Vols a Top 15 Program Over Next 3 Years

[VFL-82-JP]

First of all, per capita income is irrelevant, the majority of donations come from alumni. But when you multiply that per capita income * the population, there's still no comparison.

2nd, A&M is ranked in the top 10 nationwide for public school graduate career income, no other SEC school in the top ten. Vanderbilt is private, their graduates earn more money, yes, but a much smaller alumni base to pull from. Also, these oil & gas people are not the rough necks of the industry. They are the engineers and CEOs of the industry. See Exxon Mobile and Phillips 66 as two more prominent examples.

3rd, The tx law school has created a good ole boy network within a very large state that has made its alumni a who's who of mover and shakers. A lot of money statewide is controlled by that network.

I could go on and on but the point being, both schools have a very deep alumni base to pull donations from.

Yah, I've heard this argument before, too. Mathematically, it doesn't wash. Here, I'll show you:

Remember that your state has an average income per capita. That's key.

But say that average wealth is spread differently than most. Say instead of a bell curve of wealth distribution among Texas and A&M grads, you have a big bulge of fat cat donors. All that extra money has to come from somewhere (remember, as a whole your state is just average): so you have a lot of poor people to balance it out.

Now, let's say your fat cat school has 1,000 fat cat boosters who each give $10k/year to the university, and 100,000 poor fans who can only give a couple of dollars, say $10 per year.

Meanwhile, some other equally wealthy (in per capita income) "normal" school has only 300 fat cats, but a whole lot of middle class you don't have because your fat cats are dicking the curve. So at this other university, 300 give $10k/year, and another 100,000 give $100/year.

Your total? 1,000 x $10k/year +plus+ 100,000 x $10/year = $11M/year.

The other school's total? 300 x $10k/year +plus+ 100,000 x $100/year = $13M/year.

Get it? You can't be middling in per capita income, but still come out ahead because the wealth is concentrated in some fat cats. It won't average out that way.

Anyway, we could do pages and pages on how and why this is true, but your eyes are probably already glazing over. I won't force the issue. Suffice it to say, Texas ain't rich. Texas is average in disposable income, like what people spend on sports.

Go Vols!

 

[ntxVOL]

Yah, I've heard this argument before, too. Mathematically, it doesn't wash. Here, I'll show you:

Remember that your state has an average income per capita. That's key.

But say that average wealth is spread differently than most. Say instead of a bell curve of wealth distribution among Texas and A&M grads, you have a big bulge of fat cat donors. All that extra money has to come from somewhere (remember, as a whole your state is just average): so you have a lot of poor people to balance it out.

Now, let's say your fat cat school has 1,000 fat cat boosters who each give $10k/year to the university, and 100,000 poor fans who can only give a couple of dollars, say $10 per year.

Meanwhile, some other equally wealthy (in per capita income) "normal" school has only 300 fat cats, but a whole lot of middle class you don't have because your fat cats are dicking the curve. So at this other university, 300 give $10k/year, and another 100,000 give $100/year.

Your total? 1,000 x $10k/year +plus+ 100,000 x $10/year = $11M/year.

The other school's total? 300 x $10k/year +plus+ 100,000 x $100/year = $13M/year.

Get it? You can't be middling in per capita income, but still come out ahead because the wealth is concentrated in some fat cats. It won't average out that way.

Anyway, we could do pages and pages on how and why this is true, but your eyes are probably already glazing over. I won't force the issue. Suffice it to say, Texas ain't rich. Texas is average in disposable income, like what people spend on sports.

Go Vols!

Still ignoring the actual population of the alumni bases. A&M's annual enrollment is 2x UT's and it has been that way for years. The average income of their graduates is also higher. Hard to compete with that no matter how you try to slice it.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Still ignoring the actual population of the alumni bases. A&M's annual enrollment is 2x UT's and it has been that way for years. The average income of their graduates is also higher. Hard to compete with that no matter how you try to slice it.

That's far less a factor than you believe.

If it were a prime determinant, Arizona State (bigger than A&M, btw), Rutgers, and Central Florida would be bigger football icons than Bama and Georgia.

A&M's not rich. Texas isn't rich. And they're not powerhouses. They're just somewhere in the middle among SEC schools now. Get used to it.

Go Vols!

EDIT and p.s.:

Look, I'm no psychologist, but I think I understand how Texans can so easily delude themselves. They hear from early childhood, continuously, "everything's bigger in Texas." Over and over, ad nauseum, "everything's bigger in Texas."

And by that, their parents and teachers and big sisters and big brothers mean, "everything's BETTER in Texas." And so after years and years of brainwashing, most Texas citizens come to believe it.

