University Debates: Sports, Fundings, And Developments

[Twinsanity02]

 

^^^ we even pray bigger...

 

 

 

 

^^^ we even pray bigger...

 

 

 

[Twinsanity02]

Thanks Monarch, that is witty.Still laughing

[jmitch94]

As has been pointed out earlier, UH is getting its fair share of state funding. As an outsider to this whole state school funding issue, its getting pretty old hearing from UH alumni about how bad they've got it by the state. Its clear the administration has been lacking up until recently, and the school has gone without the support from its alumni that the other state schools receive (possibly due to the historical nature of being a commuter school?). Fortunately for UH times are changing, peoples perceptions of the university are changing, and the school is creating a campus culture.. Y'all should be proud of what the school has been accomplishing as of late.

 

Fair share of state funding would be ALL (not just UH) state schools getting a portion of the PUF fund respective to their enrollment.

 

I think it is best for me just to stop coming to this thread seeing nothing involving the actual development is being discussed.  

[ADCS]

Fair share of state funding would be ALL (not just UH) state schools getting a portion of the PUF fund respective to their enrollment.

 

I think it is best for me just to stop coming to this thread seeing nothing involving the actual development is being discussed.  

 

Yet that is not what the PUF is for - it's to fund the state flagship systems. If you think it should be spread wider, then perhaps we should consider a reorganization of the state's public universities under the California model.

[KinkaidAlum]

As said below, that's really not that disproportionate, given population.

 

Non-Greater Houston Population of TX: 20.34 million, 75.4%

Greater Houston: 6.62 million, 24.6%

 

UT proportion of UT/UH state funding pool: 81.1%

UH proportion of UT/UH state funding pool: 18.9%

 

Considering that UT serves Houston students as well, state funding is fairly equitable given each school's mission. We need to stop thinking of our public universities as being in competition with one another. This ain't football here.

 

So, you're implying that UH isn't open to all Texans? That people outside of Greater Houston pay out-of-city tuition? That there are no students from Austin, DFW, The Rio Grande Valley, or Piney Woods at UH?

 

I really don't understand your point at all. 

[H-Town Man]

I have said it before on this forum someplace but will say it again, my old history professor at U of H, Dr. Stanley Siegel once told the class, "The University of Texas and Texas A&M get 1/2 the budget...the other 17 schools share the other half...the University of Texas has not one but three Gutenberg Bibles."

That quote stuck with me.

Just to note, they did not get their Gutenberg from the state legislature, or from its funds. It was a private gift. Not to mention, a brilliant one that no one else thought of. Having some very rich alumni who think outside the typical Texas box (i.e. "let's make our school great by building up the football team") goes a long way.

[ADCS]

So, you're implying that UH isn't open to all Texans? That people outside of Greater Houston pay out-of-city tuition? That there are no students from Austin, DFW, The Rio Grande Valley, or Piney Woods at UH?

 

I really don't understand your point at all. 

 

Are you saying that the vast majority of UH students don't come from the Houston metro?

[shasta]

Are you saying that the vast majority of UH students don't come from the Houston metro?

 

They come from all over.....there is also a huge international factor with UH students as in they come to the United States to study at the University of Houston.

[KinkaidAlum]

Are you saying that the vast majority of UH students don't come from the Houston metro?

 

I am saying that the University of Houston, like the University of Texas, is a STATE school open equally to everyone across the state. To claim that it should be funded less money because it only serves Greater Houston is factually incorrect. 

 

Also, interesting to see Falkenberg, a UT grad, write a column tonight about why UH should be leery of UT's Houston plans after the Chronicle Editorial Board met with UT top brass.

[monarch]

I am saying that the University of Houston, like the University of Texas, is a STATE school open equally to everyone across the state. To claim that it should be funded less money because it only serves Greater Houston is factually incorrect. 

 

Also, interesting to see Falkenberg, a UT grad, write a column tonight about why UH should be leery of UT's Houston plans after the Chronicle Editorial Board met with UT top brass.

