https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets/

Rankings of note:

1. Ohio State $49M to $54M
2. Oregon $48M to $54M
3. Texas $45M to $55M
4. LSU $47M to $50M
5. A&M $45M to $50M
...
9. Tennessee $41M to $43M
10. Alabama $38M to $42M
11. Texas Tech $38M to $42M
...
13. Indiana $36M to $40M
...
20. Oklahoma $28M to $34M
...
24. Missouri $27M to $30 M


Confirms what I think most of us know already: That we should expect to consistently contend. Still, really tough to have two of the four teams ranked above us as permanent SEC opponents.

I'm a bit surprised to see Oklahoma so low. It does feel like the move to the SEC might make it hard to compete long-term at the level they have traditionally.

I don't know about the other schools, but I don't think our numbers are anywhere close to that. I stated this on the other thread in the premium form that was posted in the same information from the same athletic article and I don't think the athletic has any idea what our money is that we've gone out and spent on this roster. I know that Billy and Ryan have been clear that our numbers are nowhere close to that and if I recall correctly, Ryan stating that there are several recruits, we got and we didn't offer the maximum amount of money that other teams competing for the same prospect we're offering as their market value.

It seems our coaches are really good at waiting. What they think is a fair assessment and they're not willing to go over that or be driven by emotional and irrational thinking to try to match top dollars to go out and get a kid regardless if it's a high school prospect or from the portal. So would that said, I feel very confident that Billy and Ryan are right and our numbers are nowhere near that top level that they've listed us at.

Quote:

---

I don't know about the other schools, but I don't think our numbers are anywhere close to that. I stated this on the other thread in the premium form that was posted in the same information from the same athletic article and I don't think the athletic has any idea what our money is that we've gone out and spent on this roster.

---

Some more context to keep in mind:

• Few people inside a college football program building know their school's exact numbers. And even if they do, many don't feel comfortable sharing it, even anonymously.
• Even if they do talk to a reporter, coaches will often undersell their own budgets. This may be to temper fans' expectations or to keep their players from asking for even more money.
• School administrators, on the other hand, have the opposite incentive. They want people to think their number is higher than it really is, which makes them look like great fundraisers.
• And in the background, seemingly everyone associated with a program loves to tell you how much their competitors have. This is especially the case if they believe a rival program has considerably more money than they do so they can go back to their bosses or boosters and say, "See? We need more." We examined their figures more skeptically when developing our estimates.

Quote:

---

I know that Billy and Ryan have been clear that our numbers are nowhere close to that and if I recall correctly,

---

interesting. do you have a link to those comments? would love to see the context and numbers

JournoAG said:

---

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets/

Rankings of note:

1. Ohio State $49M to $54M
2. Oregon $48M to $54M
3. Texas $45M to $55M
4. LSU $47M to $50M
5. A&M $45M to $50M
...
9. Tennessee $41M to $43M
10. Alabama $38M to $42M
11. Texas Tech $38M to $42M
...
13. Indiana $36M to $40M
...
20. Oklahoma $28M to $34M
...
24. Missouri $27M to $30 M


Confirms what I think most of us know already: That we should expect to consistently contend. Still, really tough to have two of the four teams ranked above us as permanent SEC opponents.

I'm a bit surprised to see Oklahoma so low. It does feel like the move to the SEC might make it hard to compete long-term at the level they have traditionally.

---

Where is Georgia on that list?

How much of that is QB1?

That's a lot of money for an offense ranked in the bottom half of sec teams (12 out of 16). When you factor in the strength of our first two opponents then its even more concerning.

I want to believe that we are up there in the top 5, but that also means I expect the results to be top 5 most years. Either that or we are paying the wrong guys or not developing and coaching to the same level. If they came up with $70 million to make Fisher go away, I'm thinking we are one of the top $ programs when it comes to NIL.

JournoAG said:

---

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets/

Rankings of note:

1. Ohio State $49M to $54M
2. Oregon $48M to $54M
3. Texas $45M to $55M
4. LSU $47M to $50M
5. A&M $45M to $50M
...
9. Tennessee $41M to $43M
10. Alabama $38M to $42M
11. Texas Tech $38M to $42M
...
13. Indiana $36M to $40M
...
20. Oklahoma $28M to $34M
...
24. Missouri $27M to $30 M


Confirms what I think most of us know already: That we should expect to consistently contend. Still, really tough to have two of the four teams ranked above us as permanent SEC opponents.

I'm a bit surprised to see Oklahoma so low. It does feel like the move to the SEC might make it hard to compete long-term at the level they have traditionally.

---

The State of Oklahoma is not a wealthy state overall. The pool of billionaires is small.

