I don't think there is any need to allow the UT-Houston, when you have Texas lawmakers putting pressure on the Texas public universities to go along with UH in the Big 12 that should be enough by itself. I think the recent statements by UT and TT are due to that political pressure and they have nothing to do with UT trying to create a branch in Houston.
UT-Houston would definitely be great for the city, but decisions like that are up to the state legislature and not the schools. UH has a legit beef.
...if UT-Waco works, then my UT-Dallas and UT-Arlington examples work. There are many other universities in the Metroplex.
Is there anything substantive showing any of these conferences are remotely interested in UH or expansion in general? Everyone knows the Big 12 is expanding yet there aren't even rumblings about other conferences following suit. Big contrast to the last round where all 5 conferences raced to get their schools of choice once word got out. Instead, it seems the other 4 are content with sitting this one out and letting the Big 12 have their picks, something they definitley wouldn't do if there was legit interest in expansion at this point, especially knowing what expansion into Texas did for the SEC.
UH meeting with the Pac 12 then ACC network getting sealed followed by Tech/Texas going out of their way to vouch for UH in a sudden/reactive expansion bid seems a bit too coincidental. Substantial no, just assumed based on the smoke.
Well Yurachek asked for the meeting, not the other way around. And from everything we've heard, thats all it was. Also, the ACC network and 20 year GOR seems to indicate that they really like where they are at the moment. They could have built in provisions for future expansion but the timing seems odd if expansion was planned in the immediate future. As far as the expansion bid, a few of the Presidents expressed that expansion wasn't immediately needed as some believed there would be another big realignment down the road and a lot of people assumed the ACC could be a raid target. Their new GOR ended all of that which basically leaves all of the non-P5 as the most viable targets. I can see where people are trying to draw draw a connection but this so far looks like a one man race to expand. Stark difference to the last round.
Yup and from everything that was being said by the Commissioner and Presidents, that was the direction we were heading. Obviously the ACC's new deal completely changed that but doesn't change the fact that none of the other conferences have indicated they are interested in UH and/or expansion.
Weren't there a number of people saying expansion made sense and Big XII would be all but forced to follow suit? Claiming the ACC's new deal is entirely responsible for expansion is a real reach. There were already members that wanted expansion and when they sat down and discussed it, it became obvious to them, what was obvious to everyone else. As for the PAC and ACC... the PAC in the past have said they don't want to be a regional conference and have expressed a strong interest in having a presence in Texas. Pray tell who that would be if not UH? The ACC also has discussed expansion in the past, and UH is one of the better options. I am not so sure UH is in a better spot than a month ago, it isn't a forgone conclusion the Big XII wants UH or that UH is willing to agree to the conditions set forth by the Big XII in negotiations. The idea that the UH hasn't had discussion with the ACC and PAC. I am sure that UH hopes they end up in the Big XII (I don't really); but they also are aware of the instability in the conference, the headache that is UT and that there are other options available. Likewise the Big XII doesn't need UH either.
Point being is invading into another huge public university's territory, and doing so using other people's money (state tax dollars). UT-Waco works and sort of doesn't. Baylor is the 1 huge university in Waco, but it's private. UT-Dallas and UT-Arlington don't work because a "University of Dallas" public university with 3rd largest enrollment in TX doesn't exist. Split the PUF in thirds between UH, UT and A&M and also include massive reparations to UH for being wrongfully excluded from the PUF for so many years. That would be a start to consider UT coming into Houston using PUF money. Also have UT get out of the way for UH to expand with the creation of UH-Medical school in their own territory (Houston). And the final term for agreement would be for UT Chancellor William McRaven to present himself before the entire city of Houston, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own arse.
This is just bull****. A PUBLIC university doesn't have territory or the right to block out other highest institutions of learning. That entire sentiment is antithetical to the social value of eduction and social betterment it represents. I love the longhorns but I don't give a **** about the UT admin system expanding its reach. It has nothing to do with "Pee Pee Games." It's what is best for the people and best for a city. Just a reminder, this is the STATE of Texas educational system. It's not like UT-Austin invading Houston. The state system has campuses in every corner of the state: The Valley, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Ft Worth, El Paso, Tyler, and Odessa. This is the states highest populated city with a population that is growing faster than any current university can keep up with capacity wise. Adding a campus of higher learning to the state's highest populated city is the best damn use of tax dollars that I've ever seen. The people fighting this are admins and politicians financially tied into the UH system. Granted, I left Houston when I was 18 so I don't know if things have changed but I can say that I still strongly feel adding other highly regarded institutions (along with Rice and UH) to the city is a good thing. Take a poll of current high school students and see how they feel. UH is at 50,000 students. How can it possibly increase capacity and is it at the same position to build an entirely new campus that the state of Texas system is in? Do I want UH in the big 12? No. Would I support them getting in if it meant a new campus would open in Houston? Hell yes because football is just a silly sport. Increasing educational opportunities is something that actually matters. Do you guys think UH's attendance is going to plummet and it's going to go broke? **** I am not defending the way the university went about buying the land if it is illegal.
