Texas to spend $35-40m on 2025 roster

[Orangeburst]

Not sure anyone can limit this without a CBA, and cannot have a CBA without a union,..then we are talking all sorts of ugly scenarios over time.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

If this is even remotely accurate and Tenn is in the 10-12 range, there's no way they're winning a natty.
View attachment 739454

Hold on.

Spyre has reportedly been spending about $12M per year on our athletes. And the university recently announced it will revenue share another $18M per year.

That totals $30M / year. Now, that is to all athletes, not just football. But we're still gonna be spending the lion's share of that on the gridiron. Say $24-25M, give or take.

Right?

So how does that put us on the outside looking in, when $24M is good for the 2nd spot on that list (no idea why we aren't on it...maybe sports reporters are no better than some fans at adding 18 and 12, heh).

Okay, so Texas will spend more. They can still only put 11 kids on the field at a time. They can only divvy out 660 minutes of play time among their entire roster, just like us and Ohio State and Bama and Georgia. They may get some of the best players in the nation, but they won't get anywhere near all of them.

I think we're gonna be fine. Great coaching and development and scheme can more than overcome any slight advantage Texas (or anyone else) may have in raw recruiting.

Go Vols!

 

[Voltopia]

Hold on.

Spyre has reportedly been spending about $12M per year on our athletes. And the university recently announced it will revenue share another $18M per year.

That totals $30M / year. Now, that is to all athletes, not just football. But we're still gonna be spending the lion's share of that on the gridiron. Say $24-25M, give or take.

Right?

So how does that put us on the outside looking in, when $24M is good for the 2nd spot on that list (no idea why we aren't on it...maybe sports reporters are no better than some fans at adding 18 and 12, heh).

Okay, so Texas will spend more. They can still only put 11 kids on the field at a time. They can only divvy out 660 minutes of play time among their entire roster, just like us and Ohio State and Bama and Georgia. They may get some of the best players in the nation, but they won't get anywhere near all of them.

I think we're gonna be fine. Great coaching and development and scheme can more than overcome any slight advantage Texas (or anyone else) may have in raw recruiting.

Go Vols!

Texas will spend more. Ohio State will spend more. Michigan will spend more. Texas A&M (if they want) will spend more. Oregon - well, Uncle Phil - will spend more. And there are others. Should Virginia's alumni base and support system ever decide it wants to spend money, well, they've got a hell of a lot too. Fortunately they're a bit too concerned about appearances for that. For now. And they're not the only one. By alumni size, schools like Notre Dame and USC have vast networks as well; quantity rather than quality. Though in USC and Notre Dame's cases, perhaps both.

Yes, Tennessee will be on the outside looking in. Top 10-20 in spending every year? Sure. Maybe crack the bottom half of the top 10. But when push comes to shove, most schools will be getting shoved. Most schools will be on the outside looking in. It may be possible to spend like drunken sailors and keep up. But for how long?

That said, fans of the schools on the outside are going to get to experience the joy of their schools hiking up their skirts to sell every single smidgen of their college sports experience to try and keep up with those heavyweights. Talent fees, garish "entertainment districts," ticket increases, donation increases, branding sponsorships. The money was always there to be "had," but until recent time schools had restraint. No more. Now it's a race, an expensive one at that, and the race never ends.

 

[DaddyChad]

Hold on.

Spyre has reportedly been spending about $12M per year on our athletes. And the university recently announced it will revenue share another $18M per year.

That totals $30M / year. Now, that is to all athletes, not just football. But we're still gonna be spending the lion's share of that on the gridiron. Say $24-25M, give or take.

Right?

So how does that put us on the outside looking in, when $24M is good for the 2nd spot on that list (no idea why we aren't on it...maybe sports reporters are no better than some fans at adding 18 and 12, heh).

Okay, so Texas will spend more. They can still only put 11 kids on the field at a time. They can only divvy out 660 minutes of play time among their entire roster, just like us and Ohio State and Bama and Georgia. They may get some of the best players in the nation, but they won't get anywhere near all of them.

I think we're gonna be fine. Great coaching and development and scheme can more than overcome any slight advantage Texas (or anyone else) may have in raw recruiting.

Go Vols!

Does the numbers on the list even include revenue sharing at those other schools?

 

[MiramarVol]

Danny White's Response.


“I think it’s hard to know what’s true,” White said on Thursday night. “There’s so many numbers being thrown out. We are as competitive as anyone. I think in the NIL space, we came out the gate as a leader and we’re going to continue to have our foot on the gas, and knowing how our resources have grown – so in the last four years, we’ve grown from $140 million in annual revenue and will close the books this year closer to $280 (million) – we’ve almost doubled, and that’s this fan base. That’s why we’re here today.

“Whatever the rules of engagement are, if it’s about investing in our teams and making sure they have every competitive advantage possible, that’s what we’re going to do. We have a competitive administration. We have competitive coaches. We’re not generating all this revenue to put it in some coffers to make me feel good. We’re generating revenue to reinvest in our programs to win at a high level.”

