It is criminal that the puf is not open to U of H and all other Texan universities. End of discussion. Any Texan concerned about public education feels the same way.
4 Likes
While I agree with you, Chris, stop speaking for everyone.
The Permanent University Fund is in the Texas Constitution and was created in 1876. To change it requires a constitutional amendment. Sorry you don’t like the PUF’s distribution, but there is a process to change it and there is not enough support statewide to change it. That is how democracy works.
Why are you reading it? Life is too short to deal with this person.
Except amending the Texas constitution is not that difficult.
Yes the Texas Constitution is a lot easier to amend than the US. We’ve done it tons of times. Still need the political will to do so which I don’t think exists.
It’s interesting to watch people indirectly advocate for equity in higher ed funding in Texas while being philosophically opposed to it (equity) in other contexts.
3 Likes
I am not speaking for everyone Dustin. This troll comes on here and trolls because that is what he does.
How democracy works is when the Texas legislature opens the PUF discussion. Why do you think they do not do it because there is not enough pro other then utamafia and atm elected officials pushing for it or are pushed aside. That is the problem.
atm did not have access to the PUF.
What did they do?
They sued. utamafia pulled out of the stops to deny them access.
atm was giving access to the PUF on compromise of having 30% access to it.
The mere principal of the PUF when it was created was about education. ut then was the only Texas public university so it made sense. atm came along and ut turned into utamafia so others could not have access to the PUF.
There is not one single reason why other Texan public universities should not have access to the PUF. This is about public education…RIGHT or is it NOT?
That is you speaking for everyone. That is what I was referring to.
How about we get back to the original discussion though? I still don’t know what our endowment has to do with NIL.
I did not bring it up and your question is valid.
NIL reflects what donors want to do specifically for sports.
We just amended it the November, before last
1 Like
Please let us know what it means now. Thank you.
I think the OP is observing a non causal correlation between academic endowment and NIL budget. Not saying one causes the other, but a correlation exists. Not really surprising. And any observation of two or more data points that are outliers really doesn’t surprise either. Probably can find casual correlation between size of school living alumni and NIL budgets as well.
Just as we might say large NIL budget may now be necessary for football athletic success, but doesn’t guarantee a spot in the
College football playoff. Necessary but not sufficient.
I have often wondered why the historical black colleges didn’t sue for access to PUF. It would quickly bring the issue to the attention of the public as well as every college administrator in the state. I guess they fear the push back that would result. At the end of the day PUF should benefit every public university.
2 Likes
To me the question with football at a place like Stanford or Rice is why?
Football and basketball is professional now. It serves a purpose at a place like Houston where our academics is growing with leaps and bounds and we want to get the message out. Sports is important in that role.
But Stanford and Rice have no need to get that message out. Those sports are legacies at those universities.
How so?
It obviously doesn’t exist at Stanford or Rice, otherwise, they’d be signing more prospects and be recognized as bigger “NIL” powerhouses. On the contrary, the OPPOSITE is true.
Johns Hopkins U. has a $13 billion endowment.
Guess what? Its only D1 sport in lacrosse. All other sports are D3.
You could say the same about many other “high endowment” schools, like MIT, CalTech, Washington U-St. Louis, Chicago, Carnegie-Mellon, NYU, Rochester, Williams, and Amherst.
All have super-high endowments…yet play D3 athletics where NIL is essentially non-existent.
Proof positive that endowment and NIL are HARDLY “correlative.”
aTm and UT are NIL powerhouses, not become of their endowments, per se, but rather, because they have huge masses of interested super-fans that also have money and are happy to give what it takes to buy the best team possible.
SMU and Oregon don’t necessarily have that, yet they are also NIL powerhouse because they have one or a few hyper rich “sugar daddies” willing to pay whatever it takes to buy the best team possible.
UH…sadly…has neither, or at least, not currently.
We’ll make up for it by being a better transfer portal and JUCO prospect school than most.
Agree and that is the entire point. Opening the PUF to all Texan public schools benefits Texan education. The PUF was created to benefit public education.
Why do you think utamafia and atm want to keep it all to themselves?
In regards to the NIL it is all relative. One year could bring an x amount of revenue to athletes another could be different. How could U of H athletes get more NIL revenues? That is the question that every program is asking.
What matters is to be part right now of a DIV I FBS program. Think about it. Any of these schools could benefit from a mega nil donor. Yes it is buying a championship but isn’t what the so called blue bloods have done over the years?
Remember Cam Newton and the auburn natty?
Prairie View gets PUF money through A&M’s cut.