Started By
Message
re: Who has more money
Posted on 8/3/21 at 7:34 pm to Farmer1906
Posted on 8/3/21 at 7:34 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
Doesn’t matter
This post was edited on 8/3/21 at 7:34 pm
0
Posted on 8/3/21 at 7:40 pm to cjohn
quote:
Newest numbers I can find are
Texas $32.0B
A&M $13.6B
My understanding is that neither school uses a penny of the endowment to fund athletics. So yes, while both endowments are ginormous, that doesn’t effect Football at all.
If a fan of either school says.. we have SOOO much money that we can buy anything..
1) They are morons
2) They don’t mean the endowment, and if they do, they are morons
3) They are referring to big money boosters who may or may not want to send money to the athletic department. TBD what happens with NIL. Either way, they are morons.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 7:41 pm to BigBro
That’s what a poor person would say.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 7:58 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
Texas then Georgia by a margin of $30+M then it drops another $30M to the next tier of SEC programs.
A&M and tu are north of 200 M regularly now. I don’t think anyone else is.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 8:06 pm to Farmer1906
I think ole Farmer1906 needs a makeover.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 8:09 pm to TexasForever
quote:
Vanderbilt's endowment is $25 billion less than ours?
The vast majority of the $30B represents PUF assets, while the UT system (and to a lessor degree TAMU system) enjoy incredible annual asset transfers aka the AUF, the PUF is owned by the state.
The State through legislation could alter the AUF distribution and UT/TAMU have no say (UT originally received 100% and TAMU zero).
True endowments themselves have limited asset distribution control, but they are at lest in the ownership of the actual University in most cases. Vandy being private has a much clearer endowment value eval.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 8:16 pm to SouthernInsanity
Texas and it’s not close.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 8:20 pm to BigBro
quote:
My understanding is that neither school uses a penny of the endowment to fund athletics. So yes, while both endowments are ginormous, that doesn’t effect Football at all.
If a fan of either school says.. we have SOOO much money that we can buy anything..
1) They are morons
2) They don’t mean the endowment, and if they do, they are morons
3) They are referring to big money boosters who may or may not want to send money to the athletic department. TBD what happens with NIL. Either way, they are morons.
Completely agree. If you see my earlier post, Texas and A&M are typically 1 and 2 for athletic dept revenues over the last few years.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 8:24 pm to Farmer1906
you probably noticed your AD revenue sky rocket over the last 5 years.. notice it will fall back in the coming years. I believe starting with the 2019-20 reporting.
The vast percentage of those gains were "creative accounting" and the bond revenue (stadium enhancements) getting plugged in as revenue. That "show revenue" was never cash and will not be reflected in the future.
Easiest way to see the real numbers is in the "spend", how much your expense budget is.
UT/TAMU endowments are similar, they aren't anywhere near the $30/$13B you see listed randomly. Those figures are for "show", the State owns the assets (PUF) and we get the AUF, which could be altered by legislation (UT used to get 100% of those annual distributions).
Tech, Houston and the other state universities come after those AUF transfers every session with a passion. With the massive population growth in the state and current bloated enrollments @ UT/TAMU combined with the need for higher learning options one can expect our AUF transfers to be reallocated again.
The vast percentage of those gains were "creative accounting" and the bond revenue (stadium enhancements) getting plugged in as revenue. That "show revenue" was never cash and will not be reflected in the future.
Easiest way to see the real numbers is in the "spend", how much your expense budget is.
UT/TAMU endowments are similar, they aren't anywhere near the $30/$13B you see listed randomly. Those figures are for "show", the State owns the assets (PUF) and we get the AUF, which could be altered by legislation (UT used to get 100% of those annual distributions).
Tech, Houston and the other state universities come after those AUF transfers every session with a passion. With the massive population growth in the state and current bloated enrollments @ UT/TAMU combined with the need for higher learning options one can expect our AUF transfers to be reallocated again.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 8:24 pm to BurntOrangeMan
I am talking about alumni
Posted on 8/3/21 at 8:41 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
I am talking about alumni
Fair enough, I'm talking true liquidity and ownership in AD's and University endowments with TexasForever and Farmer1906.
To your topic I can only guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if you are right (it's Texas). Vandy's assets are primarily from long since deceased alumni that I'm not certain left any long stream contributing resources. Regardless, even if they still exist they sure as hell don't care or contribute to athletics.
Texas' next wave of billionaire boosters is second only to the PAC12 boys. Tech money and it's massive. We'll see if it ever influences athletics though.
This post was edited on 8/3/21 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 8/3/21 at 8:44 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
I am talking about alumni
That would still be Texas by a good margin, but that margin has been closing over the last 20 years or so as A&M caught up in enrollment.
Even in my day in the mid 80s at A&M Texas had nearly 20k more students.
