(08-18-2019 11:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 09:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 06:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 11:09 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  The idea of a "flagship" is that there's only one. It's the ship in which the commander of a fleet set up shop and had his flag raised. So if there's a flagship university of the state of Texas, it would have to be UT. There can't be multiple flagships of a given entity.

I agree.

The State of Texas disagrees

Even UT itself disagrees.

The University itself openly recognizes A&M as it’s fellow state Flagship. The two even have a special day each legislative session where they lobby the state as a team for better funding for the Flagships

From UT’s official alumni magazine the Alcalde:

Quote:For just one day every two years, Longhorns and Aggies come together to storm the Texas State Capitol in the name of higher education for Orange & Maroon Legislative Day.

https://alcalde.texasexes.org/2019/02/lo...-day-2019/

This year marks the ninth biennial effort focused on boosting legislative support for the state’s flagship universities. On Feb. 5, alumni, volunteers, and supporters from UT and A&M spent the day visiting with lawmakers and staffers about the universities’ shared legislative priorities

You’ll also notice it’s called Orange and Maroon Day

No other school with delusions of grandeur about themselves has ever been invited to participate

Word misapplication by academic institutions.

Oh okay

Well now it all makes sense

The state of Texas and UT are wrong because someone on the Internet said so.

But I’m gonna go ahead and stick with what the state of Texas says about it’s own public schools

(08-18-2019 12:07 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Oh okay

Well now it all makes sense

The state of Texas and UT are wrong because someone on the Internet said so.

But I’m gonna go ahead and stick with what the state of Texas says about it’s own public schools

I think what's being argued about is the difference between what's legally correct and what is correct in terms of maybe call it public perception based on certain realities.

E.g., here in Louisiana, LSU is the flagship of the LSU system, and Southern University-BR is the flagship of the SU system, which includes SU - Shreveport and SU - New Orleans.

But nobody thinks of LSU and SUBR as "flagship equals", LSU is obviously the dominant school in the state.

The same idea, though in a much less extreme sense, applies to Texas and Texas A/M. Yes, like UT-Austin, Texas A/M is the flagship of its system. As you point out, that's a legal, state-sanctioned reality.

But nevertheless, Texas is the dominant school in the state of Texas. That's why it alone is colloquially called "Texas", with no other qualifiers. And that's impressive, because TAMU is in every way shape and form a very formidable institution. If it was in most other states, it would be the Big Kahuna state university, bigger than the state's current flagship. Academically, financially, and athletically, it is at or near the very top in the SEC, a conference filled with flagships that dominate their states.

But it's in Texas, and is second-fiddle to ... Texas.

(08-18-2019 12:07 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 11:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 09:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 06:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 11:09 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  The idea of a "flagship" is that there's only one. It's the ship in which the commander of a fleet set up shop and had his flag raised. So if there's a flagship university of the state of Texas, it would have to be UT. There can't be multiple flagships of a given entity.

I agree.

The State of Texas disagrees

Even UT itself disagrees.

The University itself openly recognizes A&M as it’s fellow state Flagship. The two even have a special day each legislative session where they lobby the state as a team for better funding for the Flagships

From UT’s official alumni magazine the Alcalde:

Quote:For just one day every two years, Longhorns and Aggies come together to storm the Texas State Capitol in the name of higher education for Orange & Maroon Legislative Day.

https://alcalde.texasexes.org/2019/02/lo...-day-2019/

This year marks the ninth biennial effort focused on boosting legislative support for the state’s flagship universities. On Feb. 5, alumni, volunteers, and supporters from UT and A&M spent the day visiting with lawmakers and staffers about the universities’ shared legislative priorities

You’ll also notice it’s called Orange and Maroon Day

No other school with delusions of grandeur about themselves has ever been invited to participate

Word misapplication by academic institutions.

Oh okay

Well now it all makes sense

The state of Texas and UT are wrong because someone on the Internet said so.

But I’m gonna go ahead and stick with what the state of Texas says about it’s own public schools

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flagship


flagship noun
flag·​ship | \ ˈflag-ˌship \
Definition of flagship
1 : the ship that carries the commander of a fleet or subdivision of a fleet and flies the commander's flag
2 : the finest, largest, or most important one of a group of things (such as products, stores, etc.) —often used before another noun
the company's flagship store

(08-18-2019 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 12:07 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Oh okay

Well now it all makes sense

The state of Texas and UT are wrong because someone on the Internet said so.