 

^^^ falkenberg shall learn.. just like all of the others have had to learn...

[enriquewx91]

When it comes to sports I may not like t.u but as an institution damn I respect them! So just build the damn thing already!

[Houston19514]

FWIW, I thought it would be interesting to note that, as of 2013, approximately 76.1% of UH's students were from the metro area.  I suspect that percentage has declined a bit since then.  (It declined from 76.8% in 2012 to 76.1% in 2013.)

Edited December 21, 2015 by Houston19514

[kdog08]

Seems like a lot of posters need to take a look at what UT Is actually proposing. Hint: it's not UT-Houston or any other sort of full degree-granting campus.

 

You're right. It seems, as I mentioned earlier, they are building a UT-Dallas type of campus. I'd recommend folks reading up on UTD as that is something that would be very beneficial.

 

However, it does beg the question as how the state views UH and it's goals. Does UT support UH in the Big 12? What role will UH play in research? It would certainly be smart of the UT system and the state of Texas to explicitly state the goals and plans for a UT expansion and UH's place in the future. 

[ADCS]

Does UT support UH in the Big 12?

 

The fact that this keeps coming back to football is demonstrative of a need for UH to reevaluate its priorities.

[Fringe]

The fact that this keeps coming back to football is demonstrative of a need for UH to reevaluate its priorities.

 

Does that mean there's not going to be a football stadium at the new UT research campus? 

[htownproud]

You're right. It seems, as I mentioned earlier, they are building a UT-Dallas type of campus. I'd recommend folks reading up on UTD as that is something that would be very beneficial.

 

However, it does beg the question as how the state views UH and it's goals. Does UT support UH in the Big 12? What role will UH play in research? It would certainly be smart of the UT system and the state of Texas to explicitly state the goals and plans for a UT expansion and UH's place in the future. 

I'm confused.  The post you replied to said that it was not going to be a full degree-granting campus and not a UT-Houston.  You agreed, and then said it would be like UT-Dallas, which is a full degree-granting campus.  In other words, you seem to say it will be exactly what the original poster said it would not be.  

 

Perhaps I had too much eggnog over the holidays . . . .

[Moore713]

Anyone else get that bush crying about hobby vibe from this.

[kdog08]

The fact that this keeps coming back to football is demonstrative of a need for UH to reevaluate its priorities.

 

It's not just about athletics, but it's pretty clear that UH is investing in athletics. College football is somewhat of a big deal not only in the state of Texas, but nationally, in terms of interest and revenue. I'm not sure if you are an Aggie or Longhorn but their athletics have an impact on their institutions from an image standpoint, recruiting students, having a strong alumni base, etc.. It is big business and people want to be part of a campus with that sort of "it" factor.

 

However, the Big 12 is just part of the several issues that need to be clarified from UT, which I don't think is unreasonable. 

Edited January 1, 2016 by kdog08

[kdog08]

I'm confused.  The post you replied to said that it was not going to be a full degree-granting campus and not a UT-Houston.  You agreed, and then said it would be like UT-Dallas, which is a full degree-granting campus.  In other words, you seem to say it will be exactly what the original poster said it would not be.  

 

Perhaps I had too much eggnog over the holidays . . . .

 

I think I had too much eggnog...

 

I guess my point was that UTD was a research driven university in a major metro area, which is how it seems this campus is being billed in Houston. You're absolutely right, UTD is a full degree-granting campus, they just have a large percentage of grad students. 

[HoustonIsHome]

Are not all Tier one universities research driven?

[kdog08]

Are not all Tier one universities research driven?

 

I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about academia, but UTD has ~24000 students with an undergrad to grad ratio ~2:1 while UH has ~43000 students with a ratio ~4:1. Everything I glance at seems to suggest UTD is one of the most selective public schools in Texas so I imagine it's a step above UH in pure academic quality. 

 

So to answer your question, they are but they aren't necessarily equal. Not that I necessarily think UTD is better than UH but it clearly punches above its weight, much like how Rice punches above its weight for a small school. 

