Back in 2006 Texas State started a Pride in Action Campaign with hopes of raising $110 million. The final tally was announced yesterday and that number exceeded $151 million. This milestone will impact the university for many years to come and I couldn't be more proud of my Texas State Bobcats.
That is excellent news and congratulations. I've stated it elsewhere in this forum, Texas State and Missouri State are up and comers and should be looked as good additions for any conference expansion by the American and MWC.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see the MAC make a move on these two programs.
Agree. I have said this for some time. While it appears UTSA has taken the early lead between the two new Texas FBS programs, I believe Texas State is the one with the best long term prognosis. it is growing very fast. It currently has over 35K students making it larger than Texas Tech. The campus is beautiful with a river running directly through it. The school is located in a typical college town--yet it has easy access to large numbers of its alumni in Austin (20 minutes away) and San Antonio (45 minutes away). It has been slowly raising its academic standards and is becoming more similar to the Tech and Houston in its requirements these days. It has upgraded all its major athletic facilities and has now joined an FBS conference. All it needs is a solid run of success on the football field to really get the train roiling. The pieces are all already in place.
(03-01-2014 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Agree. I have said this for some time. While it appears UTSA has taken the early lead between the two new Texas FBS programs, I believe Texas State is the one with the best long term prognosis. it is growing very fast. It currently has over 35K students making it larger than Texas Tech. The campus is beautiful with a river running directly through it. The school is located in a typical college town--yet it has easy access to large numbers of its alumni in Austin (20 minutes away) and San Antonio (45 minutes away). It has been slowly raising its academic standards and is becoming more similar to the Tech and Houston in its requirements these days. It has upgraded all its major athletic facilities and has now joined an FBS conference. All it needs is a solid run of success on the football field to really get the train roiling. The pieces are all already in place.
+1. I've thought for a few years now that Texas State has all the attributes to become very successful at the FBS level.
(03-01-2014 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Agree. I have said this for some time. While it appears UTSA has taken the early lead between the two new Texas FBS programs, I believe Texas State is the one with the best long term prognosis. it is growing very fast. It currently has over 35K students making it larger than Texas Tech. The campus is beautiful with a river running directly through it. The school is located in a typical college town--yet it has easy access to large numbers of its alumni in Austin (20 minutes away) and San Antonio (45 minutes away). It has been slowly raising its academic standards and is becoming more similar to the Tech and Houston in its requirements these days. It has upgraded all its major athletic facilities and has now joined an FBS conference. All it needs is a solid run of success on the football field to really get the train roiling. The pieces are all already in place.
+1. I've thought for a few years now that Texas State has all the attributes to become very successful at the FBS level.
However, like Eastern Michigan, they are in the same metro area as a college football king. That's their big negative.
on a side note how come texas a&m never underwent a name change. virtually every other major A&M school underwent a modernized name change (colorado st. michigan st. oklahoma st. etc.)
does this have anything to do with a school in austin determined to keep their in-state rivals down?
(03-01-2014 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Agree. I have said this for some time. While it appears UTSA has taken the early lead between the two new Texas FBS programs, I believe Texas State is the one with the best long term prognosis. it is growing very fast. It currently has over 35K students making it larger than Texas Tech. The campus is beautiful with a river running directly through it. The school is located in a typical college town--yet it has easy access to large numbers of its alumni in Austin (20 minutes away) and San Antonio (45 minutes away). It has been slowly raising its academic standards and is becoming more similar to the Tech and Houston in its requirements these days. It has upgraded all its major athletic facilities and has now joined an FBS conference. All it needs is a solid run of success on the football field to really get the train roiling. The pieces are all already in place.
Why does that matter? Tech's mission isn't to be the biggest University in the State of Texas. Some people are so are caught up with enrollment size and forget that might not equal loyal alumni once they graduate.
I like Texas State and they are making strides but where do they rank among Texas Emerging Research Universities?
if you are a weak academic school ==> yeah not much there can help you. but if you are a strong academic school with a large enrollment ==> you are a monster.
now looking at weak academic schools but with large enrollments....UCF/houston comes to mind. and while the whole "a conference will add them due to their potential" is a nice theory, every trend in realignment says that that is not the case.
UH/UCF took a while just to get into the ACC. and UH got passed over by the b12 for TCU while UCF got passed over by the b12/acc even though you could argue that they might of been a decent fit in either conference.
however other factors could be involved such as the TX/FL schools not wanting to elevate another in state rival.
(03-01-2014 04:03 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]on a side note how come texas a&m never underwent a name change. virtually every other major A&M school underwent a modernized name change (colorado st. michigan st. oklahoma st. etc.)
does this have anything to do with a school in austin determined to keep their in-state rivals down?
Doubt it. Texas A&M is a pretty tradition-bound place. More likely the Aggies simply did not wish to change.
(03-01-2014 04:03 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]on a side note how come texas a&m never underwent a name change. virtually every other major A&M school underwent a modernized name change (colorado st. michigan st. oklahoma st. etc.)
does this have anything to do with a school in austin determined to keep their in-state rivals down?
Nothing to do with UT.
At one point, the BOR of The Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College had 2 plans in front of them. The first was to preserve AMC as it was, a small, all male military school (think TX equivalent of VMI or the Citadel) and instead focus on making another A&M system schol, Arlington State College (today UTA) into a traditional 4 year, research university called Texas State University.
Thr second was to completely change order at A&M college station and modernize it into a coed research university with no requirement to be in the Corps. Earl Rudder decided to go with that decision (which wasn't the more popular choice) but insisted that the new name for the school would not be Texas State.
