According to so many "sources", Texas went from a hard NO, to a yes vote. I believe that to be true. I also believe that means Texas is getting what they want, and I believe that is Houston. It may have been political pressure or something else, but I believe whatever it was convinced Texas to get Houston into the Big 12.

(07-21-2016 07:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:15 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Twitter Link

I don't think Houston is getting in, but no question, support from the UT president and the Texas governor are good for your bid.

Except when it is bad for your bid. And only time will tell which this is. I doubt that the B12 schools outside the state of Texas enjoy being strong armed by Texas politicians. Some of them just might view that as a bad thing, which would only become worse with more Texas schools in the conference.

(07-22-2016 03:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  Except when it is bad for your bid. And only time will tell which this is. I doubt that the B12 schools outside the state of Texas enjoy being strong armed by Texas politicians. Some of them just might view that as a bad thing, ...

But if the "strong arming" is bringing Texas out of its opposition stance and more in line with what they want ... in what way are they being strong armed?

Quote: ... which would only become worse with more Texas schools in the conference.

It does not seem likely to weigh as strongly as the benefit of not just protecting, but improving their access to Texas recruiting grounds, for Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State, which are the schools most at risk under any two-school expansion that leaves them in one division and the four Texas schools in the other one.

(07-22-2016 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  One other point: I could very well be wrong, but I don't think there are many Mormons in TX and the plains in general. If you didn't grow up Mormon, then there's no way you're going to play for BYU. SO ... BYU should have pretty minimal (perhaps zero) impact on TX recruiting.

I think the last LDS kid we pulled from Texas was Tejan Koroma. Was rated 2 stars & his only other offers were at the military academies. Turned out to be an instant starter & freshman All-American, though.

Most of us still live west of the Rockies. So the biggest boost for our recruiting would come at the expense of the PAC. Much is made of the Utah/BYU rivalry. We actually do fine with those recruiting battles. They're over 3 star kids. Rarely the keystones of either team's roster. Utah State still finds some darn good talent that slips past our radars.

The program that's really eating our lunch is Stanford. Every year we lose at least one 4 star LDS kid to Stanford. Simi Fehoko, Gabe Reid, Sean Barton, Dallas Lloyd, Brandon Fanaika. We just can't continue to endure these losses.

Problem is that western kids see Stanford as northeasterners do the Ivy League. Plus they play football at the highest level. Very hard to beat that but we did in the past. Being relegated to a lower division of CFB hasn't helped.

I saw a tweet earlier today (can't remember from who though) suggesting UT's endorsement of Houston could be political maneuvering to get support for the creation of UT-Houston. The UT System already purchased land in Houston but UH was protesting it. I hadn't seen any updates in probably 6 months on the situation though. Perhaps if UH gets into the Big 12 they'll support the UT System starting a full university there?

(07-22-2016 06:14 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I saw a tweet earlier today (can't remember from who though) suggesting UT's endorsement of Houston could be political maneuvering to get support for the creation of UT-Houston. The UT System already purchased land in Houston but UH was protesting it. I hadn't seen any updates in probably 6 months on the situation though. Perhaps if UH gets into the Big 12 they'll support the UT System starting a full university there?

I can't see why Houston would allow a UT-H... unless they were getting into a power conference.... And I can't see Houston agreeing to that for anything less.. I can also see Texas jumping all over that opportunity.

(07-22-2016 03:51 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 03:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  Except when it is bad for your bid. And only time will tell which this is. I doubt that the B12 schools outside the state of Texas enjoy being strong armed by Texas politicians. Some of them just might view that as a bad thing, ...

But if the "strong arming" is bringing Texas out of its opposition stance and more in line with what they want ... in what way are they being strong armed?

Quote: ... which would only become worse with more Texas schools in the conference.

It does not seem likely to weigh as strongly as the benefit of not just protecting, but improving their access to Texas recruiting grounds, for Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State, which are the schools most at risk under any two-school expansion that leaves them in one division and the four Texas schools in the other one.

You are assuming that everybody is saying what they mean, and that they are saying what you think they mean. Texas hasn't yet agreed to expansion - at least not publicly. What they have agreed to is to talk with schools who want to be in the Big XII. Don't you suppose some schools might resent being dictated to by the Governor of Texas, who has essentially threatened to veto any expansion that doesn't include Houston?

The idea of creating a school from scratch is pure idiocy anyways when there are a number of schools in the area that could be taken over for the same purpose, some of which are redundant currently (TSU anyone?)

(07-22-2016 06:22 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 06:14 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I saw a tweet earlier today (can't remember from who though) suggesting UT's endorsement of Houston could be political maneuvering to get support for the creation of UT-Houston. The UT System already purchased land in Houston but UH was protesting it. I hadn't seen any updates in probably 6 months on the situation though. Perhaps if UH gets into the Big 12 they'll support the UT System starting a full university there?