But I’m gonna go ahead and stick with what the state of Texas says about it’s own public schools

I think what's being argued about is the difference between what's legally correct and what is correct in terms of maybe call it public perception based on certain realities.

E.g., here in Louisiana, LSU is the flagship of the LSU system, and Southern University-BR is the flagship of the SU system, which includes SU - Shreveport and SU - New Orleans.

But nobody thinks of LSU and SUBR as "flagship equals", LSU is obviously the dominant school in the state.

The same idea, though in a much less extreme sense, applies to Texas and Texas A/M. Yes, like UT-Austin, Texas A/M is the flagship of its system. As you point out, that's a legal, state-sanctioned reality.

But nevertheless, Texas is the dominant school in the state of Texas. That's why it alone is colloquially called "Texas", with no other qualifiers. And that's impressive, because TAMU is in every way shape and form a very formidable institution. If it was in most other states, it would be the Big Kahuna state university, bigger than the state's current flagship. Academically, financially, and athletically, it is at or near the very top in the SEC, a conference filled with flagships that dominate their states.

But it's in Texas, and is second-fiddle to ... Texas.

Again, you misunderstand how things work here

Texas has many schools that are the flagship university of their school system

However, the state of Texas designates the special status of STATE Flagship (IE of all its public schools) on just two schools: A&M and UT

No other schools in Texas, even if they are Flagships of their SYSTEM are given this honor

I get that a lot of you are having trouble with the idea that Texas does things a little different but think about it: We’re one of the largest states population size. It makes sense to have more than one school you choose to be your very best and invest more resources into

(08-18-2019 12:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 12:07 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Oh okay

Well now it all makes sense

The state of Texas and UT are wrong because someone on the Internet said so.

But I’m gonna go ahead and stick with what the state of Texas says about it’s own public schools

I think what's being argued about is the difference between what's legally correct and what is correct in terms of maybe call it public perception based on certain realities.

E.g., here in Louisiana, LSU is the flagship of the LSU system, and Southern University-BR is the flagship of the SU system, which includes SU - Shreveport and SU - New Orleans.

But nobody thinks of LSU and SUBR as "flagship equals", LSU is obviously the dominant school in the state.

The same idea, though in a much less extreme sense, applies to Texas and Texas A/M. Yes, like UT-Austin, Texas A/M is the flagship of its system. As you point out, that's a legal, state-sanctioned reality.

But nevertheless, Texas is the dominant school in the state of Texas. That's why it alone is colloquially called "Texas", with no other qualifiers. And that's impressive, because TAMU is in every way shape and form a very formidable institution. If it was in most other states, it would be the Big Kahuna state university, bigger than the state's current flagship. Academically, financially, and athletically, it is at or near the very top in the SEC, a conference filled with flagships that dominate their states.

But it's in Texas, and is second-fiddle to ... Texas.

Again, you misunderstand how things work here

Texas has many schools that are the flagship university of their school system

However, the state of Texas designates the special status of STATE Flagship (IE of all its public schools) on just two schools: A&M and UT

No other schools in Texas, even if they are Flagships of their SYSTEM are given this honor

I get that a lot of you are having trouble with the idea that Texas does things a little different but think about it: We’re one of the largest states population size. It makes sense to have more than one school you choose to be your very best and invest more resources into

You seem to be under the misapprehension that my stance is predicated on a lack of understanding of the legal flagship status of TAMU and Texas. That all along, I've mistakenly thought that TAMU's flagship status is somehow legally inferior to Texas's. But as I explained last post, it's not, so your new information about TAMU and Texas being the only STATE flagship schools doesn't change that. Heck, I said as much in my very first sentence, where I made the distinction between formal legal status and perception. From the git, I have it in mind that TAMU has the same formal legal flagship status as does UT-Austin.

