This actually shocks me…

$$$$

what are the criteria? Or is this just somebodies rankings they made up

I wonder what they are basing that on?

Is it resources and money allocated to hoops?

They ask actual coaches to rank them. Some discussion/anticipation was previously posted here:

https://texags.com/forums/7/topics/3591817/replies/71758266

JJxvi said:

---

Tier 1: Kentucky
Tier 2: Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida
Tier 3: Alabama, Auburn, Missouri, Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M
Tier 4: Vanderbilt, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss State

---

Oklahoma is really the only mildly surprising result to me.

Actually....It's not a horrible list IMO.

Yea I know it's real controversial to not be outraged but the list looks pretty spot on to me. I'd just put OU above Ole Miss.

Horns are a massive national brand with a ton of money, why is it surprising they are up high on any list? Maybe 2 is a bit much, but not by much.

JJxvi said:

---

They ask actual coaches to rank them. Some discussion/anticipation was previously posted here:

https://texags.com/forums/7/topics/3591817/replies/71758266

JJxvi said:

---

Tier 1: Kentucky
Tier 2: Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida
Tier 3: Alabama, Auburn, Missouri, Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M
Tier 4: Vanderbilt, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss State

---

Oklahoma is really the only mildly surprising result to me.

---

These 'rankings' mean nothing post-NIL. We still have some romantic notion that shows up in these rankings about Blue Blood basketball schools. However, the traditional value of being a Blue Blood basketball school means less and less every year as NIL, proximity to family, program visibility, and just plain winning level the playing field.

Legacy programs are in the same leaky dingy as everyone else trying to attract and retain top talent. Any of these schools can afford to pay top dollar for the best coaches. Any of these SEC programs have the NIL resources to have a competitive top 20 roster. Its an "art" and maybe just a little luck to put all of this together in a given year to make a true Championship team but nobody has a formula for doing this consistently. Which means luck and tenacity mean as much as legacy and tradition in 2026. That is good for Aggies and bad for programs Kentucky and Kansas and NC and Duke whose appeal dwindles every year they aren't competing for a national title.

So we basically nailed it.

Look at the points. 2-5 are very close together. Practically a tie for second like we thought.

Aginnebraska said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

They ask actual coaches to rank them. Some discussion/anticipation was previously posted here:

https://texags.com/forums/7/topics/3591817/replies/71758266

JJxvi said:

---

Tier 1: Kentucky
Tier 2: Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida
Tier 3: Alabama, Auburn, Missouri, Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M
Tier 4: Vanderbilt, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss State

---

Oklahoma is really the only mildly surprising result to me.

---

These 'rankings' mean nothing post-NIL. We still have some romantic notion that shows up in these rankings about Blue Blood basketball schools. However, the traditional value of being a Blue Blood basketball school means less and less every year as NIL, proximity to family, program visibility, and just plain winning level the playing field.

Legacy programs are in the same leaky dingy as everyone else trying to attract and retain top talent. Any of these schools can afford to pay top dollar for the best coaches. Any of these SEC programs have the NIL resources to have a competitive top 20 roster. It's an "art" and maybe just a little luck to put all of this together in a given year to make a true Championship team but nobody has a formula for doing this consistently. Which means luck and tenacity mean as much as legacy and tradition in 2026. That is good for Aggies and bad for programs Kentucky and Kansas and NC and Duke whose appeal dwindles every year they aren't competing for a national title.

---

Blue blood status absolutely still matters. Duke isn't loaded this year because players are completely enamored with Jon Scheyer

This list is a poll, not a ranking based on quantified characteristics like "blue-blood status". The coaches themselves were asked to rank the jobs based on their opinions with no other specified criteria, in my understanding.

AggieCrew44 said:

---

Aginnebraska said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

They ask actual coaches to rank them. Some discussion/anticipation was previously posted here:

https://texags.com/forums/7/topics/3591817/replies/71758266

JJxvi said:

---

Tier 1: Kentucky
Tier 2: Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida
Tier 3: Alabama, Auburn, Missouri, Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M
Tier 4: Vanderbilt, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss State

---

Oklahoma is really the only mildly surprising result to me.

---

These 'rankings' mean nothing post-NIL. We still have some romantic notion that shows up in these rankings about Blue Blood basketball schools. However, the traditional value of being a Blue Blood basketball school means less and less every year as NIL, proximity to family, program visibility, and just plain winning level the playing field.

