Jump to content

Bodacious Bevo

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    2135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Bodacious Bevo

  1. 3 hours ago, texifornia said:

    You'll still probably get the 5th string guys like Red hitting the road, unless they're Max Merrill types that just want a degree.

    I wish we still had Red. Then we'd have five scholarship RBs. 

    1 hour ago, jdhorn92 said:

    Who is the Ramonce Taylor of this WR corp?  He lined up as a back and played both very well before the backpack incident.  That would be our answer.  Not saying RT ran between tackles much, but if we have a guy like that in the WR depths, we should be fine with Blue, Gibson, TW and then spreading some carries to an athlete or two.

    If we were moving a WR, my first thought would be Bolden. He had 21 career carries at Oregon State. But I don't think we're moving a WR for reasons that have already been discussed here. 

     

    Also, just for reference, here are the RB carries and distribution in Sark's time here. 

    2023: 444 RB carries (31.7 per game)

    • Brooks 187, Baxter 138, Blue 65, Red 30, Robinson 12, Wisner 12

    2022: 421 RB carries (32.4 per game)

    • Robinson 258, Johnson 93, Brooks 30, Robinson 25, Blue 15

    2021: 367 RB carries (31.6 per game)

    • Robinson 195, Johnson 96, Robinson 45, Brooks 21, Watson 10

    Average: 410.7 carries (31.6 per game)

    • RB1 19.4 carries per game, RB2 8.8 per game, RB3 4.4 carries per game
      • These are injury adjusted numbers (2021 Bijan had his carries across 10 games). Player carries per game do not add up to team carries per game for that reason.

    My takeaways: rushing attempts per game has been consistent over Sark's tenure. In a perfect world, we're looking at something like Blue 18 carries per game, Wisner 10, Gibson 4. We don't live in a perfect world though and the situation is more grim than I thought prior to doing this math. We can still overcome it with some injury luck, but we'll likely be counting on Gullette/Page/whoever to give us a minimum of 40 carries this year. Probably more like 60 and it could go over 100 if our top three guys miss more than a couple games. Especially if we have a 16 game season. 

    Two subpackage/scheme things to watch: 1) Wildcat. Roschon and Red probably ran that 25+ times per year. I imagine that's probably dead now given that it's success was declining and we now don't have the body type for it. 2) Sark's use of motion. People like to call it the Keilan role, but it's flexible. It's just whichever athlete Sark has on the field that he can move around to get certain reads or calls from the defense. Keilan was the primary guy for it in 21/22 and Sark ran him with it more. Last year the improved WR core ate up his play time and the carries given to whoever was motioning declined, which was more in-line with what he did at Bama. I'd expect that to continue this year. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Rage+1 1
  2. Personally, I don't think transfers should be eligible. Maybe a Ryan Watts kind of situation where they came in without much experience. But they should probably have to be here for at least three years. 

    Anyways, here are my qualifiers and the kind of season they would need to win. 

    - Mo Blackwell. Significant and positive contributor. 

    - Juan Davis. Significant and positive contributor. 

    - David Gbenda. All-SEC honorable mention. Sure, he played a lot last year, but he's always been an afterthought. If he puts together a really good year and gets drafted in the early-to-middle rounds, that meets the criteria for me. 

    - Vernon Broughton. All-SEC honorable mention. See above. 

    Collins has spent way too much time in the Longhorn public eye to qualify for me. He's had actual expectations every year since 2021. Gunnar Helm has been too good to qualify. Maybe if he's like an All-American. All the other seniors are returning starters, transfers, or walk-ons. 

  3. 43 minutes ago, walker said:

    Great inside info, thx.  What do you think the Miami NIL stuff these days?  legit?  So much noise about Ruiz trying to "Phil Knight" Miami into relevance, but I thought his company was being delisted and the SEC (not the conference) was investigating them.   After Rashada, I'm surprised that more people are not calling bs on them.

    Rashada was UF, not Miami 

  4. 10 hours ago, TexArcher said:

    I have to say, making Kyle Field boo a little after a 3-and-out at 45-21 might be my favorite ever video game moment.

    There's been a couple of times that booing has stood as a small but nice feature. Like I'm winning and driving on offense but get flagged for holding. The crowd starts booing me. I start to think, "What more do these fuckers want?" then I realize they're booing the refs. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. Ethics tangent incoming

    The merging of scholarship and roster limits are another change that, imo, disrupts the system that many know and love, but really just makes CFB more normal and less exploitative. 

