derpyhorndog

All of those weigh towards QE starting Week 1, IMO, though point taken/understood.

What "balancing act" are you referring to? Keeping Card in the boat? I fail to see how throwing him the bone of starting the first two games keeps him onboard for the 2023 season. Is riding the bench for ~8 games supposed to give him the confidence to he can compete for 2023 starter, while riding it for ~10 games wouldn't? If the "balancing act" is throwing him that bone so he remains engaged enough to be a competent backup if called upon, I suppose that's more understandable (even if I wouldn't think the bone is worth the marrow). Though if he truly wants to be the 2023 starter for a P5 program post-transfer, personal interests alone should motivate that.

Won't even go into the Card side of the ledger because it's a known quantity. As for Ewers: competed and exceled at highest level of TX HSFB as an underclassman, generational arm talent, one of three QBs with perfect composite rating, exudes confidence, "gunslinger" reputation (see point re confidence), strong pocket presence. By first kickoff, will have 3 camps at the NCAA level under his belt, plus hands-on coaching by Sark, et. al. this summer to help further accelerate his familiarity with our system. Even if he's slightly behind Card on playbook/system, it shouldn't be by much. Ewers is the textbook "high ceiling" play in all other categories. This year is pivotal for Sark and has to know he has to swing for the fences beginning the starting pitch (i.e., Week 1) in general, and on the offensive side specifically given known deficiencies on the other. And haven't even mentioned the backdrop of how Quinn got to UT in the first place. If there's even a modicum of truth to the Double Eagle NIL war and resulting package, given that and all of the above, I don't see any way Card starts a game this year (absent colossal QE faceplant, or injury).

No, he’s already trademarked #SweatTheSmallStuff

The laughter was directed at the fact that A&M had scheduled OVs (and publicly announced them as such) during the window where they were not allowed. They then became aware of the rule (that had been on the books for three years), their 9.95’ers were scrambling for intel on WTF was going on, and they had to go to recruits they tried to schedule OVs for with egg on their face. Their recruiting department had a public, inexcusable misstep, and we laughed. In contrast, notice that UT never announced OVs for the Thursday bash THAT is what the mockery was about. Few if any posters approached it from the view that it would blow up the recruiting weekend or there was a material difference between any given player taking an OV vs. UOV. You’re warping the situation for your own soap box, as someone who throws shade at A&M for things that happened (or didn’t happen) in the early 20th century, it’s kind of rich that you cast stones at people that justifiably made fun of aggy for this. Please stick to the Football board, with respect to both location and topic of conversation.

Putting aside how cringe that custom embroidery is, all it tells me is that most coaches can’t BBQ for shit.

NIL is still in its infancy and the approaches being taken have obviously developed/changed quite a bit even this far in. I'm genuinely interested to see where things ultimately shake out from a contractual perspective. For instance, to avoid situations like you're describing, could the NIL payer for a given university (e.g., USC) include a "no shop" provision in any contract with a HS recruit - meaning, once the contract is signed, the recruit is prohibited from actively soliciting/entertaining offers from NIL collectives not associated with USC, taking visits to other universities, etc.? Let's assume for the sake of the hypo that the NIL contract in question is otherwise kosher legally. A "no shop" like that isn't tied to individual performance on the field, isn't a direct "incentive" for the recruit to go to the university, and doesn't appear (on its face) to run afoul of some of the other more obvious guidelines. I know that might all seem ridiculous at first glance, but these recruits/athletes now have the freedom to be compensated like an executive (or business), and do that with the security of written contracts with sophisticated counterparties, so in that sense it's only logical that some of the same legal protections used in the regular corporate world ("no shops" are just one example) would be used for the NIL payer's investment.

Fuck Mike Farrell

Cletus’ Razor says this backfires on them by pissing of Novosad, and they end up getting neither QB.

Get it together, guys. If Malachi flips to A&M, I will personally pay special appearance fees to Drew Mehringer to fist futureman and Warehime to shit a golden football. At the same time.

Oh yeah? Well wait till you see what THIS guy has to say about that!

Love to see it. He had a hell of a season that year. Most passing yards ever against A&M and made the cover of TV Guide!

While this is purely based on a quick glance at the attributed recruiters at 247 and On3 (so take FWIW) for a scattering of highly rated commits and targets, for those interested, Banks is listed as primary or secondary recruiter for Cook, Hill, Muhammad, Duce Robinson, Jayvon Thomas and Toviano.

I take great joy in aggy misery and them being behind the ball in anything, but their law school has nothing to do with wherever their NIL initiatives stand. Like UT, A&M is going to hire from outside its alumni ranks for its internal legal department, and use top-tier firms for outside counsel matters (just as I'd expect any of their big cigars or NILs collective to do for anything significant in that realm). Might also note that the latest law school rankings have aggy law in the "tier one" (i.e., T50) schools for the first time in the history of the school, even stretching back to its Wesleyan days. They are ranked No. 46, behind Texas (No. 17) obviously, but still the second highest ranked school in the state. They've made huge investments in the school since they acquired it in 2013 and played moneyball with the ranking criteria items very well. Its meteoric rise from unranked (sub-150) to where it is now in less than a decade is, frankly, impressive. Have my doubts they'll even sniff the T20 in my lifetime, but their handling of the law school so far is one of the few things I'll commend them for. Thanks for reading my blog. Now back to your regular off-topic programming.

I'm beginning to not like this "PK" fellow. Sounds like he (and his scheme fit) sucks.

Literal mouth breather.

Parties to a contract have the freedom to renegotiate as they see fit. The requisite members of any given conference agreeing to let a member out is not technically "breaking" the contract in the sense that a departing member is not leaving in blatant violation of GOR and saying "sue me" (the exit is done with approval of the remaining members), and the GOR isn't torn up (it is continues to apply unaltered to the remaining members). And it's not an implicit agreement that the remaining members will give (or are obligated to give) the same deal to anyone else that wants to leave in the future. Won't derail the thread by continuing to harp on this subject, so will just agree to disagree with how we view these things. And corporate law is my 9-5, FWIW.