn in revenue, why not apportion the additional revenue on the same pro rata basis as current TV networks do?

Would that work?

Is that enough to keep not just the football team afloat but also the volleyball team at Fresno State fully funded? Is that enough to make NIL legitimate at Texas,  Ohio State and Texas Tech in football and basketball?

I don’t know. But at least it’s a starting point for a discussion.

Whatever rout this takes, we know that rules need to be changed. And convention needs to be challenged.

Some smart folks need to get in a room and figure it out, not just keep kicking the can down the road.

**

To be clear, I’m not taking sides with Campbell, the SEC or the Big 10 here.

I simply want what’s best for college sports for the long term.

And what is that in my mind?

Not reducing opportunities for students across the country, increasing athlete representation, and exerting control over networks in the interest of what is best for the game and the universities.

The goals sound so simple.

How do we get there is the issue.

**

Thanks to Cody Campbell for his willingness to discuss this topic.

 

 

 

 

1. I actually know a little about the program history. Clark Field was purchased by the student club that was UT football. They built the first bleachers, themselves. Later, boosters ran the fundraising to build the stadium. This state owes money to Texas football, not the other way around. Campbell and (to the extent he believed him) Bobby don’t know what they are talking about. 
2. Let’s, do we have any economic theory about raising the value of an asset or enterprise by sharing it collectively?

Clearly- Campbell is smart (at least, smart enough to listen to people who know something). He sees where media revenue for TT is headed if they don’t manage a jump to the SEC or B1G (watch how fast his time changes, should that happen). He is trying to get ahead of that. Fuck him. 

Posted (edited)

1. campbell writes a $10m check to trump

2. repeal of the 1961whatever act blasts through both houses in days not weeks

3. the next day, the sec and b1g declare a new league with 2 conferences, north and south, with 48 teams

4. in the same press release disney and fox announce they have sent $100m checks to the bottom-feeders in each league and wish them well; likely recipients include mississippi state, northwestern, purdue and vanderbilt

5. the next day invitations go out to 18 schools to fill the remaining positions

6. texas tech are not on that list

7. ????

8. profit

Edited by Hagbard Celine
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

1. campbell writes a $10m check to trump

2. repeal of the 1961whatever act blasts through both houses in days not weeks

3. the next day, the sec and b1g declare a new league with 2 conferences, north and south, with 48 teams

4. in the same press release disney and fox announce they have sent $100m checks to the bottom-feeders in each league and wish them well; likely recipients include mississippi state, northwestern, purdue and vanderbilt

5. the next day invitations go out to 18 schools to fill the remaining positions

6. texas tech are not on that list

7. ????

8. profit

A way to stop congressional action would be for the blue bloods to exert influence on SEC and B1G, and threaten to reconfigure the conferences (with some current members left out). If this were to happen, ironically, the effort to keep FBS together would actually accelerate its splintering. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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



×
×
  • Create New...