    Putting aside talk on how this impacts Texas and CFB as a whole, it's kind of crazy that teams have been able to have students do all the work of being on the team without any kind of financial support. How much time do walk-ons spend on football every week? 20 hours? 40 hours? And they're expected to do it largely for intrinsic rewards while being completely dismissed as second-class players by the public (not this site). That's not to mention the equity discussion around requiring a student to pay ~20k/year to be on the team.

    Walk-ons are just a weird dynamic that shouldn't exist in modern CFB.  

  6. I'll play but can't afford to do the buy in. I could throw in 50 or maybe 100 if someone sponsors me for the rest. Instead of sponsored ad reads I'll read off your sponsored smack talk. On Xbox. 

    All that is if we get the numbers of course. This is a really great idea. Hope we get some numbers. I have some time to help with things for the next two months. 

  7. 2 hours ago, Scholz said:

    Yeah he’s a traitor, POS and wasn’t fully bought in. Even though he got within 1 out of winning it all and just because he took his dream job with his good buddy as his boss.

    Fucking full blown imbeciles. And fan fic liars. Losers.

    Yeah it's incredible. This man was a paid psy op, checked out in April, purposely tried to lose games, recruited players off the team, etc, and yet he's still your most successful coach in 85 years!? Like, do they not understand how absolutely pathetic their athletic department would be if that were the case? Inb4 'their program is pathetic!' and I get that, but they're taking it to a whole new level. They honestly believe Schloss was trying to lose and completely tear the program down - and yet he's their best coach in 85 years!

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  8. 43 minutes ago, immamac said:

    According to who? See this is why rankings are stupid. The aggregate national rating is just going to be the On3 number and the OTF one is Site Rating. Simple. Then you get the state rank, I can change that to national, but I don't want to have 50 rankings on this thing, they are nearly meaningless datapoints since the rating is a rating that is comparable through years not just this class. 

    I agree with your take. Personally I would go with OTF Rating, composite national rank, composite position rank. And I would change "Site" to explicitly "OTF Rating"

     

    Slightly off topic but related, and this isn't feedback for you specifically immamac, but I wish that OTF would take a different classification system than star ratings. I like their opinions on prospects, but I don't think a star rating from OTF adds much value when the other sites have a national team and rate every prospect, not just the ones Texas recruits. If they had a scale that read more like a big board I think that would be more useful: backup plan -> take -> priority -> must get, etc. It's a Texas-only site and info on where the prospect stands for the coaches would be great. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 12 minutes ago, Chopper said:

    Reportedly we're taking 2 TE's. Jordan Washington already committed and Michael Terry (SWITCHBLADE) reportedly had a great visit last weekend.

    Uh Washington was a 2024. He's already on campus. We have Emaree Winston committed but it seems like there might be a mutual parting of ways there. IIRC we had Armstrong and Nick Townsend above him. 

    • Like 1
  10. So just to add a bit to the lambo conversation

    A one year lease can come as "low" as 30k depending on the model. The university and collective are not paying for them. The marketing director of the dealership has talked about how this is purely a financial decision and how he's not a CFB or Texas fan. He also said that the program caught the attention Lamborghini HQ in Italy. The dealership is going into year three of this and have expanded the program over time, which would indicate they view it as a success. They also hired JWhitt as an intern for awhile. And their target audience isn't just the Austin market, it's all the NFL players that our players are now going to be around.

    • Hook 'Em 6
  11. On 5/21/2024 at 2:29 PM, Tex Long said:

    Someone in the stats biz oughta break down passes into Air Yards and Ground Yards. Find out that 75 yard passing TD was 5 Air Yards and 70 Ground Yards, and the next one was 45 Air Yards and 2 Ground Yards...

     

    10 hours ago, Tex Long said:

    It is, but it doesn't get shown much, and Air Yards not at all. I'm fucking lazy, show it to me, don't make me go through the p-b-p to calculate it. 

     

    1 hour ago, Tex Long said:

    Looks like nice stuff. Ima go get a magnifier and see if I can read it. Thanks.

     

    45 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

    II'm using a desktop right now. I'm sitting with my face about 3 feet from a 40" screen. I can read the text okay, pumped up a couple CTRL+ times. But I can't read the text size in the image. I can probably save it and use irfanview to plow it up where I can read it, but I haven't done that yet. Putting eighty-lebben columns of data on one view doesn't help at all.

    I've been getting needles in the eyeballs monthly for oh, 5 or 6 years to fight off AMD, and it's a losing battle. I'll try to not complain so much.