Legacy programs are in the same leaky dingy as everyone else trying to attract and retain top talent. Any of these schools can afford to pay top dollar for the best coaches. Any of these SEC programs have the NIL resources to have a competitive top 20 roster. It's an "art" and maybe just a little luck to put all of this together in a given year to make a true Championship team but nobody has a formula for doing this consistently. Which means luck and tenacity mean as much as legacy and tradition in 2026. That is good for Aggies and bad for programs Kentucky and Kansas and NC and Duke whose appeal dwindles every year they aren't competing for a national title.

---

Blue blood status absolutely still matters. Duke isn't loaded this year because players are completely enamored with Jon Scheyer

---

It means less now than ever. A factor it might be, but less than ever.

Aginnebraska said:

---

AggieCrew44 said:

---

Aginnebraska said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

They ask actual coaches to rank them. Some discussion/anticipation was previously posted here:

https://texags.com/forums/7/topics/3591817/replies/71758266

JJxvi said:

---

Tier 1: Kentucky
Tier 2: Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida
Tier 3: Alabama, Auburn, Missouri, Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M
Tier 4: Vanderbilt, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss State

---

Oklahoma is really the only mildly surprising result to me.

---

These 'rankings' mean nothing post-NIL. We still have some romantic notion that shows up in these rankings about Blue Blood basketball schools. However, the traditional value of being a Blue Blood basketball school means less and less every year as NIL, proximity to family, program visibility, and just plain winning level the playing field.

Legacy programs are in the same leaky dingy as everyone else trying to attract and retain top talent. Any of these schools can afford to pay top dollar for the best coaches. Any of these SEC programs have the NIL resources to have a competitive top 20 roster. It's an "art" and maybe just a little luck to put all of this together in a given year to make a true Championship team but nobody has a formula for doing this consistently. Which means luck and tenacity mean as much as legacy and tradition in 2026. That is good for Aggies and bad for programs Kentucky and Kansas and NC and Duke whose appeal dwindles every year they aren't competing for a national title.

---

Blue blood status absolutely still matters. Duke isn't loaded this year because players are completely enamored with Jon Scheyer

---

It means less now than ever. A factor it might be, but less than ever.

---

I mean sure. But these are still very much the best jobs

Kentucky is the only blue-blood in the conference and they also pay the most salary, pay the most in NIL, have the most fans show up, have the most people who care, have the most talent who recognize them and are interested in going there…you know like all the things a coach might want out of their employer.

bobinator said:

---

I think we're not focusing enough on the fact that we're so high on this list. I put on my prediction that I'd probably argue we're the best of this group, but didn't expect us to actually land there. And this poll was presumably done a while back.

It's nice to see that other coaches are seeing that this is a good place to coach. We've proven that winning here isn't all that hard compared to some of the other places, and that if you win here, we'll pay you above market price or you can jump to one of the top tier jobs.

The goal now is to keep elevating to where it wouldn't make sense to leave for anywhere else.

---

Perhaps because many fans either forgot or weren't around during the dark days of the late 90s and early 2000s. We basically went from 16 to 6 in 20 years without major tournament success. We've been a good, solid program and clearly others have noticed.

we need to win something consistently to move up

Craigy said:

---

we need to win something consistently to move up

---

This list has nothing to do with results

Agreed. I know it's par for the course for tu to be overrated in everything and this list seems to be no exception. The only one they got right on the top half is Kentucky.

Again, the results don't matter. It's basically "which job would you prefer" to the coaches.

I can see Texas at the top of that group because you basically have the same resources as the others but without the pressure.

bobinator said:

---

Again, the results don't matter. It's basically "which job would you prefer" to the coaches.

I can see Texas at the top of that group because you basically have the same resources as the others but without the pressure.

---

Kentucky's lofty rank indicates history and fan support (and pressure) have to be part of the calculus. I realize it's a coaches vote but it doesn't make much sense. At tu, you get the big money and resources but an elevated ego that creates pressure well above what their history would otherwise indicate. All to go along with fickle fan support. It is what it is but I don't get it.

Kentucky obviously has more pressure but they also have more support than that next group too.

That's what separates them from Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas and Florida is that they're the only one where basketball isn't taking a backseat to football. That might currently be true at Arkansas too but that's only because Calipari currently has the job. That fan base is still football-first.

A&M Basketball has been operating at a LOSS for years.

According to Google AI we will be profitable this year.

****************
For the 2024 fiscal year (ending June 30, 2024), Texas A&M men's basketball generated $12,219,257 in total operating revenue.
Despite these earnings, the program operated at a net loss of $2,128,602 for the year, as total operating expenses reached $14,347,859. This deficit was part of a broader trend in the athletic department, which saw record-high expenses of $243.7 million for the 2024 cycle, largely driven by the buyout of former football coach Jimbo Fisher.

