They should be required to expand their stadium as a term of joining the conference. Borrow against future earnings. That or book Reliant overtime OU and UT come to Houston. No reason Tech should have a 65k seat stadium and UH 40k.
They have the capacity to expand their stadium to 60,000 and I have no doubt they would do so. Until the stadium is expanded, I would believe Reliant would be possible.
It would be a total dick move if UH expanded into Round Rock on the State's dime, and you can bet UT would squash it dead. Especially if it was using a dime that UT wasn't allowed to have a piece of (I. E. The PUF fund, which is what UT used for thus purchase). If you are concerned about increasing higher education in Houston, there's a place you can give money to (the UH system) that already covers that area.
It's a jerk thing because they purchased the land with funds that need state approval, and when it comes to state schools the state is responsible for ensuring each institution is treated fairly. Allowing one school to circumvent the state process and open a school in another schools backyard with $$ they and A&M only have access to isn't right. The main issue isn't buying the land above market. The main issue is buying the land when the politicians were out of session and you needed their approval to spend those funds. This isn't some $$ a rich donor gave UT to spend. These are state funds, and a UT-Houston isn't in the best interests of UH.
No way UH gives up on campus games for OU and Texas. They will eventually expand the stadium, however, cougars want home field advantage.
Uh officials should think long and hard about this. Ut-Houston is bad for uh long term if the big 12 falls apart. Texas could use this carrot to get their satellite and then in two years be gone to the pac12.
I agree. UH will eventually find its way out of the wilderness. The Big 12 is a temporary solution. UT-Houston is a permanent problem.
Expand by 6 schools and form the Big 16 South Division: Texas Texas Tech TCU Baylor Oklahoma Oklahoma State Houston USF North Division: Kansas Kansas State Iowa State West Virginia BYU Cincinnati Colorado State Memphis
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Texas Tech issues statement on Houston: <a href="https://t.co/o3NNiR7u4m">pic.twitter.com/o3NNiR7u4m</a></p>— Jake Trotter (@Jake_Trotter) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter/status/756609408553975811">July 22, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Houston metro has 6 million more people than Austin (1.8 million) There are 7 independent universities in the Austin Metroplex and 11 campuses at Austin Community colleges. Austin is not underserved with higher education and there is no market for a UH campus. UT-Austin Concordia University Texas St. Edwards Huston-Tillotson University The Art Institute of Austin Texas St (San Marcos) Southwestern (George Town) The University of Texas System has campuses all over Texas including 2 in the Dallas Metro Complex. I'm not sure why Houston is off limits. Austin Arlington Dallas El Paso Brownsville Tyler Odessa UH has even branched out of Houston to Victoria. Donating money to UH will not help them build a new 300 acre campus next year. I'm sorry but this "my turf" is nothing but (as you say) Pee Pee games and acts at the expense of the social good of higher education. You open up more opportunities for Houston students as the city continues to grow. Go ask High school sophomores and juniors if they are against a new college opening up in Houston. Also, how can the UH campus continue to grow past 50,000 students? I TOTALLY get that part. My issue was that there is a problem with the idea of UT opening up a Houston campus independent of how they go about it. I agree they should have done things the right way. Oh, I would be all fine for UH staying in their home stadium once its expanded to 60k. It might be hard for them to do that by 2018 though. The tough thing is that they won't get the full payout for a few years after they join the conference so I'm not sure if it would be hard to borrow money for the expansion against that future payout. There is just no way you host OU or UT in a 40,000 seat stadium when you have a 72,000 stadium down the road. It's also not clear how often they would play those teams. It would be 1 a year if they were in the same division but it could be 1 every 2.5 years if they are in opposite divisions in a 14 team conference. I don't think they'll be the first conference with 16 schools considering they don't have a network. I think they just match the ACC, Big 10 and SEC 14 team setup. I don't think you make a division that includes West Virginia and BYU. They are 3000 miles apart. Let's assume that the big 12 will do rotating cross division games and not have a set rivalry game like the SEC. For example, Texas A&M plays South Carolina every year and then rotates their other cross division game between the rest of the teams. In that case, here are teams that have to play every year and thus have to be in the same division: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas Baylor-TCU (God Bowl) Kansas-Kansas St Westish BYU TCU Kansas Kansas St Iowa St Baylor Texas Tech Eastish West Virginia UCONN/Memphis/Florida School Cincy Oklahoma Oklahoma St Texas Houston Advantages: -OU or UT play in Houston every year -OU and UT play each new school to help build big 12 attraction in new markets of New York, Ohio and wherever the last school is from. _________________ Southish TCU Baylor Texas Tech Oklahoma Oklahoma St Texas Houston Northish BYU Kansas Kansas St Iowa St West Virginia UCONN/Memphis/Florida School Cincy The other option is the old big 12 south with UH. It would create unbelievable disparities between football power. That can change but look at the last decade and see the differences in wins between all of those teams compared to what would be the east/north. West Virginia and BYU would be the the only real program that has done really well. Also, BYU's distance from all of the other schools is ridiculous. The other problem is that you are sticking all 3 of your new markets in a division with the teams with the least draw in the conference. I don't see how you make inroads there.
Why should UT or A&M, who have been managing this fund for 100+ years, be obligated to give away funds when they can just support their respective schools? Blame the state, not UT or A&M
UT-Houston, which still hasn't even the barest hint of a plan attached to it, is a separate pissing match in the making that probably ain't going to make a lick of difference in the Big XII expansion talks. That's going to be a fight over research dollars, not undergrads. I highly doubt either UT's Houston property or the PUF will be discussed at all by the parties driving expansion.
If there's legit interest from Pac 12 or ACC then UH isn't required to do anything. The fact that Tech came out already to support leads me to believe that there is interest elsewhere and the state is about to get poached from yet another league. There's a reason Alabama owns the Houston eyeball market and it's because of the TAMU exposure.
U are not thinking correctly. UH can use the Big 12 to set themselves up for the ACC, Pac 16, or Even the SEC.
That is not guaranteed by any means. UH will find its seat at the table whenever the next round of realignment occurs. It has simply earned it. It is not worth giving up a 100 year loss for a 10 year victory.
What is this all about? Why would UT-Houston detract from UH? Is UT-San Antonio crippling UT-Austin? Are UT-Dallas and UT-Arlington hurting other metroplex schools? All this shows is UH's selfish hypocrisy - they incessantly trumpet their virtue of being located in "the fourth largest city in America", but then they try to block something good for the city, which would be another quality university. gtfo
agreed. A UT campus is good for Houston. A public university has no right to claim some kind of dominion over a city.