    Thanks for the advice. Yes, I know there's a magnify function bult into the OS, and it sucks.

     

    31 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

    I get it, too. Like about 90% of what we see on Surly, it's a matter of my opinion is right and yours is wrong. Fire the coach and then quit posting for a week. Oh, and buy a new monitor.

    Incredible

  12. 55 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

    Ticket prices are set by demand, not labor costs…

    I’m specifically thinking of an increase to the seat gifts for season tickets. Like a portion of the gifts get set aside for revenue sharing or something. Demand is already much higher than supply so there’d be no issues if you’re limiting it to that basic economic perspective. 

  13. Also, the transfer portal is the elephant in the room. I don't think we can really know how this will affect the sport as a whole until there's a resolution on transfer rules. Compensation and mobility are too interrelated to look at one without the other. 

  14. 51 minutes ago, statsman said:

    The big unknown is how the $20M is to be allotted. Is it a Title IX style even spread across all sports, men’s and women’s? Or do schools get to allocate unevenly, based on revenue from each sport?

    If it’s the former, schools may decide that they’re not going into the roll for $20M each year so they can give 75% to non-revenue sports. If it’s the latter, I expect a bunch of dicey accounting to basically have the university pay it. Which is what schools do now when they do their annual federal filings about revenue and expenses. 
     
    Football drives the AD budgets. Schools don’t have to make money annually on athletics; it’s an economic winner long term. It keeps boosters engaged and giving, even to academic efforts, even at schools much smaller than UT. 
     
    Texas is one of a handful of schools where competitive funding of football at the highest level isn’t a problem. For the vast majority of FBS, they have been seeking a way to use university general funds to pay players, and now they have it. 

    I work in the UT system. The idea of "dicey accounting" is crazy. All budget related procedures (purchases, reimbursements, moving funds, etc.) are set by law and reviewed by disinterested third parties. Earlier this week I had an expense report kicked back because I typed 58 instead of 85 one one line item out of fifty, so my mileage was off by 30. If you want to look at all of UT's accounting procedures you can do so here.

    The sketchiness around college sports money has largely resided in the black market that is now being pushed into these regulated and public channels. Maybe at private schools that's different. And there are occasional scandals like the UT tennis coach, but that's not going to suddenly be the norm. A bunch of university administrators across the country aren't going to risk their careers to shuffle money to the football team. Some schools will move money to the AD, but it will be through normal channels and I don't think it'll happen until the 2026 season at the earliest. There's a lot of competition from different stakeholders for university funds. The AD is only one mouth that needs to be fed.

    In the near future, I think this is just going to shift collective donors to the AD, change AD budgets and capital projects, and, as someone else said, increase season ticket prices. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  15. 1 hour ago, statsman said:

    This is the only part I disagree with. Your statement is true for Texas and the handful of schools in a similar financial position. 
     
    For the other 100 FBS schools, that can’t scrape together $10M per year for football through a collective, this is a godsend. Now, they get to tap into university funding, instead of soliciting donors (although that will still happen for NIL). All they have to do is weather political criticism for state and national funding paying for football players (which they have always had to do, to a much lesser extent). 
     
    Spelling it out- let’s take UH as an example. Suppose their annual AD spending exactly matches all their revenue. Do you have any doubt that, now that it is allowed, they will budget $20M for athletes’ pay? I don’t. Where will the money come from, if revenue doesn’t increase? I believe it will come from the school. Does anyone believe that UH’s AD would say, “We’d like to spend the $20M for our athletes, but we don’t have the money, so we won’t. We’ll just let those players go to TCU and Baylor.”? I don’t. 

    This isn't how universities work. They're not going to quickly and casually shift $20M in funding. Most of their funds are already going to be encumbered through August at the very least and budgets will mostly be set for the following fiscal year. The AD is not the decision maker for the entire university budget. Many universities will not choose to shift such a large chunk of their revenue away from academics. Grants are a huge part of academic revenue and doing so will put them at a competitive disadvantage for applying. The schools that choose to shift money from academics to players will need some time to do so. It'll be a couple seasons.

    If it were to happen, I imagine it will mostly be cuts to AD positions and capital projects. Or it will be a result of increased donations from people that didn't like paying NIL to players but are open to doing it through this. 