Edited January 1, 2016 by kdog08

[HoustonIsHome]

I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about academia, but UTD has ~24000 students with an undergrad to grad ratio ~2:1 while UH has ~43000 students with a ratio ~4:1. Everything I glance at seems to suggest UTD is one of the most selective public schools in Texas so I imagine it's a step above UH in pure academic quality.

So to answer your question, they are but they aren't necessarily equal. Not that I necessarily think UTD is better than UH but it clearly punches above its weight, much like how Rice punches above its weight for a small school.

The undergrad to grad ratio is meaningless.

UTD is nothing like Rice and is more selective than Rice but far from the most selective in the State.

A step above UH? Nope. They are both on the same level overall. Some may site UH as Tier one, which would mean it is actually the one that is a step above UTD in academic quality, but to me they are about the same

Edit: this site shows the acceptance rates for both at 58%

http://colleges.startclass.com/d/b/Public/Texas

Edited January 1, 2016 by HoustonIsHome

[kdog08]

The undergrad to grad ratio is meaningless.

UTD is nothing like Rice and is more selective than Rice but far from the most selective in the State.

A step above UH? Nope. They are both on the same level overall. Some may site UH as Tier one, which would mean it is actually the one that is a step above UTD in academic quality, but to me they are about the same

Edit: this site shows the acceptance rates for both at 58%

http://colleges.startclass.com/d/b/Public/Texas

 

I disagree it is meaningless as UTD clearly puts a higher emphasis on graduates. I'm really not trying to get into a "my school is bigger than this school" argument, from your link it shows UTD has the highest average SAT score and 2nd highest "smart rating", whatever that maybe, Clearly I looked at data that was a few years old as UH seems to have risen quite recently in their acceptance rate but UTD is still in the top tier. My point was that UTD isn't like your traditional satellite school or mid-tier state school like UT-Arlington or Texas State University, it seems to serve a higher purpose for the UT system. If UT wants to make Houston its "research hub" then we should have a clear plan.

 

Lastly my only comparison to Rice was that it was a school that punches above it's weight.

[HoustonIsHome]

I disagree it is meaningless as UTD clearly puts a higher emphasis on graduates. I'm really not trying to get into a "my school is bigger than this school" argument, from your link it shows UTD has the highest average SAT score and 2nd highest "smart rating", whatever that maybe, Clearly I looked at data that was a few years old as UH seems to have risen quite recently in their acceptance rate but UTD is still in the top tier. My point was that UTD isn't like your traditional satellite school or mid-tier state school like UT-Arlington or Texas State University, it seems to serve a higher purpose for the UT system. If UT wants to make Houston its "research hub" then we should have a clear plan.

Lastly my only comparison to Rice was that it was a school that punches above it's weight.

And a higher emphasis on graduates dor nit mean that the school is selective.

As for Rice what do you mean punch above its weight? Rice is arguably the 2nd highest rank school in the south. It's ranked higher than Emory, a bit higher than Tulane and way higher than Vanderbilt.

The SAT scores is but one metric and can't be looked at by itself. Doesn't UTD have higher average SAT scores than UT Austin and A&M? UTD works that metric, it's their thing, but it no way is UTD top tier like you are saying.

The Top Public Research schools are:

UT Austin

A&M

Then Tech and UH are next.

As for a purely research facility, I think everyone welcomes that, my problem with it was I didn't want it to fragment and dilute TMC (I don't want ten mini TMC, like we have 10 mini Business District and no good ones.

But anyway, no one knows what UT is planning. UT doesn't even know what UT is planning.

[ADCS]

It's not just about athletics, but it's pretty clear that UH is investing in athletics. College football is somewhat of a big deal not only in the state of Texas, but nationally, in terms of interest and revenue. I'm not sure if you are an Aggie or Longhorn but their athletics have an impact on their institutions from an image standpoint, recruiting students, having a strong alumni base, etc.. It is big business and people want to be part of a campus with that sort of "it" factor.

