…if it means giving UT a campus in exchange for a Big12 invite. I will stand my ground and say no to UT-Houston…
Good time to ask the question: what would everyone be willing to do for an invite?
Conference affiliations are important but they can and do change. Putting a large academic competitor in your geographical vicinity does not. Research money, students, faculty, etc… The math is simple. No UT HOUSTON period.
UH will get into a P5 with or without UT. B12 can let us in or lose one of their biggest TV markets to the SEC and another P5 nearly entirely.
They will invite UH to the B12 regardless.
NO UTH even for a NATIONAL FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP.
I think they would have to open up the PUF before I’d consider it. However, besides the fact that I’m UH Alumni, I’m not too happy with the way that UT is spending my (state) money on this campus with no plan. The question of if the land is overvalued, following the purchase with layoffs/cutbacks and a tuition increase.
Those arses need to be sued for wasteful spending of taxpayer money. Frak them arses!!
I’m with most here, NO TU campus in Houston PERIOD.
Well, how about this:
Would you be willing to withdraw your objection to proposed UT-Houston campus, if in return UT were to withdraw its opposition to proposed UH medical school, and ramrod UH’s entry into B12?
No UT-H for anything.
Not at all…
You boys do understand that a medical school equals billions of dollars in research funding, which far outstrips what most undergraduate institutions develop (unless you’re MIT and have access to DARPA funding). Just sayin’ . . .
You definitely made it somewhat interesting.
We get in the Big12.
We get PUF funding.
We get a medical school.
UT signs a contract that no undergraduate courses will be offered at UT-Houston ever. Penalty for breaching this contract is forfeiture of all assets including land at UT-Houston to UH.
Then, maybe, we allow UT-Houston.
Well, we can’t get PUF funding. That would be unconstitutional.
I spoke to a board of regents member I’ll leave unnamed and asked him about “the deal” specifically, and was told there was no deal. FWIW.
As a practical matter, what legal leverage do we have? I’m new to the issue.
As far as the B12, well. If we had offers on the table from B12 and PAC I’d prefer the latter, because damned them all.
Legally there is some precedent for Houston’s position.
Back in the 90’s, A&M tried to buy South Texas College of Law without approval from the Higher Education Coordinating board. Houston filed suit, and seeing as STCL still is around, it didn’t go through. I don’t practice this kind of law to know the ins and outs, but I think we have the better position.
I guess I’m not as concerned as perhaps I ought to be about the impact to UH from UT-Lite incursions. It is a big city.
The bigger thing to hold my nose over is all the money boosters are putting into the crazy governors’ warchest in exchange for his support, to say nothing of that lunatic ltgov. I can’t stand either of them, especially the lt.
And UT folks know full well their “support” is the opposite of help with the rest of the conference anyway. The kiss of death.
We have to play our way in to force the issue, regardless.
I saw a post over at baylorfans saying if we got into the b12 we would vote however UT wanted us to. I had to laugh.
We’d be playing angry on and off the field for a generation, and rightfully so.
The booster campaign contributions to the lunatics is plenty concession.
I don’t know where everyone stands on politics and I really don’t want in that battle at all. What I can say is that Greg Abbot has consistently gone to bat for UH on multiple fronts in front of and behind the scenes.
I have talked to him a (very) few times in person, and I can say UH and its promotion to a top tier school in this state has been on his radar and a priority since he was Lt. Gov. He actually feels that the state is better with a strong UH. Even if you don’t like the rest of the package he’s selling, you have to give the devil his due and know that on this issue he is one of the good guys. Which is nice, considering the big stab in the back and twist of the knife that Ann Richards and Bob Bullock gave us back in the 90’s.
Man, that still pisses me off.
They would amend the constitution.
Tough to do.
To amend the constitution, two things must happen:
1.Proposal – to be proposed, an amendment must receive the support of two-thirds of all members elected to each chamber of the Legislature
2.Ratification – to be ratified, a proposed amendment must receive the support of a simple majority of citizens voting in a popular election, the date of which is specified by the Legislature.
Its a really high bar.