JournoAG said:

---

5. A&M $45M to $50M
...
13. Indiana $36M to $40M

---

And here I always thought it was the Jimmies and Joes.

2023 Recruit rankings
Ags - 15
Indiana - 69

2024 Recruit rankings
Ags - 19
Indiana - 66

2025 Recruit rankings
Ags - 9
Indiana - 49

2023 Transfer rankings
Ags - 26
Indiana - 19

2024 Transfer rankings
Ags - 4
Indiana - 29

2025 Transfer rankings
Ags - 11
Indiana - 25

AGinHI said:

---

JournoAG said:

---

5. A&M $45M to $50M
...
13. Indiana $36M to $40M

---

And here I always thought it was the Jimmies and Joes.

2023 Recruit rankings
Ags - 15
Indiana - 69

2024 Recruit rankings
Ags - 19
Indiana - 66

2025 Recruit rankings
Ags - 9
Indiana - 49

2023 Transfer rankings
Ags - 26
Indiana - 19

2024 Transfer rankings
Ags - 4
Indiana - 29

2025 Transfer rankings
Ags - 11
Indiana - 25

---

Shows 2 things:
1) player rankings aren't all that accurate
2) coaching still matters a lot

They make it pretty clear there are a ton of estimates involved in this. We're 5th because they take the average of the min and max but could be anywhere between 1-8 based on min/max. If you had asked me to guess which teams are spending more then us without seeing this, I would have guessed their top 4 are (Texas, OSU, Oregon, LSU) and Miami (#6 and only lower because their min/max is 44/50 and ours is 45/50).

It's pretty clear their methodology was to call some of the GMs and agents and said "what was player X asking for on the transfer market? Also, what's the going rate for a starting and backup OT in the SEC?" Also probably asked what they think other conference foes roster costs. I would guess they are generally correct, but certain numbers could be inflated based on agent/competition perception. Could they be 10-15% too high because agents are incentivized to overstate the cost? Yes, but if they are, probably off on all teams by a similar amount.

Saying our roster cost is in the 5-10 range isn't really a shock to me.

A. G. Pennypacker said:

---

Where is Georgia on that list?

---

Good question. Georgia came in at 19th, with $31M to $34M. I found that very surprising.

Indiana/Cignetti is an outlier. He and Kirby are different breeds. A league of their own.

I also think each team has a bit of a different strategy in how they spend the money.

A&M seems much more focused on spreading the money around in order to build depth. Texas goes after star power. You can see that at WR. Texas goes all in on Cam Coleman. We still spend big, but presumably a little less on Horton and opt to use what's left over on other positions.

We'll see what's most successful.

Haven't we been looking for that outlier ourselves?

We took Alabama's coach who, seemingly, brought TCU into prominence and was on the verge of resurrecting the Crimson Tide.

We then tried a fairly successful NFL coach who got Aggie culture.

We then went after a young, hot up and comer who continued Houston's success following Art Briles, the likes of which they hadn't seen since the late 80s,

With those not working out, we went for a true winner dropping a bunch of cash, still, to steal the Seminoles coach, who, at that time, was one of just four active FBS head coaches who had won a national championship.

After over a quarter of a century of fandom, I'm getting the sense that money and players alone won't do it for us. We need the trifecta of money, players, and once in a lifetime coach.

And probably a once in a lifetime player too.

Well, that's why they post that stuff so that people like you will believe it

LSU and A&M get to pay the failed coach tax over and above everyone else!

"Hi, I'm Bob from the Athletic. Can you please tell me how much NIL money has been paid to Texas A&M football players?"

"Howdy Bob. I'm Diane from the Aggie NIL Collective. No, I'm not going to provide you that information. Bye."

A ranking where the numbers are ranges? That's stupid. For Texas, the range is 45-55 million, for LSU, its 47-50 million, for A&M its 45-50 million..What if Texas is 47 million, LSU is 48 million and A&M is 49 million. That would be within the range but would make A&M at worst the 3rd highest payroll and maybe even the highest depending on the other two..It's just stupid to RANK 5 rosters when all you have is a made up estimate. For all we know, A&M could have the highest paid roster in the country just by being on the upper end of their range/other programs being in the middle to lower end of theirs..

Based on how Bama is recruiting, I don't believe their numbers are anywhere close to that.

Jimbo4win said:

---

A ranking where the numbers are ranges? That's stupid. For Texas, the range is 45-55 million, for LSU, its 47-50 million, for A&M its 45-50 million..What if Texas is 47 million, LSU is 48 million and A&M is 49 million. That would be within the range but would make A&M at worst the 3rd highest payroll and maybe even the highest depending on the other two..It's just stupid to RANK 5 rosters when all you have is a made up estimate. For all we know, A&M could have the highest paid roster in the country just by being on the upper end of their range/other programs being in the middle to lower end of theirs..