 

[Volanta]

ehhh they'll stop when they dont win as much as they think they should. Does it cost to win? yes, but when the game is down to the wire, how much you spend on your roster is meaningless. Do you make the right football decisions? thats what wins you games. At some point all the stars dont matter as much---are you developing them? are you coaching them? are you making great game time decisions? the same 5 stars we have now are the same ones Saban had- and he was uber successful, no arguement. But they still got beat. and Sark while a good coach is no where near Saban's caliber. So he can pay them all he wants and stack the cupboard, but can he actually do whats needed to be done on game day? Time will tell.

 

[hUTch2002]

Well that is true.

btw- it is UTex, never UT, even when acknowledging its fakeness. Like never calling it orange, though it looks like they took our beloved Pantone 151C and mixed in dog feces and tried to pass it off as their own, (but I digress lol)

I moved to Texas right after graduation from UTK. I told all those Longhorn fans they are ut while we are UT. They didn’t like that for some reason.

 

[hUTch2002]

I still maintain that some schools will simply abandon football. Thinking in particular of Kentucky. They are better off spending their NIL $ on basketball. They'll never be competitive in football. So shut that down and convert the land where the football stadium used to be into dorms or other facilities.

You hope anyway, that’ll be one less loss for the Gator football team.

 

[lawgator1]

You hope anyway, that’ll be one less loss for the Gator football team.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Does the numbers on the list even include revenue sharing at those other schools?

Dunno, for most of the teams on the list. And don't trust the reporters to have gotten it all right as an apples-to-apples comparison.

Do know this, though: if Texas goes out of its way to count it up, and brags it is going to spend $35M-$40M on its football team in the coming year, it is counting EVERY SINGLE PENNY it can logically include. Maybe more.

They don't 'brag small' in Texas. They make it all as big as they can, and then exaggerate even more if they can get away with it.

So yeah, I think Tennessee at $24-$25M a year is probably pretty competitive with most of the competition.

Go Vols!

 

[sami]

I still maintain that some schools will simply abandon football. Thinking in particular of Kentucky. They are better off spending their NIL $ on basketball. They'll never be competitive in football. So shut that down and convert the land where the football stadium used to be into dorms or other facilities.

No SEC or Big 10 school will ever drop football as long as media networks are willing to pony up $30 mil a school, or whatever the ridiculous figure is at the moment. If and when the money starts to dry up, then some hard decisions will have to be made.

 

[UTodd01]

Top 10 Richest NIL Collectives:

1.) OSU
2.) Tennessee

 

[hUTch2002]

View attachment 739544

I agree. It is odd that you all lose to Kentucky as much as you do.

 

[orangebloodgmc]

Report: Texas football spending unprecedented money on 2025 roster

Vol faithful, if this is not complete BS, how are we going to compete in this new era? We know OSU spent some $25m+ on their nat champ winning roster and now we see this. Then I see people talking about us spending somewhere between $10-12m this year.

I get discount shopping but seriously, how do we compete if this kind of money is being thrown around?

Yes, money alone does not a great program or record make BUT lets be honest, if the top 5 programs are all spending above $20m a year and most are in our own league, how can we recruit without making the economics of going to a game completely out of reach (or is it already?).

Some people impetuously toss their money in an ill-considered deal ... and soon feel the embarrassment of buyer's remorse.

 

[volbound1700]

I posted about it when Texas joined the SEC. If anyone thought Bama or UGA were bad, bend over. Texas has some of, if not the best high school football facilities and teams in the US. They have an abundance of money. And now they have the last piece in a conference to brag about. I hope I’m wrong, but they are going to be more than a thorn in the side for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps it is because they are the largest public university in the largest, most obsessed football focus state in the country with tons of energy and oil money donors.

 

[volbound1700]

I still maintain that some schools will simply abandon football. Thinking in particular of Kentucky. They are better off spending their NIL $ on basketball. They'll never be competitive in football. So shut that down and convert the land where the football stadium used to be into dorms or other facilities.

Big East schools did that 50 years ago. Schools like Villanova, St John's, Marquette, etc.

 

[volbound1700]

The combination of the two is the worst part of it, yes. I'm honestly not sure what the legality is of the portal and what could be done to restrict it. I'm seeing players on their fourth school in 2-3 years, just flipping year to year, often times not even a whole year.

If the portal was once a year and you had players sign for a minimum of two year,s great. But you can't force them to play. They could just sit there, take up a spot on your roster, and bleed you dry, waiting for their chance to enter the portal.

Agree, portal is more of the issue than NIL IMO. Combination of both creates the problem.

 

[gainesvol82]

They are and the NFL could easily say you can't make the big leagues until you're 19 or whatever but I'm not sure they're interested in forcing school on someone like Corderelle Patterson who "didn't come here to play school, I came to play football."

I don't think the NFL wants the potential lawsuit of why it hires a player to play cornerback but insists that they take History purely because they are younger than regular NFL employees who have no such requirements.