Probably would have been wiser to go with Texas State. A&M is a great school with a great athletic tradition but that really came to be in spite of their name, not because of.
(03-01-2014 06:43 PM)CoogNellie Wrote: [ -> ]Probably would have been wiser to go with Texas State. A&M is a great school with a great athletic tradition but that really came to be in spite of their name, not because of.
The name had tremendous name recognition and brand value. There was no reason to change it. Texas A&M is ever bit as well known and popular as UT these days. I'd say they did everything just perfect.
(03-01-2014 04:03 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]on a side note how come texas a&m never underwent a name change. virtually every other major A&M school underwent a modernized name change (colorado st. michigan st. oklahoma st. etc.)
does this have anything to do with a school in austin determined to keep their in-state rivals down?
Nothing to do with UT.
At one point, the BOR of The Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College had 2 plans in front of them. The first was to preserve AMC as it was, a small, all male military school (think TX equivalent of VMI or the Citadel) and instead focus on making another A&M system schol, Arlington State College (today UTA) into a traditional 4 year, research university called Texas State University.
Thr second was to completely change order at A&M college station and modernize it into a coed research university with no requirement to be in the Corps. Earl Rudder decided to go with that decision (which wasn't the more popular choice) but insisted that the new name for the school would not be Texas State.
(03-01-2014 06:43 PM)CoogNellie Wrote: [ -> ]Probably would have been wiser to go with Texas State. A&M is a great school with a great athletic tradition but that really came to be in spite of their name, not because of.
I agree. when johnny football won the heisman I had to explain to my mom the general differences between Ttech, Tstate & Ta&m. she knows CFB pretty well but is not a total junkie.
so i think it is fair to say that a&m does hold the school back and it is confusing to texas outsiders who are not total CFB junkies.
(03-01-2014 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]Agree. I have said this for some time. While it appears UTSA has taken the early lead between the two new Texas FBS programs, I believe Texas State is the one with the best long term prognosis. it is growing very fast. It currently has over 35K students making it larger than Texas Tech. The campus is beautiful with a river running directly through it. The school is located in a typical college town--yet it has easy access to large numbers of its alumni in Austin (20 minutes away) and San Antonio (45 minutes away). It has been slowly raising its academic standards and is becoming more similar to the Tech and Houston in its requirements these days. It has upgraded all its major athletic facilities and has now joined an FBS conference. All it needs is a solid run of success on the football field to really get the train roiling. The pieces are all already in place.
Why does that matter? Tech's mission isn't to be the biggest University in the State of Texas. Some people are so are caught up with enrollment size and forget that might not equal loyal alumni once they graduate.
I like Texas State and they are making strides but where do they rank among Texas Emerging Research Universities?
I made that statement because I think most people not following the program probably didn't know Texas State has a larger enrollment than a better known school like Texas Tech. You are correct, Texas Tech is a bit more selective (TxSt accepts 76.6% of applicants vs Techs 64.3% vs 56.2% for University of Houston).
The real point is that having a large enrollment of 35K+ gives the school a solid chance to build a large loyal following. The schools fund raising efforts (did you watch the video in the OP?) is actually an indication that the school may be developing the kind of loyal alumni you mention. They just moved to FBS football, so lets see if that helps them to take the next step in building their fan base.
(03-01-2014 04:03 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]on a side note how come texas a&m never underwent a name change. virtually every other major A&M school underwent a modernized name change (colorado st. michigan st. oklahoma st. etc.)
does this have anything to do with a school in austin determined to keep their in-state rivals down?
Nothing to do with UT.
At one point, the BOR of The Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College had 2 plans in front of them. The first was to preserve AMC as it was, a small, all male military school (think TX equivalent of VMI or the Citadel) and instead focus on making another A&M system schol, Arlington State College (today UTA) into a traditional 4 year, research university called Texas State University.
Thr second was to completely change order at A&M college station and modernize it into a coed research university with no requirement to be in the Corps. Earl Rudder decided to go with that decision (which wasn't the more popular choice) but insisted that the new name for the school would not be Texas State.
why the dislike for the name texas state?
Dislike is the wrong word.
We're very big on tradition and history so keeping the A&M name was very important to us.
Besides, it's great for marketing. There are a lots of "state" and "tech" schools in FBS. There aren't any other A&M schools. If someone says "A&M" they don't have to clarify which one they are talking about.
(03-01-2014 04:03 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]on a side note how come texas a&m never underwent a name change. virtually every other major A&M school underwent a modernized name change (colorado st. michigan st. oklahoma st. etc.)
does this have anything to do with a school in austin determined to keep their in-state rivals down?
Nothing to do with UT.
At one point, the BOR of The Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College had 2 plans in front of them. The first was to preserve AMC as it was, a small, all male military school (think TX equivalent of VMI or the Citadel) and instead focus on making another A&M system schol, Arlington State College (today UTA) into a traditional 4 year, research university called Texas State University.
Thr second was to completely change order at A&M college station and modernize it into a coed research university with no requirement to be in the Corps. Earl Rudder decided to go with that decision (which wasn't the more popular choice) but insisted that the new name for the school would not be Texas State.
why the dislike for the name texas state?
Dislike is the wrong word.
We're very big on tradition and history so keeping the A&M name was very important to us.
Besides, it's great for marketing. There are a lots of "state" and "tech" schools in FBS. There aren't any other A&M schools. If someone says "A&M" they don't have to clarify which one they are talking about.
this is an argument that only goes in circles IMO.
it might give aggie a regional advantage in marketing & branding, but it is a disadvantage nationally.