How Are We Behind South Carolina?

#2
#2
1-Texas
2-Notre Dame
3-PSU
4-Nebraska
5-Alabama
6-UF
7-LSU
8-Ohio State
9-UGA
10-OU
11-Michigan
12-USCe
13-UTk
14-Auburn
15-USC
16-Mich. St
17-Arkansas
18-Texas A&M
19-Wisconsin
20-Ok. St
 
#4
#4
rexvol said:
1-Texas
2-Notre Dame
3-PSU
4-Nebraska
5-Alabama
6-UF
7-LSU
8-Ohio State
9-UGA
10-OU
11-Michigan
12-USCe
13-UTk
14-Auburn
15-USC
16-Mich. St
17-Arkansas
18-Texas A&M
19-Wisconsin
20-Ok. St
Click to expand...

Those three are suprising, to me.
 
#5
#5
If you read the article, the ranking is based upon how much money is generated versus expenditures. Given our decline in ticket sales over the past few years, lack of bowl appearances and huge recruiting budget, I can see how uscjr would be ranked higher. That will change in a year or two.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
My guess is this is done yearly and according to the article factors in how much money was generated from bowl revenues and how much the university academics beneifitted from football profits. WE had $0 in bowl revenue last year and pay our staff/athletic budget much more than others. Others may pass more of that along to the university.
 
#7
#7
That list is clearly inaccurate. I never see anyone outside of gamecock area with their gear on. I see UT stuff everywhere...and I don't live in knoxville. We easily sell way more apparell. We easily sell more tickets. I give that rating a zero credibilty rating.
 
#8
#8
Forbes is only interested in money. This list is based on how much money a team generates. If you read our blurb, you'll note that our previous rank was #7, and S.C's previous was still #12.

I suspect our drop was because of the difficulty our program has been in for the last couple of years. Just give CLK another year or two to get the team better, get the Vols back in the national spotlight, thus get the fanbase excited and our program's 'value' (money generating potential) higher, and we'll jump past S.C. again.
 
#9
#9
USCw is shocking to me at 15. I would think they would be in the top 5.
 
#10
#10
How are we not #1 in the country on this list. We have the only athletic department in the country that operates in the black, and donates money back to the university on a yearly basis.
 
#11
#11
Our merchandising is gaining a lot of speed since Kiffin took the helm. Also, we have been spending a bunch renovating the stadium, building the new athletic complex, etc. If things keep going the way they are, I would imagine we could hit the top 10 in the next five years. I liked seeing we make 2.5 million in parking, concessions, etc. on a game day.
 
#12
#12
tri_vol said:
If you read the article, the ranking is based upon how much money is generated versus expenditures. Given our decline in ticket sales over the past few years, lack of bowl appearances and huge recruiting budget, I can see how uscjr would be ranked higher. That will change in a year or two.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Then how are we ranked ahead of USC?
 
#13
#13
The list is garbage..it is clearly not counting major veins of revenue. UT and USC hats are all over the nation. Michigan as well.
 
#16
#16
VolDC said:
Did you miss the part where I said yearly basis? This was discussed on a thread in here earlier this spring. We have the only athletic department that fully funds itself year in and year out.
Click to expand...

Not true. Texas has never been subsidized. Neither, has OSU, ND, or UGA. I'm just sayin'...
 
#17
#17
I'm not surprised by most of that list. If its just about money I am curious about a few teams on that list. 1. I am surprised Nebraska and USCe are so high. Nebraska is a tradition rich team but outside of Nebraska you don't run into many Husker fans and the state doesn't even have 2 million people. I think their stadium holds 81,000 (since an expansion in 2006). 2. I am surprised Ohio State and TN are so low on the list. Both have huge stadiums, a loyal fan base, and a relatively large state population. Maybe something else is coming into play (that I'm not seeing).
 
#18
#18
beavbullvol said:
Not true. Texas has never been subsidized. Neither, has OSU, ND, or UGA. I'm just sayin'...
Click to expand...

It makes since to me with the money they generate, but someone on here broke it down for there economics class, and they said OSU is the only other school that does it on a semiregular basis. It would make since for that to change with all the stadium improvements these schools have made.
 
#19
#19
VolDC said:
It makes since to me with the money they generate, but someone on here broke it down for there economics class, and they said OSU is the only other school that does it on a semiregular basis. It would make since for that to change with all the stadium improvements these schools have made.
Click to expand...

True. I'm also curious how much of this economic downturn is affecting athletic revenue. We've heard most local pundits say that this economy (along with charging the students for tickets) played key rolls in driving down our overall attendance and profitability.

I didn't go to a single game this year. However, if you break down the cost of a game, it really becomes staggering once you consider it with 10,000 empty seats.

1. Ticket $50
2. Parking $25
3. Drink $4
4. Popcorn $4
5. Hotdog $4
6. Fuel $10 (avg considering local attendees)
7. Hotel $150

Yikes...
 
#20
#20
It might be because we make more money than SC in basketball,so we don't rely on football as much as they do.
 
#21
#21
TnVolFan14 said:
It might be because we make more money than SC in basketball,so we don't rely on football as much as they do.
Click to expand...

I can say with confidence as a UT letterman, baseball and basketball were the only male sports not subsidized by football revenue. Every women's program relied heavily upon football revenues, except Summitt's girls, of course.

The abomination known as Title IX made sure of that!
 
#22
#22
The only reason I dropped the 'letterman' thing was because I asked our AD a lot of questions about stuff like that. I was the curious one, I guess.
 
#23
#23
VolDC said:
How are we not #1 in the country on this list. We have the only athletic department in the country that operates in the black, and donates money back to the university on a yearly basis.
Click to expand...
The revenue flow will improve once CLK's success generates more income and the previous coach who shall remain nameless is paid off.
 
#24
#24
Rogers72 said:
My guess is this is done yearly and according to the article factors in how much money was generated from bowl revenues and how much the university academics beneifitted from football profits. WE had $0 in bowl revenue last year and pay our staff/athletic budget much more than others. Others may pass more of that along to the university.
Click to expand...

False. Each SEC team has the same net bowl revenue. It's shared amoung all the teams in the conference.

Staff cost is on par with the leading programs in the SEC, it's just allocated differently.
 
#25
#25
back 10 years ago or 15 i saw the list and tennessee was a top 7 every year even with now were behind south carolina kiffen will get us back in the top spot again and stay in top 5
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top