I put this table together one night last week.  Sources are listed at the top of each column.  I have sorted by athletic budget.  Tech's ranking in each category is at the bottom.  My thoughts:

1.  Being the last school to be founded has huge implications in a number of areas including endowment, alumni base, funding, academics, etc.  I didn't realize that other than UCLA, the next closest schools were founded 30 years prior to Tech.

2.  Wish we had a T. Boone or a Nike...

3.  Tech certainly isn't at the top, but we are far from being at the bottom.  I think we are in that 2nd tier of schools, however unless UT, OU, Ohio St., USC, Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Michigan want to all play each other in their own conference, they need the 2nd tier. 

4.  I did not add the Big 10 and SEC to this, but my guess is we are no where near the 62nd most attractive school for a conference in reality (like the SB Nation draft had us picked).  Our perception outside of Texas needs to improve a lot.

5.  Our academics surely cannot be worse than all of those schools with smaller endowments.  Is this rigged or is Tech that bad of a school?  I personally do not think so but rankings do mean something to incoming freshman and conference commissioners. 

Your thoughts?

Continue reading this post »

So the point of this post was that I was curious if our players really are so much more terrible than UT's players.  Everyone looks at recruiting classes, but I wanted to look at who was actually playing.  I started to do this by going through all of the recruiting rankings, and I will list them below.  I went 2 deep for each side of the ball based on Rivals depth chart.  Sorry these are not in a fancy chart, as I don't even know how to do that stuff.  Also, I probably misspelled some names.  For Tech, I have Rivals and Scout.  I got tired of looking at the color burnt orange and only did Rivals for UT.  

 

<!--StartFragment-->

Offense

Potts:  3 star rivals,  4 star scout

Sticks:  Not ranked Rivals

Batch: 3 star rivals, 4 star scout

Stephens: 4 star rivals, 2 star scout

Leong: 2 star rivals, 2 star scout

Ward: 4 star rivals, 4 star scout

Torres: NR

Franks: 3 star rivals, 2 star scout

Swindall: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Douglas: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Detron: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Nancy: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Waddle: 3 star rivals, 2 star scout

Okafor: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Olson: 3 star rivals, 4 star scout

McDanial: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Lonnie Edwards: 4 star rivals, 4 star scout

Gallington: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Keown: 2 star rivals, 2 star scout

 

Defense:

Scott Smith: 4 star rivals, 3 star scout

Hyder: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Duncan: 3 star rivals, 2 star scout

Barr: 2 star rivals, 2 star scout

Whitlock: 3 star rivals, 2 star scout

Wade: 4 star rivals, 3 star scout

Langley: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Rumph: 3 star rivals, 4 star scout

Foheko: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Sonier: 3 star rivals, 2 star scout

Howard: 3 star rivals, 2 star scout

Cobb: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Bird: 3 star rivals, 2 star scout

Hubert: 3 star rivals,  2 star scout

Ford: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Porter: 4 star rivals, 3 star scout

Laron Moore: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

D Johnson: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

Mitchem: 3 star rivals, 4 star scout

Dewhurst: NR Rivals

Davis: 2 star rivals, 3 star scout

Bullit: 3 star rivals, 3 star scout

 

Texas offense:

 

Gilbert:  5 star

Case McCoy: 3 star

Tre Newton: 3 star

Whitaker: 4 star

Malcolm Williams: 4 star

Kirkendoll: 4 star

Chiles: 4 star

Mike Davis: 4 star

Marquis Goodwin: 3 star

Barret Matthews TE: 3 star

Ahrmard Howard TE: 3 star

Kyle Hix OT: 4 star

Luke Pohlemahn OT: 3 star

Brett Mitchell OT: 3 star

Paden Kelly OT: 3 star

Michael Huey OG: 4 star

Ashcroft OG: 4 star

Mason Walters OG: 5 star kid from Frenship

Trey Hopkins: OG 4 star

Garret Porter: OT: 4 star

David Snow C: 4 star

 

Texas Defense:

 

Eddie Jones DE: 5 star

Jackson Jeffcoat DE: 5 star

Sam Acho: 3 star

Reggie Wilson DE: 4 star

Randall DT: 4 star

Dorsey DT: 4 star

Higgins DT: 2 star

Okafor: DE: 5 star

Johnson DE: 4 star

AchoLB: 3 star

Robinson LB: 4 star

Hicks LB: 5 star

Earnest LB: 3 star

Curtis Brown CB: 5 star

Williams CB: 4 star

Brown CB: 4 star

Byndom CB: 4 star

Scott S: 4 star

Vacarro S: 4 star

Gideon S: 2 star

Philips S: 4 star

<!--EndFragment-->

Observations on Tech: 

