Against UT for illegally developing a campus in Houston. You are free to do that now.

Okay...

good luck with that

The better lawsuit may be antitrust one and name the conferences as well as FOX/ESPN as defendants.

(10-17-2016 02:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Against UT for illegally developing a campus in Houston. You are free to do that now.

Or you could just indiscriminately and without reason say "They are rigging the system, it's a rigged system folks" over and over and over. Some folks seem to be biting on that bait elsewhere.

(10-17-2016 03:04 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  The better lawsuit may be antitrust one and name the conferences as well as FOX/ESPN as defendants.

I agree.

The only bright side to today is we can now fight UT-Houston whole hog.

Add that to the injuries & weather thread.................

(10-17-2016 04:18 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Add that to the injuries & weather thread.................

(10-17-2016 04:18 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Add that to the injuries & weather thread.................

You beat me to it

but something interesting to note, is according to trotter ut and ttech were the first to leave and left early

remember the governor said it was UH or no one ...maybe ut and texas block held strong to that and the other non-texas wanted elsewhere ..so it ended up as no one

mcmurphy said it wasnt that they didnt want expansion but that no one could get the votes..you need the texas bloc for the votes needed to expand for anyone

(10-17-2016 04:16 PM)justin_sane15 Wrote:  The only bright side to today is we can now fight UT-Houston whole hog.

Houston won't though

(10-17-2016 04:40 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 04:16 PM)justin_sane15 Wrote:  The only bright side to today is we can now fight UT-Houston whole hog.

Houston won't though

And why not? They have no leverage anymore.

(10-17-2016 04:38 PM)pesik Wrote:  but something interesting to note, is according to trotter ut and ttech were the first to leave and left early

remember the governor said it was UH or no one ...maybe ut and texas block held strong to that and the other non-texas wanted elsewhere ..so it ended up as no one

mcmurphy said it wasnt that they didnt want expansion but that no one could get the votes..you need the texas bloc for the votes needed to expand for anyone

Texas left because the b12 are buffoons. Tex tech left because their lips are attached to Texas scrotum

(10-17-2016 04:38 PM)pesik Wrote:  but something interesting to note, is according to trotter ut and ttech were the first to leave and left early

remember the governor said it was UH or no one ...maybe ut and texas block held strong to that and the other non-texas wanted elsewhere ..so it ended up as no one

mcmurphy said it wasnt that they didnt want expansion but that no one could get the votes..you need the texas bloc for the votes needed to expand for anyone

You go ahead and tell yourself it was because Houston was not voted on

(10-17-2016 02:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Against UT for illegally developing a campus in Houston.

On what grounds?

(10-17-2016 05:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 02:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Against UT for illegally developing a campus in Houston.

On what grounds?

None. The only thing UH can do is get some sympathetic alumni in the state legislature to complain. Which will make a little noise but nothing will be done with the complaints.

Besides, the "UT-Houston" project is being initiated by the UT System not UT Austin. This is no different than the Texas A&M system dropping a new campus in UTSA's footprint.

(10-17-2016 06:36 PM)LRP Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 05:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 02:56 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Against UT for illegally developing a campus in Houston.

On what grounds?

None. The only thing UH can do is get some sympathetic alumni in the state legislature to complain. Which will make a little noise but nothing will be done with the complaints.

Besides, the "UT-Houston" project is being initiated by the UT System not UT Austin. This is no different than the Texas A&M system dropping a new campus in UTSA's footprint.

there is legal grounds...we already had this discussion before.. there are laws in texas about about zoning universities. techincally buying te land itself could be viewed as illegal

there is a reason UT wont call it a school or "ut-houston"..they keep walking around it trying not to break any laws and always refer to it as a intellectual hub

and no offense, utsa is a sister school, you arent the main school in the UT system, i doubt youd have anywhere the power UH would in preventing another campus ,with our own BoR and state sponsorship...

we have UH victoria..if a&m wanted to make a A&M Victoria i doubt we could do squat about it and likely wouldn't even fight it...its not the same with your main campus

And there are legal ground to put Hillary Clinton in jail but instead, she'll likely be president.