So if someone tells them, "wow, Texas Law School is pretty good," that automatically translates in their heads to, "one of the best in the world." And if someone tells them, "we have a lot of engineers making good pay in the oil industry," that translates for them as "we have some of the fattest cats among all fat cat upper middle classes."

And if someone tells them, "our alumni donate well to the university," that translates for them as, "we are friggin rich, no one can touch how much we give."

None of it's true, but most Texans will absolutely swear on a stack of bibles that it is.

Something like that. Heh.

Go Vols!

 

[ntxVOL]

That's far less a factor than you believe.

If it were a prime determinant, Arizona State (bigger than A&M, btw), Rutgers, and Central Florida would be bigger football icons than Bama and Georgia.

A&M's not rich. Texas isn't rich. And they're not powerhouses. They're just somewhere in the middle among SEC schools now. Get used to it.

Go Vols!

Lol, you always must get the last word.

You can say those schools aren't rich all you want, fact remains they both have much deeper donor bases to pull from than most and their annual donation numbers reflect that.

Doesn't mean they will dominate on the field, and I have my own theory of what's holding them back, but that's a discussion for another time.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Lol, you always must get the last word.

You can say those schools aren't rich all you want, fact remains they both have much deeper donor bases to pull from than most and their annual donation numbers reflect that.

Doesn't mean they will dominate on the field and, I have my own theory of what's holding them back but, that's a discussion for another time.

Giving you the last word by saying something you might have said yourself: Everything's bigger in Texas. Heh.

 

[UTblood4life]

What will NIL do to this? If a program has a huge wealthy following/fans, they can pump an unknown amount into buying, basically, the best high school talent, as well as the top players already on teams, by giving them more money than anyone else can. An example of this would be Texas A&M. I keep seeing how much money their fan base has, so they could outbid most everyone else, couldn't they? Not predicting this will happen, just wondering if it's a possibility.

Not to sound like an ass, that worked out really well for Jimbo

 

[Aerie Vol]

Yah, I've heard this argument before, too. Mathematically, it doesn't wash. Here, I'll show you:

Remember that your state has an average income per capita. That's key.

But say that average wealth is spread differently than most. Say instead of a bell curve of wealth distribution among Texas and A&M grads, you have a big bulge of fat cat donors. All that extra money has to come from somewhere (remember, as a whole your state is just average): so you have a lot of poor people to balance it out.

Now, let's say your fat cat school has 1,000 fat cat boosters who each give $10k/year to the university, and 100,000 poor fans who can only give a couple of dollars, say $10 per year.

Meanwhile, some other equally wealthy (in per capita income) "normal" school has only 300 fat cats, but a whole lot of middle class you don't have because your fat cats are dicking the curve. So at this other university, 300 give $10k/year, and another 100,000 give $100/year.

Your total? 1,000 x $10k/year +plus+ 100,000 x $10/year = $11M/year.

The other school's total? 300 x $10k/year +plus+ 100,000 x $100/year = $13M/year.

Get it? You can't be middling in per capita income, but still come out ahead because the wealth is concentrated in some fat cats. It won't average out that way.

Anyway, we could do pages and pages on how and why this is true, but your eyes are probably already glazing over. I won't force the issue. Suffice it to say, Texas ain't rich. Texas is average in disposable income, like what people spend on sports.

Go Vols!

That’s some strangely specific math you got there.

There are 73 billionaires in Tx.
Tennessee has 11.

Sorry, sir. You lose. Tx schools have more donor money than the Vols, and it ain’t close.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

That’s some strangely specific math you got there.

There are 73 billionaires in Tx.
Tennessee has 11.

Sorry, sir. You lose. Tx schools have more donor money than the Vols, and it ain’t close.

Aerie, that's an invalid conclusion from the available facts.

Let's expand a bit on it:

There are 186 billionaires in California. You think that gives UCLA or USCw 2.5 times as much donor money as Texas?
There are 135 billionaires in New York. Think Syracuse or (stretching a bit across a border, here) Rutgers have twice as much as TEX?
There are 97 in Florida....

...and so it goes.

The only conclusion we can reach from all the above is that # billionaires does NOT correlate well to donor money at a particular university.

There's also the question of "which school"? See, larger states tend to have more Division I schools. Even if you could shrink wrap to a number of billionaires, or millionaires, or even middle class folks who DO donate to university sports programs, how do you know which they're giving to?

Texas has at least 12 different universities and colleges eligible for the CFP: Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor, Rice, SMU, North Texas, Houston, Sam Houston (yes, those are two different colleges, lol), UTEP, and UTSA, I'll bet you most of those schools can claim at least one of those billionaires; the bigger schools split up the lion's share. So their loyalties are spread all around.