2024 Men's Basketball Financial Breakdown
The following table outlines the specific revenue and expense categories for the program during the 2024 fiscal year.

Category
Amount
Ticket Sales
$4,013,103
Media Rights
$4,297,143
Contributions (Donations)
$175,774
Total Operating Revenue
$12,219,257
Total Operating Expenses
$14,347,859
Net Surplus / (Deficit)
($2,128,602)

Key Financial Trends

• Recruiting Spending: Men's basketball had the second-highest recruiting budget in the athletic department, spending $746,310.
• Turnaround in 2025: Preliminary reports for the 2025 fiscal year indicate a significant financial recovery for the program. Men's basketball revenue is projected to rise to $15.74 million, resulting in a surplus of approximately $1.42 millionthe program's first profitable year since 2021.
• Revenue Growth Drivers: The projected 2025 increase is attributed to a $2.6 million jump in media rights and a nearly $900,000 increase in ticket sales following consistent postseason appearances.

********************


I am sure dumping Buzz's large contract for Bucky's (currently) lower contract might explain the difference.

tsips

****************
For the 2024 fiscal year (ending August 31, 2024), Texas men's basketball generated $23.2 million in revenue. The program was one of the most profitable in the conference, reporting a net surplus of $7.7 million after operating expenses.

• Recent Shifts: Early data for the 2025 fiscal year suggests the men's basketball program may face a deficit of nearly $5 million following coaching transitions and buyouts.

*******************

They made 7 Million last year, but projected to lose $5 Million. I assume Miller had a large buyout.

Sean Miller's move to Texas in March 2025 involved a "relatively small" buyout from his previous contract at Xavier, estimated to be approximately $2 million.

Because Xavier is a private institution, the exact official figure was not publicly disclosed, but reports at the time of his hiring indicated the amount was low enough that it did not hinder the negotiation process.

Key Details of Miller's Transition to Texas

• The Move: Texas officially hired Miller on March 24, 2025, just days after his Xavier team eliminated the Longhorns from the NCAA Tournament in a First Four matchup.
• Miller's New Texas Contract: He signed a six-year, $32 million guaranteed deal with the University of Texas.
  
  • Average Salary: Approximately $5.3 million per year.
  • New Buyout Clause: His current contract at Texas includes a $6 million buyout (the amount he would owe if he left for another job), which decreases for every year he remains with the program.
• The Predecessor: To make room for Miller, Texas fired Rodney Terry, who had three years remaining on a contract that required a $5.4 million buyout from the university.

Paid Terry $5MM to go away
Paid $2MM buyout to Xavier
Paid Miller $5.3MM this year and 5 more years

JJxvi said:

---

They ask actual coaches to rank them. Some discussion/anticipation was previously posted here:

https://texags.com/forums/7/topics/3591817/replies/71758266

JJxvi said:

---

Tier 1: Kentucky
Tier 2: Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida
Tier 3: Alabama, Auburn, Missouri, Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M
Tier 4: Vanderbilt, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss State

---

Oklahoma is really the only mildly surprising result to me.

---

Tiers make a whole lot more sense to compare these, but that doesn't result in as many outrage clicks I suppose

I think asking an AI about this is probably not going to get you good results

Like an earlier post. 2-4 is Florida (3 nattys in the last 20 years) Arkansas and Tennessee.

Due to recent success I'd have Bama.

Then tu, OU and then us.

When we get to a final
Four then we can talk about us as a destination.

bobinator said:

---

I think asking an AI about this is probably not going to get you good results

---

Normally I would agree, but it sometimes is good aggregating a bunch of data..

Looks like it is pretty close...

Quote:

---

What might be more notable, though, is the oft-unprofitable Aggie men's basketball program finished in the black for the first time since the 2021 fiscal year. A&M reported revenue and expenses of approximately $15.7 million and $14.3 million for men's basketball, respectively, coming to a surplus of almost $1.4 million. That total is up from the $2.1 million Aggie men's basketball lost in the 2024 fiscal year, which came from them totaling approximately $12.2 million in revenue and $14.3 million in expenses.

---

https://247sports.com/college/texas-am/longformarticle/texas-am-athletics-reports-2355-million-revenue-72-million-surplus-for-2025-fiscal-year-271963109/#2783388

$2MM loss in 2024, and profitable in 2025