Both schools have plenty of big dollar donors. The difference to this point is the wealthiest of A&M donors typically only give to the academic side. A&M doesn't have a billionaire donating big to the athletic department like other schools (Texas, Oregon, Okie Lite, etc)
Posted on 8/3/21 at 8:47 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
The vast majority of the $30B represents PUF assets, while the UT system (and to a lessor degree TAMU system) enjoy incredible annual asset transfers aka the AUF, the PUF is owned by the state.
The State through legislation could alter the AUF distribution and UT/TAMU have no say (UT originally received 100% and TAMU zero).
True endowments themselves have limited asset distribution control, but they are at lest in the ownership of the actual University in most cases. Vandy being private has a much clearer endowment value eval.
Good info! Thanks
Posted on 8/3/21 at 9:28 pm to TexasForever
Permanent University Fund
Good quick read on the Santa Rita well that turned "grazing land" into a virtual cash cow:
Santa Rita Well
Good quick read on the Santa Rita well that turned "grazing land" into a virtual cash cow:
Santa Rita Well
This post was edited on 8/3/21 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 8/3/21 at 9:29 pm to 3down10
quote:
When it comes to Texas, you'll find their fans are always talking about how much money they have, how they can buy this if they want to, or they can buy that if they want to. According to Texas fans, they have the money to buy everything
That's Texan culture in a nutshell.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 10:01 pm to TexasForever
Nice quick view on how these top privates earned their status.
Those nerds are wizards with their endowments.
Those nerds are wizards with their endowments.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 10:08 pm to 3down10
quote:I actually think their last two hires were solid. It’s not like there are a ton of available established coaches running around out there. And Texas, while they can pay a lot, isn’t going to pull a coach from a solid situation to go where coaches die. I bet you they have tried.
Did they go out and spend a record deal for an established coach the way Alabama did with Saban? Nope, they went out and paid about average money for a good OC, but failed former HC.
Herman was so highly regarded when they hired him, I don’t think there’s a program in the country who wouldn’t have wanted him if they were in the market tbh. That obviously turned out bad though.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 10:32 pm to abellsujr
quote:
I actually think their last two hires were solid. It’s not like there are a ton of available established coaches running around out there. And Texas, while they can pay a lot, isn’t going to pull a coach from a solid situation to go where coaches die. I bet you they have tried.
Herman was so highly regarded when they hired him, I don’t think there’s a program in the country who wouldn’t have wanted him if they were in the market tbh. That obviously turned out bad though.
Herman was basically an OC. He had a total of 1 year at Houston before getting hired at Texas. Houston is usually a decent team for it's level, and 1 year hardly says anything.
There are established coaches out there, but you gotta spend the money to get them. When Alabama hired Saban they made him the highest paid coach at the time. So they need to go out and pay a coach $11-$13 million. Instead, they go for "up and coming" like a lower tier school and hope they pan out while paying less than half that.
For all the shite people talk, Dan Mullen at Florida was a better hire than Tom Herman.
I don't see Sark doing much better, he does at least have HC experience at P5 schools, but he literally averages out to 7 wins a season. Maybe he's gotten better, maybe he learned a lot from Saban, we'll see.
But he hasn't proven that. Even Ole Miss made a better hire in Lane Kiffin, who spent time at FAU for a few years proving himself before he was hired.
So as far as I can see, they spend average money on unproven coaches.
If they ain't fit to pay the money, that's fine. Yet to hear Texas fans tell it, they could easily do that and more.
But they never do.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 12:34 am to 3down10
quote:
Herman was basically an OC. He had a total of 1 year at Houston before getting hired at Texas. Houston is usually a decent team for it's level, and 1 year hardly says anything.
There are established coaches out there, but you gotta spend the money to get them. When Alabama hired Saban they made him the highest paid coach at the time. So they need to go out and pay a coach $11-$13 million. Instead, they go for "up and coming" like a lower tier school and hope they pan out while paying less than half that.
For all the shite people talk, Dan Mullen at Florida was a better hire than Tom Herman.
I don't see Sark doing much better, he does at least have HC experience at P5 schools, but he literally averages out to 7 wins a season. Maybe he's gotten better, maybe he learned a lot from Saban, we'll see.
But he hasn't proven that. Even Ole Miss made a better hire in Lane Kiffin, who spent time at FAU for a few years proving himself before he was hired.
So as far as I can see, they spend average money on unproven coaches.
If they ain't fit to pay the money, that's fine. Yet to hear Texas fans tell it, they could easily do that and more.
But they never do.
You either have a shite memory or are barely drinking age.
Herman was the clear #1 choice. Hell Texas was literally days from letting LSU snag him a getting the AD building burned to the ground.
Don't lose your mind as I'm not saying he was ever interested, but Hicks and his crew were ready to throw $10M a year on a long term guaranteed deal to pull Saban back when $5M per was considered special.
You can drop a few names, but what you may have forgotten or never knew is that Texas initially wavered on Herman over character issues. Our shite show ADept and admin thought they were the cats meow and Darrell Royal was their hiring standard.
Many other good targets were scratched by default.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News