PonyFans.com

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:09 am**

UT system, right? What would the endowmets be for each system school? UT also has the largest athletic budget. They have certainly underformed.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:18 am**

Stanford's endowment sez heyyyyy

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:32 am**

StallionsModelT wrote:Stanford's endowment sez heyyyyy

And how much of either is dedicated to athletics? What about SMU's? Much of capital campaigns' athletics funding seems to go for capital projects vs endowing scholarships.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:23 am**

I'd like to see us endow coaches' positions like Stanford has

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:26 am**

tristatecoog wrote:UT system, right? What would the endowmets be for each system school? UT also has the largest athletic budget. They have certainly underformed.

I bet most of that endowment is for UT Austin and the Medical Schools (Southwestern, Houston etc).

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:38 am**

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:
leopold wrote:It's UT that has by far underachieved for generations.

- They have the largest endowment of any FBS school in the country.
- They exist in arguably the top city in the country (and lets face it, Austin is pretty cool)
- They are the flagship school for arguably the most rabid football state in the country
- They make more money than any other program in the country
- They now have their own television network, something that could be used to their advantage if they knew what they hell to do with it
- I'd argue they've had their own conference twice now
- Unlike USC and Miami they have never had to compete with pro teams in their city in any major sport
- ESPN currently has Texas as the single best job in the country.

And yet, with all this and more, UT consistently underachieves. If not for Vince Young they wouldn't have a single NC in half a century.

A&M and that hell-hole the exist in should not have EVER been competitive, but they've found a way.

UT Austin does not have the largest endowment of any FBS school in the country. Not even close.

Other than that, your point is well taken. But I still have to go with A&M. If we're counting national championships only, then sure, UT has way under-performed. Then again, other than Alabama, Miami, and (going back a ways) Notre Dame, who hasn't underperformed by that metric. Georgia, Florida, Florida State, and Ohio State also jump to mind. But if you broaden it a little and look at conference championships, major bowl appearances, and Top 25 rankings, UT has done pretty well over the years.

A&M, on the other hand, with all the enormous time, energy, and resources they pour into football, has precious few of any of those things. They are a perineal 8-4 team. . . Middle of the pack year in and year out (Manziel year 1 excluded).

I agree with this. UT has achieved way more in Football than the aggies historically. Additionally, tamu has consistently recruited athletes that are every bit as talented as those who chose UT. Its not an Oregon vs Oregon State dynamic where one program lags behind the other both in interest and the type of athletes they are able to attract. Both tamu and UT are well funded with enormous fan bases and booster support. Playing field has been even for a long long time.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:43 am**

orguy wrote:
1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:
leopold wrote:It's UT that has by far underachieved for generations.

- They have the largest endowment of any FBS school in the country.
- They exist in arguably the top city in the country (and lets face it, Austin is pretty cool)
- They are the flagship school for arguably the most rabid football state in the country
- They make more money than any other program in the country
- They now have their own television network, something that could be used to their advantage if they knew what they hell to do with it
- I'd argue they've had their own conference twice now
- Unlike USC and Miami they have never had to compete with pro teams in their city in any major sport
- ESPN currently has Texas as the single best job in the country.

And yet, with all this and more, UT consistently underachieves. If not for Vince Young they wouldn't have a single NC in half a century.

A&M and that hell-hole the exist in should not have EVER been competitive, but they've found a way.

UT Austin does not have the largest endowment of any FBS school in the country. Not even close.

Other than that, your point is well taken. But I still have to go with A&M. If we're counting national championships only, then sure, UT has way under-performed. Then again, other than Alabama, Miami, and (going back a ways) Notre Dame, who hasn't underperformed by that metric. Georgia, Florida, Florida State, and Ohio State also jump to mind. But if you broaden it a little and look at conference championships, major bowl appearances, and Top 25 rankings, UT has done pretty well over the years.

A&M, on the other hand, with all the enormous time, energy, and resources they pour into football, has precious few of any of those things. They are a perineal 8-4 team. . . Middle of the pack year in and year out (Manziel year 1 excluded).

I agree with this. UT has achieved way more in Football than the aggies historically. Additionally, tamu has consistently recruited athletes that are every bit as talented as those who chose UT.

Mack Brown had the number 1 or 2 recruiting class in the country for years. A&M wasn't even close to that when they were in the big 12.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:48 am**

A&M consistently recruits in the top 25. Even during Texas' top ranked classes. Seems like a pretty close to me.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:54 am**

SMUvet wrote:A&M consistently recruits in the top 25. Even during Texas' top ranked classes. Seems like a pretty close to me.

Once you get past the top 5 or 7 there is a difference in the talent and it widens even further past the top 15. So no it is not that close on the field. Nick Saban has recruited in the top 1 or 2 classes every year and you see what he has done. Mack Brown recruited in the top 1 or 2 classes when he was there and you see what he has did.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:08 am**

tristatecoog wrote:UT system, right? What would the endowmets be for each system school? UT also has the largest athletic budget. They have certainly underformed.