 

However, the Big 12 is just part of the several issues that need to be clarified from UT, which I don't think is unreasonable. 

 

Big-time athletics makes sense as a fundraiser for a flagship state school, or a private school with a large endowment, owing both to the large and/or wealthy alumni base, and the resources to weather the down times. It doesn't make sense for a school like UH, whose market niche is very different from UT, A&M, LSU or Notre Dame.

 

Yes, it's a very silly way for rich people to feel important - and it works, once you get to a certain scale. UH isn't at that scale, and likely never will be, and it's only a matter of time before the spending on athletics turns to frivolity and severely harms the bottom line. If the school really wants to make its mark, it needs to be looking at doing different, dynamic and disruptive things, and not trying to out-UT the state flagship.

 

FYI - neither Aggie or Longhorn

[BigFootsSocks]

Idk, it makes sense to me when we upset #9 FSU in a bowl game, which means we're gonna be ranked pretty high next year.

[KinkaidAlum]

How does anyone know what UT is planning? The reason there is a stink is that the UT brass violated the laws of Texas by purchasing this land without approval. If any other school in this state spent hundreds of millions of dollars without going through the proper channels, people would be up in arms. UT broke laws. They think they are above laws. They are not. We, the people, deserve direct answers and not pr speak.

 

Again, I might support these plans if I knew what they were. I'd also have been more likely to have supported them from the start if they had followed protocol.

[H-Town Man]

Big-time athletics makes sense as a fundraiser for a flagship state school, or a private school with a large endowment, owing both to the large and/or wealthy alumni base, and the resources to weather the down times. It doesn't make sense for a school like UH, whose market niche is very different from UT, A&M, LSU or Notre Dame.

 

Yes, it's a very silly way for rich people to feel important - and it works, once you get to a certain scale. UH isn't at that scale, and likely never will be, and it's only a matter of time before the spending on athletics turns to frivolity and severely harms the bottom line. If the school really wants to make its mark, it needs to be looking at doing different, dynamic and disruptive things, and not trying to out-UT the state flagship.

 

FYI - neither Aggie or Longhorn

 

You make some good points, but big-time athletics does not make sense as a fundraiser for anything. Schools like UT and A&M do not see $1 of benefit from their athletic programs, and in A&M's case it's actually a drain, as all students must pay a fee to support the new stadium. The only ancillary "benefit" that the sports programs offer is that they homogenize the school's culture towards enthusiasm for sports, so that any student who does not happen to be a football fan always feels somewhat out of place at the state's leading public universities.

 

As a disclaimer, I am a lifetime fan of Aggie football, to the point where I'll even spend four hours listening to Dave South call play-by-play if I can't see the game on tv. But the place is becoming an athletic program with a university attached to it, not a university with an athletic program attached.

[HoustonIsHome]

How does anyone know what UT is planning? The reason there is a stink is that the UT brass violated the laws of Texas by purchasing this land without approval. If any other school in this state spent hundreds of millions of dollars without going through the proper channels, people would be up in arms. UT broke laws. They think they are above laws. They are not. We, the people, deserve direct answers and not pr speak.

Again, I might support these plans if I knew what they were. I'd also have been more likely to have supported them from the start if they had followed protocol.

They didn't break any laws, but they did split with protocol. They would still need to go through the board to develop an in situation of higher learning, they would have had to go seek permission of they were using state funds, but there is nothing illegal about them purchasing property with their own funds

[HoustonIsHome]

You make some good points, but big-time athletics does not make sense as a fundraiser for anything. Schools like UT and A&M do not see $1 of benefit from their athletic programs, and in A&M's case it's actually a drain, as all students must pay a fee to support the new stadium. The only ancillary "benefit" that the sports programs offer is that they homogenize the school's culture towards enthusiasm for sports, so that any student who does not happen to be a football fan always feels somewhat out of place at the state's leading public universities.