---

Edit to add-I DON'T want A&M to be lower on the list. I want A&M to have the highest paid roster EVERY damn year AND dominate national championships. I want to be hated and want every other program to know there is no way in hell they could ever compete with our wealth. I want to spend so much money that we have backup quarterbacks and left tackles that are top 10 first rounders. I don't want it to be fair in any way. I want to dominate the sport. Who would want a cheap A** roster? The Dodgers don't think this way nor should we.

I appreciate the effort that went into this article. Of course it is not exact, the programs don't want to report their numbers. But this is probably the most careful analysis I've seen on salaries, and I do appreciate that.

I'm glad we're in the "haves" column as opposed more blue blooded and poorer schools, but I have a strong feeling we'll manage to underperform our spending .

We'll also need to get used to seeing a lot of tech and especially texas in the Playoff as well, because their fundraising probably isn't going anywhere if ours isn't. They're tied to the success of a lot of the same industries.

Should we just professionalize college ball and structurally delink the schools from the football teams while keeping the heraldry and stadia? Most of the kids playing for the big schools are not students first, and haven't been for much longer than NIL has been on the scene.

MLC88 said:

---

Well, that's why they post that stuff so that people like you will believe it

---

So the conspiracy is in the national publication and not the cozied up small business?

There's probably ~$15M from revenue share going to each power 4 program?

Somewhere around $30M a year left to fund with some (small) portion of that being national sponsors? I can see that and makes sense compared to an OU or Mizzou number too.

I dont buy it. Think we are between 10-15.

Who did we get that cost that much?

LSU just bought Leavitt, Seaton, Ummaleilen, Dockery, Benefield. (This is maybe $12 million)

We paid Formby and Horton top prospect dollar. Maybe Saka and Gibson. (Maybe 4.5 for all of them).

Comparing us to the top of the list indicates an assumption we over pay (based off NFL projections). I dont think we do.

aren't you a sip?

JournoAG said:

---

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets/

Rankings of note:

1. Ohio State $49M to $54M
2. Oregon $48M to $54M
3. Texas $45M to $55M
4. LSU $47M to $50M
5. A&M $45M to $50M
...
9. Tennessee $41M to $43M
10. Alabama $38M to $42M
11. Texas Tech $38M to $42M
...
13. Indiana $36M to $40M
...
20. Oklahoma $28M to $34M
...
24. Missouri $27M to $30 M


Confirms what I think most of us know already: That we should expect to consistently contend. Still, really tough to have two of the four teams ranked above us as permanent SEC opponents.

I'm a bit surprised to see Oklahoma so low. It does feel like the move to the SEC might make it hard to compete long-term at the level they have traditionally.

---

Spending a lot does not = success. We need to be spending it the right way. I don't know the breakdown but damn it seems like we should have spent more on better offensive line players and at QB to say the least.

npc said:

---

MLC88 said:

---

I don't know about the other schools, but I don't think our numbers are anywhere close to that. I stated this on the other thread in the premium form that was posted in the same information from the same athletic article and I don't think the athletic has any idea what our money is that we've gone out and spent on this roster. I know that Billy and Ryan have been clear that our numbers are nowhere close to that and if I recall correctly, Ryan stating that there are several recruits, we got and we didn't offer the maximum amount of money that other teams competing for the same prospect we're offering as their market value.

It seems our coaches are really good at waiting. What they think is a fair assessment and they're not willing to go over that or be driven by emotional and irrational thinking to try to match top dollars to go out and get a kid regardless if it's a high school prospect or from the portal. So would that said, I feel very confident that Billy and Ryan are right and our numbers are nowhere near that top level that they've listed us at.

---

I'm much more inclined to believe a national outfit, conducting a multi week, probably months long investigation, than a couple of locals whose entire business relies on A&M popularity. We want to think our coaches are the shrewdest. We want to think players come to college station for less (few do). We don't want to think we pay near the top for lesser results.

I believe the Athletic over TexAgs 6 of 7 and twice on Sundays.

---

I don't know about you, but I want to think we are the biggest spenders and have the most money. The other stuff is great and all, but we know how most decisions are made these days. I do happen to think if the money is close enough they may still chose us in some occasions, and we may have some incentives in place for those scenarios.

Will be interesting to see what the ROI is for Aggie football after this season concludes.

And yea, there are a lot of ways to determine ROI and most of them are emotional.

Mat Lanticus said:

---

Will be interesting to see what the ROI is for Aggie football after this season concludes.

And yea, there are a lot of ways to determine ROI and most of them are emotional.

---

Define ROI from your perspective for these deals.