I can't see why Houston would allow a UT-H... unless they were getting into a power conference.... And I can't see Houston agreeing to that for anything less.. I can also see Texas jumping all over that opportunity.

Does Texas need Houston's permission?

(07-23-2016 07:39 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The idea of creating a school from scratch is pure idiocy anyways when there are a number of schools in the area that could be taken over for the same purpose, some of which are redundant currently (TSU anyone?)

TSU should have merged with UH at the end of segregation. And UH should be UT Houston. There is really no need for it to be a separate system.

If TX politicos have the cache to get UH into the B12 then they need to use the same leverage to force the Longhorns to sign a GOR extension. Otherwise, all this posturing is for naught.

Manley,

Thanks for the thoughts.

So it sounds like you're thinking if the BYU gets into the B12, it will be able to compete for those Western LDS kids that are going to the PAC schools?

Even though BYU won't have any conference games in the West?

(07-23-2016 08:35 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 07:39 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The idea of creating a school from scratch is pure idiocy anyways when there are a number of schools in the area that could be taken over for the same purpose, some of which are redundant currently (TSU anyone?)

TSU should have merged with UH at the end of segregation. And UH should be UT Houston. There is really no need for it to be a separate system.

If I were chancellor, I would want that as part of the deal-UH system dissolved, UH becomes UT-Houston. Get rid of this turf protection nonsense. At least with regards to UH (and eliminate UNT's system at the same time).

(07-23-2016 10:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 08:35 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 07:39 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The idea of creating a school from scratch is pure idiocy anyways when there are a number of schools in the area that could be taken over for the same purpose, some of which are redundant currently (TSU anyone?)

TSU should have merged with UH at the end of segregation. And UH should be UT Houston. There is really no need for it to be a separate system.

If I were chancellor, I would want that as part of the deal-UH system dissolved, UH becomes UT-Houston. Get rid of this turf protection nonsense. At least with regards to UH (and eliminate UNT's system at the same time).

Not going to happen. We clawed our way to relevancy without UT help, we are the one school that does not kiss their ass in Texas (with the exception of A&M) and they know it. We're proud to be Houston's and a State of Texas Uinversity of high learning with the name just Houston in it. The powers that be are fiercely proud and protective of this. There would be no State of Texas without Houston (by the way Texas' first State Capital city till it moved to Austin) and the Battle of San Jacinto that took place in the Houston area to defeat Santa Anna Army, people outside the state don't understand the psychology of this and how it plays out here. We paid for it by being banished (20 plus years in the wilderness) by being left out of the Big 8 realignment, which all most destroyed our program. The ole saying. what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger ( we learned some important lessons along the way) is true and we are the stronger for the struggles we've endured and persevered through as an institution. Grudgingly UT leadership has come to respect us and our political power

(07-23-2016 11:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 10:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 08:35 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 07:39 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The idea of creating a school from scratch is pure idiocy anyways when there are a number of schools in the area that could be taken over for the same purpose, some of which are redundant currently (TSU anyone?)

TSU should have merged with UH at the end of segregation. And UH should be UT Houston. There is really no need for it to be a separate system.

If I were chancellor, I would want that as part of the deal-UH system dissolved, UH becomes UT-Houston. Get rid of this turf protection nonsense. At least with regards to UH (and eliminate UNT's system at the same time).

Not going to happen. We clawed our way to relevancy without UT help, we are the one school that does not kiss their ass in Texas (with the exception of A&M) and they know it. We're proud to be Houston's and a State of Texas Uinversity of high learning with the name just Houston in it. The powers that be are fiercely proud and protective of this. There would be no State of Texas without Houston (by the way Texas' first State Capital city till it moved to Austin) and the Battle of San Jacinto that took place in the Houston area to defeat Santa Anna Army, people outside the state don't understand the psychology of this and how it plays out here. We paid for it by being banished (20 plus years in the wilderness) by being left out of the Big 8 realignment, which all most destroyed our program. The ole saying. what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger ( we learned some important lessons along the way) is true and we are the stronger for the struggles we've endured and persevered through as an institution. Grudgingly UT leadership has come to respect us and our political power

The 3rd best public university is UT-Dallas.
TCU was banished (even by UH) and clearly earned their way in by separating themselves from all the other candidates.
The universities are better working together than working contrary to the common good.

The 3rd best public university in Texas is UTD? That's a good one.

Regardless, as was mentioned, UH should have been UT-H but that ship sailed a long time ago. TSU is redundant in that there's a major university in that area of the city and a better HBCU in the area. It should be taken over, merged or closed.