As a disclaimer, I am a lifetime fan of Aggie football, to the point where I'll even spend four hours listening to Dave South call play-by-play if I can't see the game on tv. But the place is becoming an athletic program with a university attached to it, not a university with an athletic program attached.

Are you kidding me?

UT was number freaking 1 in the country for profits from longhorn merchandizing.

UT has been #1 for a decade generating a billion http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9560094/texas-longhorns-again-top-merchandise-sales-list

I dunno what drain you are talking about UT operating budget for football in 2013 was $27M, their ticket sales alone brought in $34M. Add in merchandizing, and other revenue and the total for that year was 109M. That's huge profits. http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/uts-football-program-is-the-most-profitable-in-the-country-by-a-lot/

Last year was even better for UT athletics, they made 180M.

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2015/12/22/10642206/texas-longhorns-athletic-department-profits

Like it or not, sports add prestige in more ways than one.

And Conferences had a lot to do with it. Here is a quote from the link above:

Eighteen of the 28 schools at $100 million play in the SEC or Big Ten. Athletic departments in those conferences averaged more than $100 million in revenue, widening the financial gaps between the SEC and Big Ten with everyone else. Ten of the 19 biggest moneymakers last year came from the SEC.

UT makes more on sports than some schools entire endowment. TSU endowment is only 50M. St Thomas is 80M. Houston Baptist is 90M.

Another interesting factoid. From 2008 to 2014 UH transferred 106M from its academics department to athletics. During the same period UT did the opposite transferring 51M from its athletics department to its already swollen academic coffers.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/03/quest-top-tier-u-houston-spends-big-athletics/

It's good to be UT.

Edited January 2, 2016 by HoustonIsHome

[Houston19514]

How does anyone know what UT is planning? The reason there is a stink is that the UT brass violated the laws of Texas by purchasing this land without approval. If any other school in this state spent hundreds of millions of dollars without going through the proper channels, people would be up in arms. UT broke laws. They think they are above laws. They are not. We, the people, deserve direct answers and not pr speak.

Again, I might support these plans if I knew what they were. I'd also have been more likely to have supported them from the start if they had followed protocol.

What laws of Texas have they violated?

[H-Town Man]

Are you kidding me?

UT was number freaking 1 in the country for profits from longhorn merchandizing.

UT has been #1 for a decade generating a billion http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9560094/texas-longhorns-again-top-merchandise-sales-list

I dunno what drain you are talking about UT operating budget for football in 2013 was $27M, their ticket sales alone brought in $34M. Add in merchandizing, and other revenue and the total for that year was 109M. That's huge profits. http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/uts-football-program-is-the-most-profitable-in-the-country-by-a-lot/

Last year was even better for UT athletics, they made 180M.

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2015/12/22/10642206/texas-longhorns-athletic-department-profits

Like it or not, sports add prestige in more ways than one.

And Conferences had a lot to do with it. Here is a quote from the link above:

UT makes more on sports than some schools entire endowment. TSU endowment is only 50M. St Thomas is 80M. Houston Baptist is 90M.

Another interesting factoid. From 2008 to 2014 UH transferred 106M from its academics department to athletics. During the same period UT did the opposite transferring 51M from its athletics department to its already swollen academic coffers.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/03/quest-top-tier-u-houston-spends-big-athletics/

It's good to be UT.

 

Well obviously athletics makes money for athletics. But the point to which I responded was that athletics supposedly "makes sense as a fundraiser for a flagship state school," i.e. that it somehow brings money to the rest of the school. If it is true as you say that UT gave $51 million to the school's academics, then that is a helpful fact (the only one in your post), and something I did not realize. At A&M, the opposite has happened.

 

Lastly, from an athletic standpoint, is it really good to be UT right now? Really?

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by H-Town Man

[HoustonIsHome]

Well obviously athletics makes money for athletics. But the point to which I responded was that athletics supposedly "makes sense as a fundraiser for a flagship state school," i.e. that it somehow brings money to the rest of the school. If it is true as you say that UT gave $51 million to the school's academics, then that is a helpful fact (the only one in your post), and something I did not realize. At A&M, the opposite has happened.