Divide 73 billionaires by 12 and you only get about 6 billionaires per school, on average.

Do the same for Tennessee, with 11 billionaires spread among 4 CFP programs, and you get about 3.

So 6 to 3. Doesn't seem that overwhelming an advantage now, does it?

[note: you can do the same thing with Florida, or California, or even New York...spoiler: New York comes out the most favorable per school...if Syracuse and Rutgers could reach into billionaire pockets up there, they truly would be ahead of us all].

But put ALLLLLL that aside, because not a bit of it matters. Here's what does: generally speaking, billionaires don't give away money. Not even to their alma maters. That's how they get to be billionaires. Heh.

Go Vols!

 

[nomads-11]

Easily top 15 program with actual competent coaches and leadership. As for rankings, that can be different when you're playing teams ranked 1-8 each season.

 

[ntxVOL]

Aerie, that's an invalid conclusion from the available facts.

Let's expand a bit on it:

There are 186 billionaires in California. You think that gives UCLA or USCw 2.5 times as much donor money as Texas?
There are 135 billionaires in New York. Think Syracuse or (stretching a bit across a border, here) Rutgers have twice as much as TEX?
There are 97 in Florida....

...and so it goes.

The only conclusion we can reach from all the above is that # billionaires does NOT correlate well to donor money at a particular university.

There's also the question of "which school"? See, larger states tend to have more Division I schools. Even if you could shrink wrap to a number of billionaires, or millionaires, or even middle class folks who DO donate to university sports programs, how do you know which they're giving to?

Texas has at least 12 different universities and colleges eligible for the CFP: Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor, Rice, SMU, North Texas, Houston, Sam Houston (yes, those are two different colleges, lol), UTEP, and UTSA, I'll bet you most of those schools can claim at least one of those billionaires; the bigger schools split up the lion's share. So their loyalties are spread all around.

Divide 73 billionaires by 12 and you only get about 6 billionaires per school, on average.

Do the same for Tennessee, with 11 billionaires spread among 4 CFP programs, and you get about 3.

So 6 to 3. Doesn't seem that overwhelming an advantage now, does it?

[note: you can do the same thing with Florida, or California, or even New York...spoiler: New York comes out the most favorable per school...if Syracuse and Rutgers could reach into billionaire pockets up there, they truly would be ahead of us all].

But put ALLLLLL that aside, because not a bit of it matters. Here's what does: generally speaking, billionaires don't give away money. Not even to their alma maters. That's how they get to be billionaires. Heh.

Go Vols!

You have a bad habit of creating hypotheticals and then claim them to be fact. That's not how this works.

Those TX schools in the SEC are the exceptions not the average. Lol, do you really think UTSA has the same number of alumni billionaires as TX or A&M?

Also in TX, football is a religion, can't compare to NY or Cali.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

You have a bad habit of creating hypotheticals and then claim them to be fact. That's not how this works.

Those TX schools in the SEC are the exceptions not the average. Lol, do you really think UTSA has the same number of alumni billionaires as TX or A&M?

Also in TX, football is a religion, can't compare to NY or Cali.

So your response is to engage in circular argument?

In spite of evidence to the contrary, Texas and A&M are richer than everyone else because they are exceptions and not average, because football is so much more important in Texas than elsewhere? They are, in fact, exceptional because they are exceptional?

Heh.

Go Vols!

 

[ntxVOL]

In spite of evidence to the contrary

You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, your fallback arguments are either based on averages or anecdotal straw men.

 

[Aerie Vol]

I’m just gonna leave this right here. I suggest you give it a read if you want to know what universities have the biggest donors.

Tl;dr: Vols #14, TAM 3, Tx 2. Nike founder makes Oregon #1.

College sports top donors: Ranking the most generous athletics boosters

Data suggests lopsided giving in college athletics.

247sports.com

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I’m just gonna leave this right here. I suggest you give it a read if you want to know what universities have the biggest donors.

Tl;dr: Vols #14, TAM 3, Tx 2. Nike founder makes Oregon #1.

College sports top donors: Ranking the most generous athletics boosters

Data suggests lopsided giving in college athletics.

247sports.com

Yes, this makes a LOT more sense than some of the hyperbole elsewhere in this thread.

From #14 Tennessee to #1 Oregon, not a massive difference. All between $500m and $970m. As I said earlier, we all got money.

There are 9 SEC programs in that range. All got money. None stand out as giants.

And that has been my point all along.

Go Vols!

 

[bigorangepoppa]

Not to sound like an ass, that worked out really well for Jimbo

I seem to remember some on here saying that Jimbo had a tendency to interfere with the team and change plays from his assistant coaches called plays. Any truth to that?

