I have seen a marked improvement in student participation in football and basketball. I go to most home games and there were games where the students represented much better than the alumni.
4 Likes
I wish i lived in that world too, but we don’t. They’ve been more successful than us. It’s ok to admit that.
I agree, certainly much improvement in that area over the years. Not sure how well the student to season ticketholder conversion takes though. Obviously those that stay in Houston after graduation are more likely. At one time my season tickets were in the same section as a bunch of young alumni that the majority worked at the same engineering company (the name escapes me right now). I assume they all knew each other from school too but I wonder if there’s more we could do to cultivate young alumni season ticket holders that all go to the same large local employer after graduation.
Obviously this is primarily (if not solely) NIL funding.
Number of five stars
vs
National championships
= 0
With that amount if five stars and money there is no telling how many National championships we would have.
Its okay to accept that.
Wish is not a strategy. We need access to the PUF. ITS OKAY TO ADMIT.
How did they get there in terms of facilities and fan support?
PUF money.
When you hace access to $B’s the sky is the limit.
It shows everyone that money, $B’s alone do not guarantee success.
uta’s investments vs National championship has got to be the lowest return of investment (ROI) in the history of college football.
1 Like
I’d say A&M probably beats them out for that. They basically spend the same as Texas and they have to show for it is Johnny Manziels freshman season.
PUF is NOT athletics. UT land in Houston is NOT athletics. Move that to the Satellite where it belongs.
UT got athletic money because they put 100,000 people in their stadium, buy UT gear for their kids and grandkids, and get millions to watch on TV. Not the PUF.
3 Likes
Yes and no. When you have the money to do one thing, it frees up money from other sources for athletics.
In Texas, PUF (Permanent University Fund) money, specifically through the Available University Fund (AUF), can be used for specific purposes related to the University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems. The primary use is to pay debt service on bonds issued for capital improvements at eligible institutions, such as acquiring land, constructing buildings, and purchasing equipment. Any remaining funds after debt service can be used for the support and maintenance of eligible institutions and for system operations.
5 Likes
Ray Charles sang it best: “Them that Got.”
Question, can those “capital improvements” include athletic facilities?
Just wondering if there’s a PUF restriction on using funds for that.
GIVE me a break! Texas gets every advantage that other schools’ dont get…OU plays a brutal schedule their first year in SEC, and whorn plays a patsy schedule where they dont play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss or South Carolina, and they play Florida when their QB is hurt…They had to play Georgia and lost to them twice. Their success is set up for them…The good thing is everyone in their new league hates them.
4 Likes
They have legacy old money and a generational fanbase.
UH depends on first generation grads and people who went to UH on a GI Bill for fans.
Freeing up money on the academic side still stays on the academic side. It may only affect one or two people that may have donated to a building and might consider switching to athletics. Most do not.
The UT athletic department brought in over $300 million or so this past year. They are not pulling PUF funding as they have a ton of money coming in.
As tcoog just posted, “They have legacy old money and a generational fanbase.” That is the big difference. Constantly blaming the PUF is a distraction from actual needs and actions to be done for athletics.
1 Like
While Houston’s donors have to decide if they will fund the academic enterprise or athletics, UT supporters have no such dilemma since PUF monies can be used to build world class research facilities, thereby freeing up millions in support of athletics that may have gone elsewhere. It’s important to note that Houston is prohibited from using TUF dollars in a similar fashion, thereby making a critical binary choice necessary for its donors.
3 Likes
First sentence. Irrelevant unless you take it as actually supporting my point in a sense.
Second sentence. You don’t know that and even if that is true, those one or two people could be whales and that makes a huge difference, again proving my point.
While no one denies that their athletic department brings in loads of money, it does nothing to attack my point whatsoever. You are trying to make a non-point.
Only thing is though UT can’t use PUF money for athletics, it still frees up money elsewhere “if they got into a bind”. USC is having to cut the general and athletic budget with about 200 mil total across various departments.
UH for ex subsidizes athletics some from general resources. If UH had PUF money then UH could easily help athletics from another general fund so yes the PUF helps bc it frees up other money then the school doesn’t complain as much about subsidies.Schools have athletics debt and some support from a general fund like us. UT and A&M don’t have that problem.
This is what some posters are saying which is true. No PUF money can be used but it does free up other school resources which is what they are saying in posts.
If you disagree, explain how the UH admin manages to give athletics a subsidy each yr.
Like any business, money is moved around and if PUF takes care of a lot , it frees up other resources unlike us scratching for each dollar bc no PUF.
2 Likes
Seriously?
uta has been benefiting from the PUF since day one. This is the reason why uta is where they are today.
You get $Billions? You get WHAT YOU WANT.
You can defend uta all you want about first thing you gotta do is:
- Share the PUF will all public Texas Universities, not only UH.
- Sell the land.
2 Likes
Yes, in a sense there was some support for your post. Second, you are making as much of an assumption as your claim I am doing.
Really can’t attack your point when my first post was not directed at you, but you stepped in and replied anyway while completely missing the point of my post.
Point - Wasting time on PUF does not help improve UH situation when PUF is NOT the reason UT athletics are so much better than UH athletics. Spend time on a real problem with athletics instead of crying about the PUF on an athletics board.
Might as well just copy and paste:
Point - Wasting time on PUF does not help improve UH situation when PUF is NOT the reason UT athletics are so much better than UH athletics. Spend time on a real problem with athletics instead of crying about the PUF on an athletics board. (or about the land - it is not a sports matter and just makes you sound like you are whining.)