(11-29-2022 02:02 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  This was the right move for you guys. Texas' proposal was by far the best I thought. And as someone who has admired Texas history for my entire life, I'm glad that you are keeping your name.

I had heard rumors that UT was going to make a pretty sweet deal, but even I was shocked at how much they offered.

We would have benefitted from any system partner, but having over 100 million in committed spending on top of that is a huge win for SFA and really shows our value.

A great day for SFA & East Texas. This will change lives.

I don't understand what is in it for UT. There is already a UT school in Tyler.

(11-29-2022 05:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:02 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  This was the right move for you guys. Texas' proposal was by far the best I thought. And as someone who has admired Texas history for my entire life, I'm glad that you are keeping your name.

I had heard rumors that UT was going to make a pretty sweet deal, but even I was shocked at how much they offered.

We would have benefitted from any system partner, but having over 100 million in committed spending on top of that is a huge win for SFA and really shows our value.

A great day for SFA & East Texas. This will change lives.

I don't understand what is in it for UT. There is already a UT school in Tyler.

They have to beat A&M lol. There is no other reason necessary is there? I don't even blame them, I wish that we'd come with a stronger offer. SFA is a quality school with good long term potential.

If I worked for SFA I would be happy. Now have the resources of the UT system behind you.

(11-29-2022 06:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 05:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:02 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  This was the right move for you guys. Texas' proposal was by far the best I thought. And as someone who has admired Texas history for my entire life, I'm glad that you are keeping your name.

I had heard rumors that UT was going to make a pretty sweet deal, but even I was shocked at how much they offered.

We would have benefitted from any system partner, but having over 100 million in committed spending on top of that is a huge win for SFA and really shows our value.

A great day for SFA & East Texas. This will change lives.

I don't understand what is in it for UT. There is already a UT school in Tyler.

They have to beat A&M lol. There is no other reason necessary is there? I don't even blame them, I wish that we'd come with a stronger offer. SFA is a quality school with good long term potential.

A&M really makes more sense with their Forestry department. Maybe that is what UT wanted, an entry into a different field.

(11-29-2022 05:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:02 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  This was the right move for you guys. Texas' proposal was by far the best I thought. And as someone who has admired Texas history for my entire life, I'm glad that you are keeping your name.

I had heard rumors that UT was going to make a pretty sweet deal, but even I was shocked at how much they offered.

We would have benefitted from any system partner, but having over 100 million in committed spending on top of that is a huge win for SFA and really shows our value.

A great day for SFA & East Texas. This will change lives.

I don't understand what is in it for UT. There is already a UT school in Tyler.

That’s what two or three weeks worth of income from the petroleum fund? So why not buy some Goodwill?

(11-29-2022 07:46 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 05:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:02 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  This was the right move for you guys. Texas' proposal was by far the best I thought. And as someone who has admired Texas history for my entire life, I'm glad that you are keeping your name.

I had heard rumors that UT was going to make a pretty sweet deal, but even I was shocked at how much they offered.

We would have benefitted from any system partner, but having over 100 million in committed spending on top of that is a huge win for SFA and really shows our value.

A great day for SFA & East Texas. This will change lives.

I don't understand what is in it for UT. There is already a UT school in Tyler.

That’s what two or three weeks worth of income from the petroleum fund? So why not buy some Goodwill?

It's about a month's worth of AuF distribution per year, which is quite a bit to spend on one campus. There is something more here than "must beat Aggies". Might have just been pressure from the Legislature or Gov, perhaps both. If they wanted SFA to thrive and grow, it's easier to slot them in with Texas and their 2/3 Constitutionally allocated share.

(11-29-2022 05:41 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 05:28 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:10 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  Nope. Colors are safe per the proposals.

Expect orange and purple down the road. That's the way they work.

UT-Arlington was able to keep blue and white for many years. If I understand it correctly, they only switched to blue and orange in the last 10 years, around the time they opened their new arena. Incidentally, the forerunner of UTA was an agricultural college and was part of the A&M system until 1965.

Hopefully, SFA will be able to keep their name and colors as long as possible.

I'm not worried. SFA used to have red accents that had more orange to it than UTMB's "orange" which is really a red. If we had to we could go back to that.

I truly think the name is safe for atleast 25 years. I know some like Pan American got changed with mergers, but folks will be yelling about erasing history and chaining themselves to SFA's campus.

It's wild to think that UTA used to be an ag college.

(11-29-2022 07:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 06:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 05:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:02 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  This was the right move for you guys. Texas' proposal was by far the best I thought. And as someone who has admired Texas history for my entire life, I'm glad that you are keeping your name.