But nevertheless ...... Texas is the dominant school in the state of Texas. That's why it alone is colloquially called "Texas", with no other qualifiers. And that's impressive, because TAMU is in every way shape and form a very formidable institution. If it was in most other states, it would be the Big Kahuna state university, bigger than the state's current flagship. Academically, financially, and athletically, it is at or near the very top in the SEC, a conference filled with flagships that dominate their states.

But it's in Texas, and is second-fiddle to ... Texas. It's academically, financially, and athletically superior to TAMU.

TAMU is second-fiddle *despite* the fact that it, and it alone, like Texas, is a STATE flagship institution.

(08-17-2019 05:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Internet boards are fun for hypothetical but in the real world, a slot in the SEC or B1G is the most valuable thing in all of college sports

They will not be handed out easily or lightly to make people or politicians feel good.

There are at most 5-6 schools who have the markets, the content and the academics (because yes, university presidents still make these decisions whether you like it or not) to even be considered for one and maybe 2-4 that will actually get an invite which will be take it or leave it, no negotiations.

That’s realignment in the real world

And admittedly it doesn’t make for good message board fodder

I disagree. IMO Texas is desirable enough that any conference will be willing to negotiate with them. For example if the SEC invited Texas but Texas told the SEC that they would accept an invitation, but only if Tech came with them.....or if the Big invited Texas and Texas told the Big10 they would accept an invitation, but only if Kansas or Oklahoma came with them........ they would be willing to negotiate

(08-18-2019 01:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 05:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Internet boards are fun for hypothetical but in the real world, a slot in the SEC or B1G is the most valuable thing in all of college sports

They will not be handed out easily or lightly to make people or politicians feel good.

There are at most 5-6 schools who have the markets, the content and the academics (because yes, university presidents still make these decisions whether you like it or not) to even be considered for one and maybe 2-4 that will actually get an invite which will be take it or leave it, no negotiations.

That’s realignment in the real world

And admittedly it doesn’t make for good message board fodder

I disagree. IMO Texas is desirable enough that any conference will be willing to negotiate with them. For example if the SEC invited Texas but Texas told the SEC that they would accept an invitation, but only if Tech came with them.....or if the Big invited Texas and Texas told the Big10 they would accept an invitation, but only if Kansas or Oklahoma came with them........ they would be willing to negotiate

There’s definitely *certain* schools who are hoping and praying that’s case

But the fact is SEC expansion slots are too valuable to give to any school purely for politics or to satisfy the desire for a tag along no matter how much that reality hurts the feelings of those schools.

Note that doesn’t apply to KU or OU since neither needs to be negotiated since they are on the SEC’s short list

But no slot will be given to Tech or OSU under any circumstances

If this is deeply offending certain posters then I simply invite them to prove me wrong and show us the invite that proves I’m wrong and you’re not just living on hope and prayers

(08-18-2019 01:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  IMO Texas is desirable enough that any conference will be willing to negotiate with them. For example if the SEC invited Texas but Texas told the SEC that they would accept an invitation, but only if Tech came with them.....or if the Big invited Texas and Texas told the Big10 they would accept an invitation, but only if Kansas or Oklahoma came with them........ they would be willing to negotiate

I agree with this. To me, Texas is so valuable that any of the other P5 conferences would not only instantly invite them if they put out a feeler, they would also be willing to negotiate if they insisted on bringing along a lesser school.

In fact, IMO, if Texas were to offer themselves to any of the other P5 conferences but with a little brother like Texas Tech as a mandatory tag-along, all of the other P5 conferences would be likely to accept, and i don't think anyone would just flat-out decline.

Heck, I'm an SEC fan, and IMO, if Texas called up SEC HQ and said "we'd like to join the SEC, but Tech (or Baylor or Kansas) has to come along", the SEC would be brain-dead stupid if they didn't say Yes right on the spot.

(08-18-2019 01:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 05:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Internet boards are fun for hypothetical but in the real world, a slot in the SEC or B1G is the most valuable thing in all of college sports

They will not be handed out easily or lightly to make people or politicians feel good.

There are at most 5-6 schools who have the markets, the content and the academics (because yes, university presidents still make these decisions whether you like it or not) to even be considered for one and maybe 2-4 that will actually get an invite which will be take it or leave it, no negotiations.