I used to believe the ACC was the most likely place for UH but there is 0 chance the ACC expands now that they have their TV deal signed. The point of that new contract is that the moves they already made were the right ones and they are going to ride this for a little while. The Pac 12? Who knows. The status quo isn't working for them as their network is losing money. That's why the big 12 expanding now is not a surprise given the shockwave that was the ACC deal. Both conferences are trying to figure out what to do. I feel like ESPN has to have some kind of financial reassurances from Disney to make that deal. If networks are still going to pay for conferences then I agree you should add volume and inventory and 4 more teams. You can look at the recent expansion of other conferences to see that they don't seem to mind inviting non football power houses. They just want to add new markets and inventory. Teams to add: Houston- You just can't get away with not inviting UH given their last year considering you are still going to add 3 other teams. I think the only way they get approval from the conference is if 3 non-texas teams come in with them so the Texas presence doesn't get stronger in the team. There should be a requirement for them to immediately move to expand their stadium. Maybe they can borrow against their future TV money to do it. They should never be allowed to host OU or UT in a 40,000 seat stadium with an enrollment of 50,000 in a city of 4 million people. It'll mean using reliant once a year. Cincy- Big city in the midwest. Maybe it helps get you some recruits from Ohio St and Michigan. They should be required to expand stadium if possible within the design. BYU- National following and the best football program available over a prolonged period of time. Huge stadium. Sunday rule does not affect as many sports as you think but they are open to being a football only member. UCONN- Memphis is attractive because you are getting into SEC territory but I think it would be better to build part of the conference in a single part of the country. West Virginia, Ohio and New York are a nice little pod. They also bring quality mens and women's basketball although Memphsis does as well. I think Memphis has one of the best financially run programs in the country. I would be fine with Memphis or UCF as well. I can understand wanting to bring in another western team for BYU but the options aren't as attractive and neither are the TV markets.
Good valid points. Competition of universities would be great for the city of Houston. Also, seeing people from UH asking to have a portion of the puf makes no sense to me. And it demonstrates that they dont understand what the puf is. It really isnt tax payer dollars, its an endowment built over the last 100 years by ut and a&m investors. Why should ut and a&m be forced to or have any sort of obligation to give up funds to support their students (which comprise over 50% of this states public students) to support a university who has never managed the fund, nor has any history with it?
Yet zero substantive reports of expansion and/or interest in UH as a candidate from either conference. Not saying things won't change because the past few weeks have shown that it can at a drop of a hat. But if the PAC and ACC were serious about expansion or UH as a target, absolutely no way we wouldn't have heard something substantive about it whether coming from them, Fertitta, media, etc... To say the new ACC's new deal is not responsible is not a reach at all. Mike Perrin specifically discussed holding off on expansion because he believed there would be another big round of realignment down the road. He was obviously wrong but many believed the ACC could be raided given how dissatisfied their bigger schools were the last round. Now that the ACC is locked in for 20 more years, it leaves the non-p5 schools as the most viable candidates and why we are where we are. I'm not doubting that the ACC has discussed expansion in the past, but they have seemingly moved on by inking their new deal. Just doesn't make sense to negotiate for their network and do all of this now if the plan is to expand in the immediate after.
And a public STATE university is under the control of the STATE and doesn't have a right to put campuses wherever they want with state funds. The state already has a huge public university in Houston. If they want to expand the learning opportunities here then the most logical thing to do is expand the state university that's already here. You should if they are doing it with taxpayer dollars and ignoring all the controls in place when spending taxpayer dollars. That's fraud. That's actually exactly what it is. The state decides how state funds will be used for education. In this instance UT decided on its own. And the state decided to have those schools there. UT circumvented the state in this example. Why not just use those tax dollars to expand on the schools already here, like UH? I have no ties to UH. But I do pay taxes and don't like seeing a state institution give the legislature the finger and go rouge. And I'm a Longhorn. By giving them access to the same funds UT just used to make a fraudulent purchase.
This entire argument needs obvious vetting to ascertain the true rights of the deal. Has any state commission condemned the move or called into question the legality? As far as I have seen, it's only Houston area politicians and UH officials. If that is the case then it's way to early to assume this was illegal without an independent assessment as opposed to the loud assertions from local politicians. I'm not saying the politicians are full of ****. However, local representatives will always be partial to local institutions for political and financial reasons. It's impossible to know objective fact with (understandably) partial concerns. I disagree with you on the value of tax dollars but that is a personal opinion that you and I have our own right to. I have my doubts of the direct draw of your tax dollars that this would be coming from however I (and most people) don't really know the details and legal aspect of the issue. Agreed. I also think that this is something Houstonians would brag about when talking about their city 10 years down the road. It would be nuts if they eventually bought up more of that land and whatever area of the astro world tract is left. I believe the Rodeo bought half of it already. How cool would it be if there were marked parts of the campus where old rides used to be? That would be a very massive and expensive expansion when they aren't even going to be filling up their current purchase anytime soon. They would also have to buy up a lot of commercial land in-between.
PUF isnt exactly money coming out of the taxpayers pockets. A simple google search and a 10 minute read may change your opinion on the whole matter
No, it doesn't. A state school has to go before the legislature to get approval for things like this (the state higher education board I believe, going off memory). UT did not, and made this purchase when the legislature was not in session. Yes, state reps have noted that they broke the rules by doing that. I don't think I explained myself very well. The PUF funds are not a direct draw of my tax dollars. But they are still state funds. My tax dollars do go towards the school and there are controls in place that state universities have to follow before spending those funds or other ones (like PUF funds). The state controls UT. UT is not a private institution that can just do whatever the hell it wants. That's what UT did in this case. A state institution giving the state legislature the finger like this is as wrong as wrong can be. There are controls in place that state schools have to follow when conducting business. I am very bothered by a school just telling the state we will do what we want via a huge purchase and ask for forgiveness later. Why even have controls in place? I'm familiar with where the PUF funds come from. UT still can't just do things like this without state approval.