I had heard rumors that UT was going to make a pretty sweet deal, but even I was shocked at how much they offered.

We would have benefitted from any system partner, but having over 100 million in committed spending on top of that is a huge win for SFA and really shows our value.

A great day for SFA & East Texas. This will change lives.

I don't understand what is in it for UT. There is already a UT school in Tyler.

They have to beat A&M lol. There is no other reason necessary is there? I don't even blame them, I wish that we'd come with a stronger offer. SFA is a quality school with good long term potential.

A&M really makes more sense with their Forestry department. Maybe that is what UT wanted, an entry into a different field.

What made SFA so valuable is that there are only so many college with a traditional "go off to college" experience with a strong community around it & SFA is one of them and one of the last ones in play for expanding systems.

It also helps that there are synergies to be gained by not having every school fit the same profile, which helps both UT & SFA.

(11-29-2022 08:45 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 05:41 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 05:28 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:10 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  Nope. Colors are safe per the proposals.

Expect orange and purple down the road. That's the way they work.

UT-Arlington was able to keep blue and white for many years. If I understand it correctly, they only switched to blue and orange in the last 10 years, around the time they opened their new arena. Incidentally, the forerunner of UTA was an agricultural college and was part of the A&M system until 1965.

Hopefully, SFA will be able to keep their name and colors as long as possible.

I'm not worried. SFA used to have red accents that had more orange to it than UTMB's "orange" which is really a red. If we had to we could go back to that.

I truly think the name is safe for atleast 25 years. I know some like Pan American got changed with mergers, but folks will be yelling about erasing history and chaining themselves to SFA's campus.

It's wild to think that UTA used to be an ag college.

SFA is a hard name to get rid of. I think Lamar and Sam Houston St. are pretty safe too.

(11-29-2022 08:45 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  I truly think the name is safe for atleast 25 years. I know some like Pan American got changed with mergers, but folks will be yelling about erasing history and chaining themselves to SFA's campus.

The UT System acquired four schools since 1965:

Arlington State became UT-Arlington.
Texas Western became UT-El Paso.
Graduate Research Center of the Southwest became UT-Dallas.
Texas Eastern became UT-Tyler.

See a pattern here?

(11-29-2022 09:35 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 08:45 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  I truly think the name is safe for atleast 25 years. I know some like Pan American got changed with mergers, but folks will be yelling about erasing history and chaining themselves to SFA's campus.

The UT System acquired four schools since 1965:

Arlington State became UT-Arlington.
Texas Western became UT-El Paso.
Graduate Research Center of the Southwest became UT-Dallas.
Texas Eastern became UT-Tyler.

See a pattern here?

Yes. None of them were named after the father of Texas.

(11-29-2022 09:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 09:35 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 08:45 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  I truly think the name is safe for atleast 25 years. I know some like Pan American got changed with mergers, but folks will be yelling about erasing history and chaining themselves to SFA's campus.

The UT System acquired four schools since 1965:

Arlington State became UT-Arlington.
Texas Western became UT-El Paso.
Graduate Research Center of the Southwest became UT-Dallas.
Texas Eastern became UT-Tyler.

See a pattern here?

Yes. None of them were named after the father of Texas.

Yup. Folks always leave that part out.

Also UT Tyler joined the system in the 1970s right? And that's the most recent one on this list?

So nearly 50 years? Times have changed on renaming institutions.

Technically, the university is called Stephen F. Austin State University; any chance it's changed to Stephen F. Austin University? Drop the State?

(11-29-2022 10:20 PM)rtist Wrote:  Technically, the university is called Stephen F. Austin State University; any chance it's changed to Stephen F. Austin University? Drop the State?

Probably not. It doesn't make it too much shorter and some of the school chants would have to be changed.

The likely biggest risk in the future is UT SFA. Which doesn't sound terrible tbh, but I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, and folks would still call us SFA for all practical purposes.

Basically I think SFASU is here to stay long enough that it'll have unchangeable inertia even within the UT system and thus the name is safe in perpetuity.

I'd imagine that somewhere on the websites and signage you might see, SFA, a UT member school, to lean into the academic brand.

Congratulations to SFA for voting to join the UT System, a highly professional and well-run system with resources.

There will be immediate benefits to SFA and over time there will be more, such as a bump in new facilities funding and access to STARS funds for the recruitment and retention of top faculty. You can expect your already well-regarded forestry program to become the best in Texas.

