re: Oklahoma is not coming to the SEC

quote:

---

More accurately Texas AMC, as it was known at the time, leveraged the state to recognize their attachment to The University as stated in the Texas Constitution.

The state of Texas hadn't planned for TAMC, TAMC was established from the Morrill Land-Grant Act in 1871. UTexas was established in 1858 by the state, but wouldn't open doors til '83.

The land grant college was considered a "Yankee creation" & got off to a rocky start due to poor financing & lack of planning in general. Association with the UTexas was critical & often debated as the UTexas wanted nothing to do with it & it's struggles.

Efforts to separate the two by constitution failed twice in the 1910's. In 1930's TAMC secured it's 1/3 portion of the PUF (Permanent University Fund) that is essentially the lifeline for excellence for each University & more importantly secured TAMC's future.

The UTexas Regents never made administrative decisions on behalf of the college... only financial support. TAMC's Board of Directors made the administrative decisions from it's beginnings.

Through the early 1900's there were several legislative discussions on shutting down TAMC and they continued until the decision in the 30's to include them in the PUF.

In 1963 TAMC became TAMU. Ironically nothing in the Texas Constitution ever officially separated TAMC/TAMU as an agricultural & mechanical branch of The University.

In short TAMU was a land grant college that was not readily accepted by the state due to it's "Yankee origins" and initial lack of agricultural studies while struggling financially until leveraging it's branch ties to The University.

The true ties to the institutions were that of finances & nothing else. To this day they operate independently & the PUF is managed predominantly by those associated with the University of Texas System on behalf of each institution.

The unique association & ties between the institutions plays into the long history of disdain they share for each other.

A&M's decision to to take their athletic associations to the SEC irritated those of the UTexas System whom at this point perceived "virtual ownership" of TAMU's existence, while those @ TAMU saw it as it's freedom.

To this day TAMU attempts to gain a higher percentage of the PUF & as of yet those efforts have been declined. Then & now.. it was always be about the money for all parties. It should be noted that the PUF has no impact on athletics, they are for academic & administrative purposes only.

Jump online & dig into the earliest "minutes" of the TX state legislature. Regardless of ones position or allegiance, it's an interesting relationship that still fuels emotions between the two institutions to this day.

---