That’s realignment in the real world

And admittedly it doesn’t make for good message board fodder

I disagree. IMO Texas is desirable enough that any conference will be willing to negotiate with them. For example if the SEC invited Texas but Texas told the SEC that they would accept an invitation, but only if Tech came with them.....or if the Big invited Texas and Texas told the Big10 they would accept an invitation, but only if Kansas or Oklahoma came with them........ they would be willing to negotiate

The Big 10 and SEC can be picky. Both would gladly take Texas with Kansas. Big 10 might take Texas with OU. SEC certainly would. But Tech or Oklahoma St. might not make the cut. The Big 10 and Texas had that discussion before. Tech was a no go for the Big 10.

(08-18-2019 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 12:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 12:07 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Oh okay

Well now it all makes sense

The state of Texas and UT are wrong because someone on the Internet said so.

But I’m gonna go ahead and stick with what the state of Texas says about it’s own public schools

I think what's being argued about is the difference between what's legally correct and what is correct in terms of maybe call it public perception based on certain realities.

E.g., here in Louisiana, LSU is the flagship of the LSU system, and Southern University-BR is the flagship of the SU system, which includes SU - Shreveport and SU - New Orleans.

But nobody thinks of LSU and SUBR as "flagship equals", LSU is obviously the dominant school in the state.

The same idea, though in a much less extreme sense, applies to Texas and Texas A/M. Yes, like UT-Austin, Texas A/M is the flagship of its system. As you point out, that's a legal, state-sanctioned reality.

But nevertheless, Texas is the dominant school in the state of Texas. That's why it alone is colloquially called "Texas", with no other qualifiers. And that's impressive, because TAMU is in every way shape and form a very formidable institution. If it was in most other states, it would be the Big Kahuna state university, bigger than the state's current flagship. Academically, financially, and athletically, it is at or near the very top in the SEC, a conference filled with flagships that dominate their states.

But it's in Texas, and is second-fiddle to ... Texas.

Again, you misunderstand how things work here

Texas has many schools that are the flagship university of their school system

However, the state of Texas designates the special status of STATE Flagship (IE of all its public schools) on just two schools: A&M and UT

No other schools in Texas, even if they are Flagships of their SYSTEM are given this honor

I get that a lot of you are having trouble with the idea that Texas does things a little different but think about it: We’re one of the largest states population size. It makes sense to have more than one school you choose to be your very best and invest more resources into

You seem to be under the misapprehension that my stance is predicated on a lack of understanding of the legal flagship status of TAMU and Texas. That all along, I've mistakenly thought that TAMU's flagship status is somehow legally inferior to Texas's. But as I explained last post, it's not, so your new information about TAMU and Texas being the only STATE flagship schools doesn't change that. Heck, I said as much in my very first sentence, where I made the distinction between formal legal status and perception. From the git, I have it in mind that TAMU has the same formal legal flagship status as does UT-Austin.

But nevertheless ...... Texas is the dominant school in the state of Texas. That's why it alone is colloquially called "Texas", with no other qualifiers. And that's impressive, because TAMU is in every way shape and form a very formidable institution. If it was in most other states, it would be the Big Kahuna state university, bigger than the state's current flagship. Academically, financially, and athletically, it is at or near the very top in the SEC, a conference filled with flagships that dominate their states.

But it's in Texas, and is second-fiddle to ... Texas. It's academically, financially, and athletically superior to TAMU.

TAMU is second-fiddle *despite* the fact that it, and it alone, like Texas, is a STATE flagship institution.

I didn’t argue that part at all

I was informing all those who don’t understand our unique dual status as both Texas’ landgrant university and one of its two recognized state flagship universities

Again, it’s a unique set up

It would be like if Cal recognized both Berkeley and UCLA as it’s flagships. No one is arguing that UCLA is better than Cal but you would also clearly get why given California’s size that it would make sense to treat them both as it’s flagships and concentrate it’s resources on them rather than on Cal State schools

(08-18-2019 01:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  But the fact is SEC expansion slots are too valuable to give to any school purely for politics or to satisfy the desire for a tag along no matter how much that reality hurts the feelings of those schools.

They should be too valuable to give away, but on the other hand, both the SEC and Big Ten "gave away" their 14th seat at the table to schools with less-valuable athletic departments just for the sake of having even numbers.