Lastly, from an athletic standpoint, is it really good to be UT right now? Really?

Less than a dozen schools in all of the US make a profit from athletics. Which camp would to like to be in? The big conference group that includes UT and A&M that get a net of $51M to -$15M as is the case of UT and A&M respectively, or would you rather be in the small conference group that get -$10M to -$100M as is the case with Rice and UH respectively?

The money gets spent either way. That won't be changing. What might change is the conference UH gets placed in. And that has big implications for the school.

I don't know about you but a net decrease in academic budget of 10M to me is much better than a net decrease of 100M. UH will do what it has to do to increase its image, and if it saves money doing that by being in a more lucrative conference then it is affront to the school if UT doesn't want them being in that conference.

And to back track, yes, athletic do not directly contribute to fundraising unless you are UT or a handful of other schools, but it does impact school economics in terms of branding, national exposure and who chooses to go there. I worked with high school student for years from many schools. All the boys wanted to go to school in Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc. Not because these are wonderful places to be. They wanted to go there because of the sports programs.

Now these are not the brightest bulbs of the pack, but still when your student body looks at their city's flagship university as a last result then we have an image problem. With the girls they wanted to be out of town to be away from parents, and that is typical with any high schooler in the country, but a good sports department does help with attracting students. I hate to say it, but for some UH is far from first choice.

And lastly, yes it is good to be UT right now. No matter what the scores say, a 180M gross is hella good.

[monarch]

Well obviously athletics makes money for athletics. But the point to which I responded was that athletics supposedly "makes sense as a fundraiser for a flagship state school," i.e. that it somehow brings money to the rest of the school. If it is true as you say that UT gave $51 million to the school's academics, then that is a helpful fact (the only one in your post), and something I did not realize. At A&M, the opposite has happened.

 

Lastly, from an athletic standpoint, is it really good to be UT right now? Really?

 

^^^ and that is houstonishome's whole point.  even during our football programs losing seasons...

we are still NUMBER #1 at generating athletics revenue throughout this vast country.

it is quite telling that you may present this very provocative query my pal h-townman, but somehow we are all abreast to the fact that you are already aware of the answer...

TEXAS is gonna TEXAS...

 

[H-Town Man]

Less than a dozen schools in all of the US make a profit from athletics. Which camp would to like to be in? The big conference group that includes UT and A&M that get a net of $51M to -$15M as is the case of UT and A&M respectively, or would you rather be in the small conference group that get -$10M to -$100M as is the case with Rice and UH respectively?

The money gets spent either way. That won't be changing. What might change is the conference UH gets placed in. And that has big implications for the school.

I don't know about you but a net decrease in academic budget of 10M to me is much better than a net decrease of 100M. UH will do what it has to do to increase its image, and if it saves money doing that by being in a more lucrative conference then it is affront to the school if UT doesn't want them being in that conference.

And to back track, yes, athletic do not directly contribute to fundraising unless you are UT or a handful of other schools, but it does impact school economics in terms of branding, national exposure and who chooses to go there. I worked with high school student for years from many schools. All the boys wanted to go to school in Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc. Not because these are wonderful places to be. They wanted to go there because of the sports programs.

Now these are not the brightest bulbs of the pack, but still when your student body looks at their city's flagship university as a last result then we have an image problem. With the girls they wanted to be out of town to be away from parents, and that is typical with any high schooler in the country, but a good sports department does help with attracting students. I hate to say it, but for some UH is far from first choice.

And lastly, yes it is good to be UT right now. No matter what the scores say, a 180M gross is hella good.