A&M System made a solid offer and might have been a good cultural fit, but they could not beat UT. First, the UT System has more money, but, secondly, if A&M offered too much more than they did, they would make their other institutions (outside of College Station) unhappy.

SFA could not have failed to notice that UT institutions outside of Austin have made huge strides over, say, the last 20 years. UTA, UTD, UTSA, and UTEP are all R1. UTA, UTD, and UTSA are all Texas Tier One (along with Houston and Texas Tech). There is nothing even remotely like this in any other Texas system. (There are a couple of other Texas schools striving for Texas Tier One, but they have a long way to go...and they are in small-time systems with less resources.)

At this moment, UTA has nearly a quarter billion in construction underway or approved and in planning. I bet UTA has had close to a billion dollars of new construction over the last 15 years or so. Much of this is from PUF funding straight from the regents. UTD, UTSA, and UTEP could provide similar figures.

If you go to the more regional institutions in the UT System, they are making huge strides. UT Tyler, also in East Texas, recently got a full-fledged medical school and very large medical facilities funding a few weeks ago. UTRGV is getting a lot of love and also got a new medical school. Look for them to be R1 in time.

There was one Aggie-oriented SFA regent who apparently expressed concern that the UT System, in 10 or 15 years, might change their name. This is highly unlikely as far as mortal eyes can see. 1) The System put it in writing that SFA can keep its name, and 2) Stephen F. Austin is the Father of Texas.

A few other side comments:

1) I also wonder if SFA itself decides to drop "State" from its name.
2) Yes, UTA was an ag college. It was a LONG time ago. The college farm was where the baseball stadium, softball stadium, intramural fields, and Maverick Stadium are now. In those days we had a super-heated rivalry with nearby John Tarleton.
3) UTA joined the UT System in 1965. The academic colors changed to orange and white shortly thereafter. (Look at the orange seals on diplomas from around 1969-70 on and old printed literature.) Athletically, we added orange to the traditional blue and white in the early 2000s. Personally, I like it, and, if you want to be part of the team and ask regents for funding, you gotta act like you are part of the team. (SFA will be excepted from this with the up-front understanding. You will see references to the UT System as sub-headings, etc. Maybe there will be some orange with that.)
4) SFA is a nice add to the System. SFA is unique and respected, and their capabilities will now grow and benefit the people of Texas. Not every college in Texas would generate the level of interest that SFA did. (A few would get practically zero interest.)

(11-29-2022 11:23 PM)UTArlingtonMaverick Wrote:  Congratulations to SFA for voting to join the UT System, a highly professional and well-run system with resources.

There will be immediate benefits to SFA and over time there will be more, such as a bump in new facilities funding and access to STARS funds for the recruitment and retention of top faculty. You can expect your already well-regarded forestry program to become the best in Texas.

A&M System made a solid offer and might have been a good cultural fit, but they could not beat UT. First, the UT System has more money, but, secondly, if A&M offered too much more than they did, they would make their other institutions (outside of College Station) unhappy.

SFA could not have failed to notice that UT institutions outside of Austin have made huge strides over, say, the last 20 years. UTA, UTD, UTSA, and UTEP are all R1. UTA, UTD, and UTSA are all Texas Tier One (along with Houston and Texas Tech). There is nothing even remotely like this in any other Texas system. (There are a couple of other Texas schools striving for Texas Tier One, but they have a long way to go...and they are in small-time systems with less resources.)

At this moment, UTA has nearly a quarter billion in construction underway or approved and in planning. I bet UTA has had close to a billion dollars of new construction over the last 15 years or so. Much of this is from PUF funding straight from the regents. UTD, UTSA, and UTEP could provide similar figures.

If you go to the more regional institutions in the UT System, they are making huge strides. UT Tyler, also in East Texas, recently got a full-fledged medical school and very large medical facilities funding a few weeks ago. UTRGV is getting a lot of love and also got a new medical school. Look for them to be R1 in time.

There was one Aggie-oriented SFA regent who apparently expressed concern that the UT System, in 10 or 15 years, might change their name. This is highly unlikely as far as mortal eyes can see. 1) The System put it in writing that SFA can keep its name, and 2) Stephen F. Austin is the Father of Texas.

