The time period selected, past 10 years (2006-2015), is ideal for showing the Vols in the worst possible light. Our vertical position on the chart would be much better if they'd shown the 10 years before that (1996-2005), and we're all hoping that our value is very high in the next 10 years (2016-2025).
In short, this chart shows that we went through our Dark Ages. That's it, as far as the Vols are concerned.
---break/break---
Step away from Tennessee's position and consider the chart as a whole. Let's think about what the graph really says. "Football revenue." Roughly speaking, that comes down to "how many people want to watch your team play." If you get more people coming to your games...more revenue. Get a really good TV deal from NBC, CBS or ESPN...more revenue. Be in a league that has strong fan bases across the board, so you have huge equity when the bowls are deciding who they want...more revenue.
So to be further to the right on this chart is not a bad thing, not at all. It says your program can draw crowds and contracts and bowls, can generate revenue. It's a good thing, regardless of how many Ws you pull in each season. So being far to the right without a ton of wins essentially just says your fan base is loyal even through tough times.
Yep, every program should want to be as close to the top of that chart as they can be. But they should also want to be as far to the right as they can be. And it is false to say that teams who are "below the diagonal line" are worse off than those above the line.
One example. Look again at Tennessee, and find Mississippi State. The Bulldogs are above the digaonal, and Vols are below. That means Miss St is in the better place, right? Wrong. Both programs had roughly the same amount of success on field over those 10 years (vertically, we're at about the same height). While Tennessee generated a lot more revenue. See? Tennessee is actually much better off.
This chart is designed poorly, when it promotes false conclusions like "above the line is better than below the line." There are good charts of this nature. This is not one of them. This is a guy who doesn't really understand what he's doing applying the wrong tool to the job. He needed to find an X-axis variable where lower is better...like, for instance, expenditures rather than revenue. Then the "above" and "below" comparisons would make far more sense.