 

If athletics is not raising money for your school (and for the vast majority, it isn't), then it is silly to say that it benefits your school in some intangible way, unless you think that a university's culture should be dominated by sports. Of course there are many people attracted to certain schools because of those schools' athletic prowess. My modest contention is that, as far as the qualities that matter in a university, this does not help those schools at all. It creates a campus culture where you feel left out of the pack if you aren't into sports. It diminishes students' natural inquisitiveness and interest in things not sports-related (particularly in the liberal arts, the disciplines that universities were originally founded on), because the pack mentality of the school is so strong that it is easy to just fall in and stagnate. And this is a sad loss when we are talking about people at the entrance to adulthood.

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by H-Town Man

[H-Town Man]

 

^^^ and that is houstonishome's whole point.  even during our football programs losing seasons...

we are still NUMBER #1 at generating athletics revenue throughout this vast country.

it is quite telling that you may present this very provocative query my pal h-townman, but somehow we are all abreast to the fact that you are already aware of the answer...

TEXAS is gonna TEXAS...

 

 

 

If you have $180 million revenue and you can't even make it to a bowl game, the only thing amazing about your school is how spectacularly it just wasted $180 million.

 

The phrase "house of cards" comes to mind...

 

[HoustonIsHome]

You don't get it HTownman.

Like it or not Athletics do have tangible benefits to schools.

I am not that into sports, but I am fiercely loyal and competitive. I have not been to a rockets game in over 10 years, have not seen a texans game in years, the coogs, i know nothing about, but don't mess any of them. Even the owls. Heck, UHD doesn't even have teams but hey, if the gators were in something I would be behind. And I don't even like sports.

Point is school spirit is alive and well in those that don't even pay attention to the games.

[monarch]

If you have $180 million revenue and you can't even make it to a bowl game, the only thing amazing about your school is how spectacularly it just wasted $180 million.

 

The phrase "house of cards" comes to mind...

^^^ come now h-townman, this is just... silly...

[H-Town Man]

You don't get it HTownman.

Like it or not Athletics do have tangible benefits to schools.

I am not that into sports, but I am fiercely loyal and competitive. I have not been to a rockets game in over 10 years, have not seen a texans game in years, the coogs, i know nothing about, but don't mess any of them. Even the owls. Heck, UHD doesn't even have teams but hey, if the gators were in something I would be behind. And I don't even like sports.

Point is school spirit is alive and well in those that don't even pay attention to the games.

 

I think I used to get it, before I taught in the classroom at one of these big athletic schools. Now I get something different.

[shasta]

For those that are under the impression that teh Univesity of Houston football is NOT a big deal in the Houston market, check out these numbers.

 

The Houston/ Florida State Peach Bowl at 11:00 AM on a Wednesday (New Years Eve) on CABLE (ESPN) drew a 10.5 in the Houston metro.

By comparison, the annual Texas/ Oklahoma game, on local TV (ABC) on a Saturday drew a 7.2

 

When UH is big time...Houstonians care
 

Edited January 4, 2016 by shasta

[monarch]

For those that are under the impression that teh Univesity of Houston football is NOT a big deal in the Houston market, check out these numbers.

 

The Houston/ Florida State Peach Bowl at 11:00 AM on a Wednesday (New Years Eve) on CABLE (ESPN) drew a 10.5 in the Houston metro.

By comparison, the annual Texas/ Oklahoma game, on local TV (ABC) on a Saturday drew a 7.2

 

When UH is big time...Houstonians care

 

^^^ shasta, i love you my pal, however, i am not understanding your exact point here.  I BLEED BURNT ORANGE, and yet, not only was i watching that game from abroad and rooting for the cougars, i was cheering my head off!  of course the cable market share was going to be incredible for such a high profile game in houston.  heck, its the houston cougars!  now when you decide to move on down to the city of austin, tx during the annual RED RIVER RIVALRY between TEXAS and oklahoma (i shall not capitalize)... can you just imagine the cable viewing market draw during that particular game???  trust me my pal, it was indeed quite spectacular.  not to mention, TEXAS won!

[ADCS]

For those that are under the impression that teh Univesity of Houston football is NOT a big deal in the Houston market, check out these numbers.

