You've sort of proven my point. I'm talking about more than the immediacy of now. The fact that you have Clemson in a group above Notre Dame, Michigan, and Florida State shows that this list is based on what teams have done lately. That isn't normal. Clemson has been a joke for most everyone's life. In 2004 you would've made the same post about Bama, because they had been mediocre to terrible for years. Teams have bad stretches, but to imply Tennessee's current disfunction is going to be the new historical norm for them is unlikely.
Also: UCLA? Bro.
The difference between now and 15 years ago W/R/T Clemson and Bama is the commitment to the program. 15 years ago Clemson would not have dreamed of having a lazy river nor would have Alabama dreamed of having a football staff rival the size of the engineering department (hyperbole). The schools are committed in ways that it never was, same with A&M.
I never said UT was doomed for mediocrity, but the fact that the current admin appears to be downplaying football -- while rivals and other regional players are continuing to up the ante -- makes it less attractive. All the while the fan base is pissed about it and the vitriol can often be targeted at the team instead of the admin. It would take quite the premium for me to want to go to UT over other places.
Finally, UCLA....yep. First, LA. Next, great spot to be in for crootin. Then, Dan Guerrero is committed to spending for success....Wasserman Football Center is awesome. Chip Kelly will make top 15ish money and, last I saw, UCLA had the largest assistant salary pool in the Pac 12. To top that all off, the pressure isn't nearly as great as other schools. Great spot to land.
