TSU Media Relations Special to Beneath the Surface News The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents has approved a $110 million capital project request to design and construct a convocation and event center in the heart of Tarleton State University’s main campus in Stephenville. “This is a tremendous day in Tarleton history,” said university President James Hurley.
https://www.beneaththesurfacenews.com/post/a-110...
Feedback

Link is busted.

Try the official link

Man, the A&M system is flush.

Great news for Tarleton and the WAC, though. Assuming y'all stay with the WAC....

(05-20-2022 11:04 AM)edinburger Wrote:  Man, the A&M system is flush.

Great news for Tarleton and the WAC, though. Assuming y'all stay with the WAC....

They will be gone the first time they get an invite. When will that come? Who knows.

Torkelton State is growing up and its cool to see.

It’s obvious the A&M system is fully on board with Tarleton’s desire to move to FBS when the opportunity arises and is willing to fund the move.

We will enjoy Tarleton’s Days in the WAC until they move on to ‘greener pastures.’

Must be nice to be rich.

(05-20-2022 04:54 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Must be nice to be rich.

*for daddy to be rich

For decades the A&M system was TAMU itself and all the others distinctly 3rd tier regional. Intentionally. When the new Tarleton guys here said they were going to break out of that I assumed it was smack talk.

This is an impressively large expenditure and now I'm not so sure. Is College Station now planning to let one or more branches seek major university status, the way Austin allowed UTSA, UTA, UTEP, and now UTD?

(05-21-2022 01:33 PM)edinburger Wrote:  For decades the A&M system was TAMU itself and all the others distinctly 3rd tier regional. Intentionally. When the new Tarleton guys here said they were going to break out of that I assumed it was smack talk.

This is an impressively large expenditure and now I'm not so sure. Is College Station now planning to let one or more branches seek major university status, the way Austin allowed UTSA, UTA, UTEP, and now UTD?

Well stated.

This is huge for BCG.

(05-21-2022 01:33 PM)edinburger Wrote:  For decades the A&M system was TAMU itself and all the others distinctly 3rd tier regional. Intentionally. When the new Tarleton guys here said they were going to break out of that I assumed it was smack talk.

This is an impressively large expenditure and now I'm not so sure. Is College Station now planning to let one or more branches seek major university status, the way Austin allowed UTSA, UTA, UTEP, and now UTD?

We were a major university as far as academics went when we joined the UT system in 1967. We had designs of being DI (University Division back then) when we joined. They didn’t “let” us. The UT system is great at letting each school do what it wants.

Any rumors that UT Austin holds anyone back is not grounded in reality or articulable facts.

(05-21-2022 05:52 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 01:33 PM)edinburger Wrote:  For decades the A&M system was TAMU itself and all the others distinctly 3rd tier regional. Intentionally. When the new Tarleton guys here said they were going to break out of that I assumed it was smack talk.

This is an impressively large expenditure and now I'm not so sure. Is College Station now planning to let one or more branches seek major university status, the way Austin allowed UTSA, UTA, UTEP, and now UTD?

We were a major university as far as academics went when we joined the UT system in 1967. We had designs of being DI (University Division back then) when we joined. They didn’t “let” us. The UT system is great at letting each school do what it wants.

Any rumors that UT Austin holds anyone back is not grounded in reality or articulable facts.

Ok, but, what do all of the ut schools listed above have in common with Tarleton?

I responded to a post that directly mentioned my U that I have knowledge about. I’ve supported Tarleton in their endeavors to this point. Makes sense to burn a bridge there.

(05-21-2022 05:06 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  This is huge for BCG.

Probably won’t even be there by the time it’s built.

(05-21-2022 05:52 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 01:33 PM)edinburger Wrote:  For decades the A&M system was TAMU itself and all the others distinctly 3rd tier regional. Intentionally. When the new Tarleton guys here said they were going to break out of that I assumed it was smack talk.

This is an impressively large expenditure and now I'm not so sure. Is College Station now planning to let one or more branches seek major university status, the way Austin allowed UTSA, UTA, UTEP, and now UTD?

We were a major university as far as academics went when we joined the UT system in 1967. We had designs of being DI (University Division back then) when we joined. They didn’t “let” us. The UT system is great at letting each school do what it wants.

Any rumors that UT Austin holds anyone back is not grounded in reality or articulable facts.

I realize UTA had a long and honorable history before even joining. As did the old Pan American University. It wasn't meant as any disrespect and sorry if it sounded that way.

But, I work at UTRGV and have a pretty good idea of what kinds of things we're allowed to do without permission, what the UT System is willing to sign off on, and what they aren't. Something like a major new building, any type of doctoral program, is going to need permission and permission is sometimes denied. If we ever build (for example) a $120M dollar athletic facility you can be sure it's because UT System decided to allow it.

I don't work on buildings or athletics, but I do work on proposing new academic programs, and can assure you that UT System nitpicks those at a very detailed level and rejects/delays/sends back about as many graduate degree proposals as they accept. But maybe UTA is allowed more autonomy, if you say so I'll believe it.

(05-24-2022 09:41 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I responded to a post that directly mentioned my U that I have knowledge about. I’ve supported Tarleton in their endeavors to this point. Makes sense to burn a bridge there.

Burn away, but it was a serious question. There is one singular attribute that separates the "have's" vs "have not's" within our respective systems.

(05-24-2022 12:52 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(05-24-2022 09:41 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I responded to a post that directly mentioned my U that I have knowledge about. I’ve supported Tarleton in their endeavors to this point. Makes sense to burn a bridge there.

Burn away, but it was a serious question. There is one singular attribute that separates the "have's" vs "have not's" within our respective systems.

Money is fungible, so PUF eligibility doesn't put Tarleton in a meaningfully better position than WTAMU. If the A&M board of regents wants WTAMU to get PUF funding, they will just pull "non-PUF" funding from other sources and supplement the other sources with PUF funding.

(05-24-2022 04:52 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(05-24-2022 12:52 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(05-24-2022 09:41 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I responded to a post that directly mentioned my U that I have knowledge about. I’ve supported Tarleton in their endeavors to this point. Makes sense to burn a bridge there.

Burn away, but it was a serious question. There is one singular attribute that separates the "have's" vs "have not's" within our respective systems.

Money is fungible, so PUF eligibility doesn't put Tarleton in a meaningfully better position than WTAMU. If the A&M board of regents wants WTAMU to get PUF funding, they will just pull "non-PUF" funding from other sources and supplement the other sources with PUF funding.

PUF funds can only be used for capital improvements and new construction. It is not merely a coincidence that the PUF schools have the nicest facilities. Tarleton isn't PUF "eligible", it has just as much right to the fund as A&M or ut. Tarleton is long overdue for its rightful share of the fund, and finally, the A&M Chancellor is all-in on seeing that we get it.