I think we're saying similar things. The business environment you need to produce 5-10 quality companies a year is way different than what you need to produce 100 - 150 a year, so you have to be realistic and find ways to support the green shoots and have a reasonable definition of success. Which is somewhat easier today than it used to be because of the use of distributed workforces and outsourcing and the growth of niche venture capitalists whose entire model is investing in "off the beaten path" zip codes. The few early successes train up the employees who then become the next generation and so on. But there is a strong correlation between amount of startup investment in a locale and % of population with a college degree, so there is definitely a chicken or egg problem. I think overall the lack of big companies is less of a problem with technology startups (especially with non-compete agreements, which should be illegal everywhere) but other factors are a lot more, like not having a strong culture to help people understand how to build a technology company or find venture capital, which is the main driver of tehnology growth (Austin is a top 10 city for VC investment, the influx of VC investment is what made Austin what it is, much more so than the presence of big companies).
At the end of the day, based on your posts, it seems like students are buying whatever Brad's selling if applications and so forth are up. I guess the question will be, can he translate that success to success with his other goals? TBD. My brother tells me that Tulsa has become some leftist, liberal enclave like Portland or San Francisco, so maybe?