Correct. The number cited by Leopold is the endowment for the entire UT system. That is not all for UT Austin. I was thinking in terms of UT Austin alone. But regardless, I will concede that UT Austin has the largest athletics budget in the country, which is probably a more relevant data point when comparing relative athletics success anyway.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:32 am**

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:
tristatecoog wrote:UT system, right? What would the endowmets be for each system school? UT also has the largest athletic budget. They have certainly underformed.

Correct. The number cited by Leopold is the endowment for the entire UT system. That is not all for UT Austin. I was thinking in terms of UT Austin alone. But regardless, I will concede that UT Austin has the largest athletics budget in the country, which is probably a more relevant data point when comparing relative athletics success anyway.

http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2012/07/ho ... endowment/

Both the UT and TAMU systems benefit from the Permanent University Fund. I am not sure if the PUF is considered part of the Endowment for the school.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:10 pm**

Championships are elusive. 10 win seasons, conference championships and bowl game wins are far more indicative of success. Under Mack, Texas did pretty damn well. A NC, BCS bowl wins and an another NC appearance. A couple things fall the other way in those years and you could be saying 2 or 3 Mack championships. Texas A&M cannot say the same thing.

That many top 25 recruiting classes and NFL players you would think they would have more to show than a 1998 Big 12 championship and a Sugar bowl loss. Many teams don't recruit near as well as them and do far more.

And Saban's teams are not the norm. The guy is a legend.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:21 pm**

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:
leopold wrote:It's UT that has by far underachieved for generations.

- They have the largest endowment of any FBS school in the country.
- They exist in arguably the top city in the country (and lets face it, Austin is pretty cool)
- They are the flagship school for arguably the most rabid football state in the country
- They make more money than any other program in the country
- They now have their own television network, something that could be used to their advantage if they knew what they hell to do with it
- I'd argue they've had their own conference twice now
- Unlike USC and Miami they have never had to compete with pro teams in their city in any major sport
- ESPN currently has Texas as the single best job in the country.

And yet, with all this and more, UT consistently underachieves. If not for Vince Young they wouldn't have a single NC in half a century.

A&M and that hell-hole the exist in should not have EVER been competitive, but they've found a way.

UT Austin does not have the largest endowment of any FBS school in the country. Not even close.

Other than that, your point is well taken. But I still have to go with A&M. If we're counting national championships only, then sure, UT has way under-performed. Then again, other than Alabama, Miami, and (going back a ways) Notre Dame, who hasn't underperformed by that metric. Georgia, Florida, Florida State, and Ohio State also jump to mind. But if you broaden it a little and look at conference championships, major bowl appearances, and Top 25 rankings, UT has done pretty well over the years.

A&M, on the other hand, with all the enormous time, energy, and resources they pour into football, has precious few of any of those things. They are a perineal 8-4 team. . . Middle of the pack year in and year out (Manziel year 1 excluded).

''83, Texas produces more college talent than any other state. Look at UT's competition in-state for that talent. Lubbock, Cowtown, Waco, College Station, and at one time, a small highly academic school in Houston, a commuter school in Houston, and SMU in Dallas.

Outside of A&M and SMU, UT should win those recruiting battles 90%+ of the time (although UH was successful creating its own niche).

A&M 70% of the time and SMU 65% of the time.

All those schools I mentioned are / were in UT's conference so of course that will translate into conference championships and bowl games.

IMO, on a more meaningful scale, NCs, they fail miserably.

Posted: **Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:47 pm**

Fine. I was wrong, it's the entire system.

Regardless, Texas is No. 1 in too many areas for them to have watched schools like Oregon, Clemson and Michigan State surpass them on a consistent basis.

Texas A&M, on the other hand, while a solid school is the definition of mediocrity. It's been rated as one of the ugliest college campuses in the country before (depending on who you ask) and many people think CS is a dump. It ain't the football coaches fault, but that ain't exactly going to help you win recruiting battles. As such A&M does about as well as you could imagine considering they are now in the SEC West.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:16 am**

MustangStealth wrote:
RGV Pony wrote:Wasn't Hyman the AD at the helm during most of TCU's football Renaissance?

The first part, yes. He hired GP.

No, he didn't. Patterson was hired a few weeks before Hyman came aboard. Hyman signed Patterson's contract, but only because he was the official AD when the paperwork came through. But Patterson was hired within a week or so after Franchione left.

I was at the press conference where it was announced, and obviously Patterson was there too. Hyman was nowhere on the scene yet. When he did arrive, he actually wanted to kill the Patterson deal and hire another coach of his own choosing. The Board of Trustees overruled him.

PonyFans.com

Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin

Re: Multiple Sources: A&M looking to fire Sumlin