 

[LittleVol]

Personally if we are only annually ranked somewhere between 11th and 15th in years 5, 6, and 7 under CJH, I think that should be unacceptable. Sorry, but I think more highly of our program and what it's capable of being than that. Accepting anything less than top 10 is BVS and selling this program short IMO.

We all want Tennessee to recruit well.
According to 247 they have the 10th ranked class right now.
And that’s without 5 star David Sanders…

But even if we’re 15th on average, it matters MORE the team needs vs whatever the rankings say .

There may be years where were we need LBs but are stacked at WR and QB. So we sign a 5 star LB and get a freshman All-American from another conference to transfer over, but our class over all is 15th.

But we go ahead and win another championship because we sured up or LB room in the previous off-season even though our roster has us as the 6th ranked roster in the conference.

Missouri had 23rd best roster in College Football last season and beat Ohio State in their Bowl Game. Michigan had the 15th best roster and best Ohio State…
Ohio State had a Top 3 roster last season, and this season.

Coaching matters
Team concept matters
Leadership at every level matters
Energy of the fan base backing the team matters.

Not just stars on a fantasy paper…

 

[UTblood4life]

I seem to remember some on here saying that Jimbo had a tendency to interfere with the team and change plays from his assistant coaches called plays. Any truth to that?

I could see him doing that

 

[ntxVOL]

I seem to remember some on here saying that Jimbo had a tendency to interfere with the team and change plays from his assistant coaches called plays. Any truth to that?

What I heard was Jimbo was told to hire an OC and let him call the plays.

He hired Petrino but they still ran Jimbo's offense. How much input Jimbo had into the play calling is debatable but he definitely put the handcuffs on Petrino.

 

[LouderVol]

Personally if we are only annually ranked somewhere between 11th and 15th in years 5, 6, and 7 under CJH, I think that should be unacceptable. Sorry, but I think more highly of our program and what it's capable of being than that. Accepting anything less than top 10 is BVS and selling this program short IMO.

then you don't really follow the Vols. Even in the Fulmer years, in the years we ended up ranked, we averaged #11. and that is EXCLUDING 4 unranked years. starting in '93 it was: 12, 22, 3, 9, 7, 1, 9, UR, 4, 15, 13, UR, 25, 12, UR. our program history extends beyond 95 to 99 and you can't just ignore 100+ years and cherry pick the best 5.

Fulmer's actual history says we should win the division (gone away now) every 3rd year, win the SEC every 8th year, and win a national title every 24 years. and that is just the peak.

some of us are fans of the actual program, and respect our actual history, and not just living off in the la la land of fantasy football where the Vols won the national title 10 years running.

its one thing to want to do that well, but trying to base expectations on a false history doesn't help anyone.

 

[cherokeeeVOL]

I really like his Late Kick show. He's always pretty fair and spot on a good bit of the time in my opinion. UT should be in the top 10 over the next few years no doubt. To me it seems like the majority of the hesitation from the talking heads is there's a lot of young, unproven talent on this team, so until they go out and prove it on the field consistently we'll continue to be just on the outside looking in on lists like this. Here's hoping that changes in a big way after this season!

 

[Volfan76]

Josh Pate is one of the best college football analysts on the interwebs. Unlike most of the click-bait focused internet media, he actually thinks things through. And explains his reasoning. You can agree or disagree with him, but either way you know why he sees things as he does. That's refreshing.

One of the things I appreciate about his approach to the sport is the way he draws a distinction between how TEAMS are expected to do in the coming year, and how PROGRAMS are envisioned to perform over the longer term. He's good at measuring programs more holistically. Consequently, I think he can see a little further down the road than most. He still gets things wrong, but less often and less drastically.

So in this video released about a week and a half ago (my apologies if it has been linked already; I didn't see it), in this video Josh ranks what he sees as the top 15 programs over the next three years.

Spoiler: where specifically does he put the Vols?

according to him, Tennessee is the #12 program in the nation over that period.

I do disagree with some of Josh's list. He has fallen into the common trap of over-ranking Notre Dame. I think Michigan will fall further than he sees. And I'm pretty sure he is underestimating the Vols. That's right, UNDERestimating us.

Think we're a Top 6 to 8 program (not just team, program) over the next three years, and even higher beyond that.

Go Vols!

Is there ever a year when Tennessee shouldn't be a top 15 program?

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Is there ever a year when Tennessee shouldn't be a top 15 program?

When we shouldn't be? No.

When we haven't been? Yes, the Dark Ages, '08 to '20, come to mind. We fell considerably in that period.

Good to celebrate being back.

Go Vols!

 

[ftsandersvol]

Top 12 or bust.