 

The Houston/ Florida State Peach Bowl at 11:00 AM on a Wednesday (New Years Eve) on CABLE (ESPN) drew a 10.5 in the Houston metro.

By comparison, the annual Texas/ Oklahoma game, on local TV (ABC) on a Saturday drew a 7.2

 

When UH is big time...Houstonians care

 

 

That's only because Texas was crap up to that point, and not expected to win.

 

The important thing isn't so much that the best UH team in a generation managed to pull a high rating for a top-tier bowl, it's that Texas can still draw a 7.2 while playing its worst football in 20 years.

[KinkaidAlum]

You're missing the Saturday vs. Wednesday comparison. Time slot was the same (11 am local kickoff) but Wednesday is a work day for many, even on December 31st. Pulling a 10+ on a Wednesday morning is the news here. That's a HUGE rating. 

[monarch]

You're missing the Saturday vs. Wednesday comparison. Time slot was the same (11 am local kickoff) but Wednesday is a work day for many, even on December 31st. Pulling a 10+ on a Wednesday morning is the news here. That's a HUGE rating. 

^^^ just stop the DJ SPIN MACHINE.  no one is missing any "comparisons".  TEXAS was not expected to win last season's RED RIVER RIVALRY at the cotton bowl due to a very dismal gridiron season.  UH played FSU during new years football bowl week when many many many fans are sitting at home during their respective holiday vacations awaiting this HUGE matchup...  

[ADCS]

You're missing the Saturday vs. Wednesday comparison. Time slot was the same (11 am local kickoff) but Wednesday is a work day for many, even on December 31st. Pulling a 10+ on a Wednesday morning is the news here. That's a HUGE rating. 

 

We had the game on at the office. I would not have watched this game otherwise.

[bobruss]

Saw a few news articles on this today...

 

http://www.chron.com/news/education/article/UT-to-open-research-center-in-SW-Houston-6612665.php

 

 

 

 

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/05/ut-system-plans-open-new-campus-houston/

 

 I don't really care if Texas wants to spend billions of dollars buying land and

building a research center.

If that is really what they're goals are.

It just seems strange to me to see a rendering with football and baseball fields

along with four buildings that appear to be dormitories to their left in the renderings.

If Texas had done this in an upfront way by petitioning the state to get permission to come into Houston like all schools are supposed to do and made it clear of their intentions, I wouldn't be nearly as upset, but that's not what UT decided to do.

Its like they can do whatever they want and damned to anyone that doesn't like it.

I'm pretty sure that when U of H wanted to open a satellite campus in the Woodlands Spring area a few years back there was an uproar from A&M and Sam Houston State, saying that it was too close to their campuses, and it was cancelled. It wasn't even

planned for Huntsville or Bryan and yet it was still not approved.

I really don't care who has the best football program although I know that the UT

brand is down right now and a huge drain on Disney's value and bringing even more

pain to ESPN's bottom line. I don't think the UT network is even doing very well.

That is from an article in this weeks Houston Chronicle about ESPN and Disneys

value .

So go ahead and spend that money here. Since we don't get the funds someone should

be spending them here. Just don't say one thing and do another.

 

 

A copy of the presentation with some conceptual renderings is @

http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/news/university-of-texas-is-coming-to-houston/

 

 

 

[KinkaidAlum]

We had the game on at the office. I would not have watched this game otherwise.

 

Is your office a Nielson home?

[ADCS]

Is your office a Nielson home?

 

It's not, but it's indicative that many people in the Houston area might've had the game on, who would not otherwise be watching the game. 

[H-Town Man]

Is this the worst thread in the history of HAIF? Serious question.

 

And I acknowledged full responsibility for getting roped into it on multiple occasions.

 

[august948]

Is this the worst thread in the history of HAIF? Serious question.

 

And I acknowledged full responsibility for getting roped into it on multiple occasions.

 

Not even close.

 

Try putting a Walmart near The Heights and then stand back...

 

http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/23505-wal-mart-to-invade-the-heights/page-112