Bodacious Bevo

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

Rashada was UF, not Miami

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.

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.

So Xbox online dynasty? Is there already one set up? If not do me and I’ll put one together

A bit pedantic - he’s the #3 LB take but #5 at best when it comes to the board after Barnes, Faraimo, Pettijohn, and the Cali guy that committed to USC

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.

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!

And yet they're among the most successful Aggie athletes ever

lmfao if in two years we're wandering the desert searching for DL like we used to with OL and every time someone commits people are like "but can he play DL?"

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.

Recruiting Phillips as a safety when his preference is corner seems like a really weird and unnecessary blunder since this staff seems to prefer starting DBs at corner then moving them to S/N (e.g., Jordan, McDonald, Roberson).

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.

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.

Incredible

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.

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.

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.

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.

Don't we need to change the narrative a bit now that Fong is at On3? /s

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

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.

"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.

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.

Looking at Cole's profile, he played his first year at Cal Poly (FCS), then San Jose State (G5), and now maybe the SEC (P4). As much as the portal sucks and can cause chaos, this is the kind of career movement that had previously, and wrongly, been outlawed.