A few other side comments:

1) I also wonder if SFA itself decides to drop "State" from its name.
2) Yes, UTA was an ag college. It was a LONG time ago. The college farm was where the baseball stadium, softball stadium, intramural fields, and Maverick Stadium are now. In those days we had a super-heated rivalry with nearby John Tarleton.
3) UTA joined the UT System in 1965. The academic colors changed to orange and white shortly thereafter. (Look at the orange seals on diplomas from around 1969-70 on and old printed literature.) Athletically, we added orange to the traditional blue and white in the early 2000s. Personally, I like it, and, if you want to be part of the team and ask regents for funding, you gotta act like you are part of the team. (SFA will be excepted from this with the up-front understanding. You will see references to the UT System as sub-headings, etc. Maybe there will be some orange with that.)
4) SFA is a nice add to the System. SFA is unique and respected, and their capabilities will now grow and benefit the people of Texas. Not every college in Texas would generate the level of interest that SFA did. (A few would get practically zero interest.)

All of this. UT is going to be a fantastic partner and we intended to be a great one as well.

Also this will mark 3 UT schools in the WAC.

SFA will join C-USA. I'm of the opinion it will happen by 2026 or sooner.

(11-30-2022 12:39 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Financial stability and growth will allow the university to have more funds and free up others.

This will enable them to spend more and develop athletics including the ability to afford FBS football.

According to the Texas A&M system chancellor UT offered SFA FOUR times more money than his system. Just for starters the UT system will give 5.5 million for faculty raises and one million for student scholarships. SFA will retain its autonomy, NAME, nickname, colors, etc..

Being part of the Texas system will also give SFA access to the PERMANENT UNIVERSITY FUND (PUF).
The PUF rakes in BILLIONS annually. The proceeds come from mineral rights from TEXAS government owned land ( 2.1 million acres)-- oil, natural gas, and other mineral rights. Texas system gets a 2/3 share of these monies while the A&M system gets 1/3-- this is set in stone in their Constitution. NOT every university in Texas EVEN has this access. Thru a complicated formula schools part of the PUF get money grants each year-- in addition to funding from the state legislature. Some of these grants are fairly large.

Some advantages for SFA and ATHLETICS:

--monies will be added to the Athletic budget as the school will no longer be strapped for cash; enrollment growth helps increase athletic funds

-- PUF dollars are sometimes used to fund special projects-- stadium enhancements, etc.

-- RIVALRY with SHSU will be great for attendance and interest

Enrollment almost 12,000 now will grow because of funding (in a major way) for certain programs AND increased scholarship monies

SFA has faced declining enrollment while most Texas schools have grown--these actions show that will be reversed.

The main reason SFA could not move to FBS was due to these issues.
Now that they have the $upport of the UT system they will have the funds. It will take some time but the ball has started rolling. Their FB coach is already campaigning for FBS.

***LUMBERJACKS to C-USA IMHO!***

GEOGRAPHY-- This starts the "plan" to go to twelve teams-- six WEST-- six EAST to make the league more travel friendly and cut costs. Now the conference will look for one more in the WEST OR Central region as a 12th member IMO.

SFA to SHSU-- 1H 45min

SFA to LA TECH-- 2H 40min

Nacogdoches- Lufkin MSA estimated population over 160,000

(SFA to Lufkin 25min.)

>>>OF COURSE IF some big dominoes fall or anyone leaves C-USA then the league would have to re-shuffle the numbers, East-West, etc., etc..

SOURCE for some of this information: Texas Tribune.org, Kate McGhee ; Yahoo Sports and other Texas TV and publications.

(11-29-2022 01:12 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  So the UT-Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks?

The main campus of the system is: University of Texas at Austin. If not for another campus in an "A" city, it might be known as "UTA" or "atu" in some parts of Texas.

It would be confusing to have UT-Austin and UT-Stephen F Austin.

(11-29-2022 09:03 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 07:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 06:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 05:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't understand what is in it for UT. There is already a UT school in Tyler.

They have to beat A&M lol. There is no other reason necessary is there? I don't even blame them, I wish that we'd come with a stronger offer. SFA is a quality school with good long term potential.

A&M really makes more sense with their Forestry department. Maybe that is what UT wanted, an entry into a different field.

What made SFA so valuable is that there are only so many college with a traditional "go off to college" experience with a strong community around it & SFA is one of them and one of the last ones in play for expanding systems.

It also helps that there are synergies to be gained by not having every school fit the same profile, which helps both UT & SFA.

With that in mind, it makes sense. SFA and UT-Tyler are an hour apart, but are two different types of schools. SFA is a traditional residential university with a long history. UT-Tyler was founded in 1971, but only started offering lower division courses in 1988...it previously only offered 3rd and 4th year courses.

So, yes, SFA is a better fit for the A&M system, but they're getting a better deal from the UT system. Great deal for SFA, some benefit for UT.