I think we are the only ONE!

Let me know if you can think of a single other PUBLIC University, in the entire United States, that checks these boxes:

-Is Less than a 100 years old.
-Has an Endowment of $1 Billion, or greater.
-Has over 40,000 students with at least 1/4 living on campus.
-Is not a Land Grant School …meaning the majority of the funds have been raised internally NOT handed a blank check by a State or Federal Program. I’ll add we aren’t even in our state’s PUF program.
-Has finished inside the top 10 in both of the 2 major revenue producing sports. (UH has finished top 5 in both but I’ll allow top 10)

People, especially within our own market/state, are quick to discount us or call us Cougar High but what we have accomplished literally puts us in a class of one. What we have built here is nothing short of extraordinary. The future is bright!


Texas Tech comes very close, has their football team ever finished top 10?

UCLA turns 100 this year and they should be our model…but would they be considered Land Grant since they are part of the UC-System?.


Once. 1965.

1 Like

Tech will likely be top 10 in basketball this year.

Think the final one comes out before Tournament starts. Tech was 9th in AP in that one.

To compare apples to apples you should only count since uh became a public university which would be much less than 100 years.

UCLA is “land grant” You bring up an excellent point. Despite all of the adversity we have done an amazing job.

1 Like

Plus, we were a small private school until 1963.

1 Like

I was gonna say Louisville, but they have a little head start on age, at 221 years old (1798)!!! :dizzy_face:

Where are you finding this number? The university’s treasurer shows our endowment at $684 million for the whole system as of December.


Maybe he meant “budget” instead of endowment?

Wikipedia has it at $962 million. But with the current $1 billion + fundraising plan, plus a few other endowment additions, im pretty sure we’ve passed the billion dollar mark, or are very close.

1 Like

According to UH it’s 30% less


Perhaps, that’s the portion they have invested with Cambridge Associates. Maybe, they have other sources or have spent some of the 300 mllion plus on professor salaries, research, etc. I know my former employer made a huge donation towards a specific college so maybe some of those are run by the specific college as compared to a general UH fund.

The Chronicle of Higher Education has the UH “system” endowment at $942 million.


Whatever the case, the fact that we are roughly 50 years old in public education life, and 15-20 years of that with abysmal administration, speaks pretty well for us.

UCF and USF are about the same age but we can argue better metrics in capital and financial terms.


Which are the 15-20 years do you believe we had the most ‘abysmal administration’? I agree but am just curious.

Not sure what MonCoog thinks, but I’d describe the administrations of at least Van Horn through Barnett to be abysmal, especially from an athletics point of view.

Pickering wasn’t too effective either.

Things started to get better under Glenn Goerke, Arthur Smith, and Jay Gouge and have truly blossomed under Renu.


Thank you. That sounds reasonable and I concur.

1 Like

Just as uhlaw said. But even when the overall administration started improving our athletics administration took time to improve extending the period of time athletics took to improve.

1 Like