  16. Spoilered text from the tweet. Poster is a UF booster so probably some bias

    Spoiler

    Often been reported that Rashada's UF NIL contract allowed either side to terminate it at ANY time for ANY reason. This is probably why it's not plead as a simple "breach of contract" case. VERY important distinction. Instead, it looks like a "tortious interference of contract" case, which means the underlying claim is that Rashada was "defrauded" out of his $9 million Miami NIL contract by people at UF who never had any intention of honoring a UF deal. This seems ridiculous to claim and impossible to prove, since clearly UF wanted Rashada to play for UF. Especially, if alleged, Rashada was given $150k to help get out of the Miami deal. What, UF people gave him $150k just to trick him out of his Miami deal but NOT to play for UF? Nonsense, he was not "defrauded" out of the Miami deal -- his family chose that path. Moral of the story is to never walk away from life-changing money for green(d)er pastures. The Rashada family clearly should have had an attorney advising them at the time and reviewing all contracts. No lawyer would have let them voluntarily leave a binding $9 million deal to sign one that could be terminated at will at any time. That's not a contract... it's a worthless piece of paper. UF exercised their option to terminate the deal BEFORE he signed a letter of intent, so he was free to sign elsewhere and get any deal he could... including Miami and the same $9 million deal... although one could understand why Ruiz may have not wanted any part of him by then. It sounds like the UF deal was terminated due to misunderstandings over compensation and exactly where it would come from. "Misunderstanding" is a LONG way from fraud.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
  17. My god people, Burt said his evals for lower ranked guys are an open question. And he acknowledged Cam is going to start this year and that will probably answer the question. 

    Huston/Robertson/Agbo played poorly or in niche roles - which is perfectly fine given youth and what was asked of them. Jones isn't a Flood eval. 

    It's fair to say this is a question. It's not a concern, just a question. 

    • Hook 'Em 9
  18. 4 hours ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

     

     

    It’s been pretty fun to watch this board do a complete 180 on Bo Davis in the span of a few months. College football fandom at its finest. 

     

    3 hours ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

    lol. That was absolutely not the consensus on this board 12 months ago. The consensus was that Bo was knocking it out of the park with underrated gems like Sydir Mitchell, Jaray Bledsoe, Aaron Bryant, Kris Ross and others, and that any gnashing of teeth about our future DT depth chart was nothing but histrionics. It's fine, it's what fans of college football recruiting do. 

     

    38 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

    Yes, I agree.

    Here are a few gems from the 2023 thread just from using our shitty search function for less than 5 minutes:

     

    "few months" -> "12 months" -> 2 years ago

    If you're going to keep arguing on this, would you mind providing a consistent opinion? Bo came in with a great reputation as a recruiter (deservedly so) and people were happy with the '22 class. In the last 12/few/whatever time frame you want to set, the consensus changed as we signed bad classes. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 2
  19. 2 hours ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

    lol. That was absolutely not the consensus on this board 12 months ago. The consensus was that Bo was knocking it out of the park with underrated gems like Sydir Mitchell, Jaray Bledsoe, Aaron Bryant, Kris Ross and others, and that any gnashing of teeth about our future DT depth chart was nothing but histrionics. It's fine, it's what fans of college football recruiting do. 

    Here's what I remember from the classes

    2022: Bledsoe, Ross, Bryant, Swanson

    - Amidst 5-7, we had bigger issues to worry about than recruiting, but it was a good class overall. DE was the bigger issue because we still had DT talent on campus. Bledsoe and Ross were good developmental takes, Bryant set a good floor, Swanson was questionable. A-

    2023: Mitchell

    - Mitchell was a good get, but we needed more than one. Bo caught a lot of criticism for missing on DJ Hicks and guys like Markis Deal. It wasn't a great DT class but everyone knew the class was too small. C+

    2024: Hills, January, Robinson

    - We knew coming into the year that we needed a big class and it had to have a couple studs. January and Hills are fine, but we had advantages in those recruitments. Robinson was great, but we needed another stud to pair with him. Bo caught a LOT of of flack for missing on McKinley, Jonah-Ajonye, Jackson, Smith, Blocton, Faga, Hibbler, and Lindsey. A bunch of those weren't even his fault, but we all knew the class wasn't good enough after only taking one in '23. C+

    Point is, the consensus was definitely not that Bo was knocking it out of the park with underrated gems. Yes, people said he had good evals, but also that DT was the worst-recruited position on the roster. There's also been discussion about the changing recruiting landscape. A lot of the misses were NIL choices/whiffs. Even this portal cycle there has been talk about how resources were reallocated towards DT. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
×
×
  • Create New...