On offense we have 6 guys on the 2 deep that had  a 4 star ranking on one of the services compared to 11 for UT (and 2 five star guys).  On defense we have 5 guys ranked with a 4 star on one of the services compared to UT with 11 for UT ( and 4 five star guys).  So yeah, we don't have the talent they have.  However, some interesting things pop up while looking at this list.  Two of UT's biggest stars on defense (at least that I remember hearing about), are Gideon and Acho who are ranked as 2 and 3 star guys.  Also, Scout had Brandon Williams and Crabtree both as 2 star guys.  So I realize that the rankings get it wrong sometimes, but on average they trend correctly I think.

It is interesting to look at matchups and how we do have plenty of positions where our "talent" is equal to UT's.  Of course they have many more where the "talent" is better on their side of the ball.  One thing I did notice however is that Rivals ranks on a scale that goes to 6 point something.  A 5.7 is a 3 star I believe and a 5.8 is a four star.  Over half of our 3 star guys are at a 5.7 it seemed like as I went through the list.  And half of their 4 star guys were a 5.8.  So, the way I take this is that if I am a football player and go to Tech as a 5.7 guy, and my buddy goes to UT as a 5.8 guy, who cares.  I can definitely be better than that guy in college.  These ranking are made when these kids are 17 years old.  By the time they are 20 does that .1 really matter?  NO!  What does matter is speed.  Tubs has it right on the speed deal.  You can't practice and teach speed.  

So, after looking at this, its clear UT has more depth and talent.  But its not "across the board".  Its only across part of the board.  And with hard work and a chip on a players shoulder, many of these "talent" gaps can be irrelevant by the time the players are starting.  

As I go back and think of the UT game, the reason we lost was offensive execution, not lack of talent.  Our D held up athletically to them very well.  I imagine our guys bench and squat about what their guys bench and squat.  Our guys hit as hard as their guys hit.  Speed and quickness are the keys and if anything, thats where we were behind. 

However, on offense, the O line "talent" vs. their D line is really a key area that the "talent" did hurt us.  That is the one area I see in this that the "talent" gap killed us.  Hopefully we can get more good OL guys sooner rather than later.  

http://www.texastech.com/manual/graphics/pdfs/2010-fb-season.pdf

 

As many of you know, 2010 season ticket prices have been released.   Sadly, Myers and crew have continued to raise prices amid a coaching change and recession.  I know some will say that we have to remain competitive and so just deal with the increases.  Well, even though I said I would not renew with Myers, I can’t contain my excitement and will be renewing.  However, many people will not renew because of the coaching changes, administration, or economic factors.  We all know that money talks and increasing prices can cause other factors to be a deal breaker.  We also know that cheaper prices can entice individuals to not care about other factors. 

 

This being said, the goal of ticket prices is to maximize revenue.  I assume the administration has a lot more data on how individual ticket prices effect total revenue, but I will illustrate a possible scenario here.  If we can sell 55K tickets at $50 a game average, that would be a total of $2,750,000 revenue per game.  However, if we could sell only 45K tickets at $60 a game average, total revenue would be $2,700,000.  Thus, by increasing season ticket prices by $60 bucks (6 home games) we would make less money by about $50K a game.  No one knows exactly how this scenario will play out, but if we only sell 47K a game we are not helping ourselves by raising prices. 

 

The other factor of course is that we have a ton of new seats.  The big positive on the new pricing structure is that the new seating sections are very affordable.  $150 a seat for the season is a great price.  If a family of four can go all season for $600, I think that is a phenomenal deal for Big 12 football.  Hopefully these new seats will mean new season ticket holders and not just a mass Exodus from existing sections to the “cheap seats”. 

 

In my opinion, the way to grow ticket revenue is to first fill up the stadium, then raise prices.  If your stadium has a ton of empty seats because demand isn’t great enough, hopefully adjusting prices can fix that problem and result in the most revenue.  Of course if the demand isn’t there anyways, then giving the tickets away won’t help.  I have to believe the demand at a certain price would fill up the Jones every game.  In terms of recruiting and pride, I would actually not care if we made $50,000 less a game but filled up the stadium.

 

I hope we get to see 61K against Texas in the stands.  That will be a great day.  But for the long term I hope we treat ticket prices with care as we expand the stadium. 

 

GO TECH!