You want what scares the shite out of NFL execs? Football being labeled as "dangerous" to play.....I.E. CTE, etc.

The last thing the NFL wants is to get an 18, 19 year old kid killed because he developed and reached his physical potential sooner than others. No way they ever allow HS to pro football without age restrictions.

 

[Firebirdparts]

And enforce it? The minute a cap is established, programs will just find ways to circumvent it like before NIL. Then we're right back where we started.

It's far beyond that. NIL can simply never be capped. That's just not ever going to be possible. You can forget any thought experiment where NIL is capped.

HOWEVER. The good news is, nobody actually wants to hire the NIL's of these players for real money (Livvy Dunne possibly an exception). If all boosters on planet earth collude in telling the boys they have to be happy with pay to play, then it'll be over. I doubt that'll happen.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You want what scares the shite out of NFL execs? Football being labeled as "dangerous" to play.....I.E. CTE, etc.

The last thing the NFL wants is to get an 18, 19 year old kid killed because he developed and reached his physical potential sooner than others. No way they ever allow HS to pro football without age restrictions.

More CTE lawsuits are coming and probably for colleges and high schools when a kid who never played pro was solicited, with his parents, by a coach to "come play ball, it's perfectly safe at this level" ends up dead and autopsied with early CTE signs at 20.

The NFL won't take kids out of high school, ever, but if college loses the "student" portion via the players being deemed by the court to be "employees," it will be almost impossible to enforce "aging out" for an employee and not get sued for "age discrimination." You may end up with UT Vols that stay for 10 years and are 27 playing against guys that are 17.

This is part of the move toward the Athletic Depts becoming LLCs, IMO, to minimize the legal exposure of the school, and often the state, to lawsuits before this gets sorted out.

 

[gainesvol82]

More CTE lawsuits are coming and probably for colleges and high schools when a kid who never played pro was solicited, with his parents, by a coach to "come play ball, it's perfectly safe at this level" ends up dead and autopsied with early CTE signs at 20.

The NFL won't take kids out of high school, ever, but if college loses the "student" portion via the players being deemed by the court to be "employees," it will be almost impossible to enforce "aging out" for an employee and not get sued for "age discrimination." You may end up with UT Vols that stay for 10 years and are 27 playing against guys that are 17.

This is part of the move toward the Athletic Depts becoming LLCs, IMO, to minimize the legal exposure of the school, and often the state, to lawsuits before this gets sorted out.

I don't think that sports leagues should be treated as just another business and subject to the same laws, especially with government funding (taxpayers money) and how gambling fits into the picture. There is just too much room for corruption.

Congress needs to look at creating a different category of "business/company" with rules/laws specific to them instead of trying to make them fit into existing categories.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I don't think that sports leagues should be treated as just another business and subject to the same laws, especially with government funding (taxpayers money) and how gambling fits into the picture. There is just too much room for corruption.

Congress needs to look at creating a different category of "business/company" with rules/laws specific to them instead of trying to make them fit into existing categories.

Congress however is useless at most of the things it fixes. Obviously, pro sports have enjoyed some Antitrust protection which allows them to control the market more than most businesses.

The absolute bottom line if "college sports" becomes "pro sports" is that the universities nor the states have no business owning a pro sports franchise.

This attempt by the NCAA to "allow the schools to pay players directly" can only lead to the players being considered legally pro athletes and the schools being seen legally as pro franchise owners.

That's not workable. The other state schools like ETSU and UTC may get pulled in legally and it gets messy quickly.

 

[LouderVol]

The combination of the two is the worst part of it, yes. I'm honestly not sure what the legality is of the portal and what could be done to restrict it. I'm seeing players on their fourth school in 2-3 years, just flipping year to year, often times not even a whole year.

If the portal was once a year and you had players sign for a minimum of two year,s great. But you can't force them to play. They could just sit there, take up a spot on your roster, and bleed you dry, waiting for their chance to enter the portal.

make the school portion 3 years. tie that pay to play. and they can make however much from NIL as they want.

3 years is the most time most of the top earners will want to stay, so sit out that time, and they are missing their whole career.

where I see it gets tricky is if TN is paying some kid to play for them but then Bama's NIL team comes and signs him for NIL purposes "only". how is that not going to influence a guy to throw games? only way to fix that is to make sure the NIL money is actually tied to something.

maybe try to figure out how the NFL avoids "boosters" buying players like that.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

There must be a "cap" established at some point

It is illegal to cap NIL

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Congress however is useless at most of the things it fixes. Obviously, pro sports have enjoyed some Antitrust protection which allows them to control the market more than most businesses.

The absolute bottom line if "college sports" becomes "pro sports" is that the universities nor the states have no business owning a pro sports franchise.

This attempt by the NCAA to "allow the schools to pay players directly" can only lead to the players being considered legally pro athletes and the schools being seen legally as pro franchise owners.

That's not workable. The other state schools like ETSU and UTC may get pulled in legally and it gets messy quickly.

Why not? There is zero reason for them to not do that if that's where the model goes.