Jump to content

MuellerHorn

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    4806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MuellerHorn

  1. You mean of those who are picking Texas to win? Because there have been many posters here, myself included, who are skeptical about Texas' chances this weekend.
  2. Revenge Not the Objective This Weekend in Athens (Tuesday AM) - Vogel (OTF)
  3. Tuesday - Bobby Bobby doubling down on his 10-2 regular season prediction, I guess. I'm surprised he's picking Texas, given how realistic/pessimistic he can be. Granted, his analysis was basically presented as, "here are all the reasons UGA should win. Yet, I have this feeling...," so not that confidence inspiring.
  4. Gerry this morning: Austin Goosby and Cameron Williams announcements ... Austin Goosby (Melissa, Texas/High) will announce his decision Friday out of Texas and BYU. There will be four hats at the table, but this has been a two horse race for multiple weeks. Goosby really likes the idea of playing at Texas, and attending school at Texas. This is where "college" athletics gets difficult, however. BYU has at least double the NIL on the table. BYU boosters are absolutely all in on basketball. As in, all in. Two family members believe it's tough to turn down NIL as high as 1.5 million because of what it sets up for Goosby's future should basketball not work out for whatever reason. He's likely a two year college player, so this could be up to a 2.5-3 million $$$ decision. Texas has been the favorite for a few weeks, but BYU is making it a very difficult close out for the Longhorns. Five-star and future lottery pick Cameron Williams (Phoenix, Az./St. Mary's) has Duke, Texas and Arizona as three finalists. OTF hears Duke and Texas are ahead of Zona. Duke is very inviting due to Cameron Boozer being gone to the NBA draft following the season, and the impact opportunity that provides. Williams and family really like Texas, Sean Miller and Austin ... but not sure that will overcome Duke is Duke, and the instant impact ability with Boozer exiting after the season. Duke is not an NIL pushover either, to be clear.
  5. Eh, they're not buying it, right now. Tuesday Recruiting: Bey still in play?, visits and Goosby (7am CT) - Gerry
  6. I'm going to preface the following with the information that I am a younger millennial, a home owner, a personal finance nerd, and listen to/read a ton of content on the subject. However, this is obvious a nuanced conversation and not one-size-fits-all. Myriad data sources do show that Millennials and Gen Z do have greater median net worths at their current ages than previous generations did at those ages, adjusted for inflation. They also show lower percentages with mortgages, but higher percentages of investing in long-term retirement vehicles, as well as taxable brokerage accounts. In general, Millennials and Gen Z are prioritizing investing for retirement, mini retirements, sabbaticals, and value financial flexibility and financial freedom more than just a long-term career trajectory to 59.5-65. Yes, some of this is due to an increasingly costly and less obtainable housing market. However, it's a trend that exists outside of that fact, as well. Partly, this is also due to greater access to personal finance information and content (internet, social media, podcasts personal finance being introduced into more than half of state high school curriculum at this point, etc.), a greater willingness to openly discuss money than previous generations, automatic enrollment in 401k plans, as well as an emphasis on controlling what you can control (income, debt, investing and savings rates) over what you can't control (housing prices) I.e., it's now common thought one can build substantive financial resources outside of the historical "American Dream" of owning a home (renting from a bank for 15-30 years before owning). In summary, for many Millennials and Gen Z, the "New American Dream" is "FU money" and financial flexibility, not hoarding a bunch of equity in a home you live in. They value liquid and accessible assets over illiquid, use assets. One's primary home is a use asset. Yes, while it should grow in value, that value is both hard to access and generally requires you to sell it to access it's full value. Also, please clarify, because I don't understand this comment: "so they don’t have the negative net worth from the mortgage." You shouldn't have any negative effect on net worth when buying a house, unless you bought poorly (for example: an emotional purchase and spent more than it was worth) and are immediately underwater, or the market shifts precipitously (for example: bought close and prior to 2008 or during Covid) and the market declines. In most circumstances, you have a somewhat positive net worth on a home purchase because there is some equity built in already via a down payment and the housing market generally grows at an average of ~3%/year in the United States. As to, "What will those net worths look like at 40-50 when the boomers have paid off houses vs millennials and gen z either still renting or are earlier into the mortgage payoff schedule?" Well, the stock market returns, on average, higher annual returns than primary home single-family real estate over time. So, while those who didn't buy, won't/may not own a home at 40-50, it's very likely their net worths still might be higher. Obviously, not everyone's will be, but it's likely many will have higher net worths assuming they're investing a comparable amount to the total that Gen X and Boomers did between their mortgages and other asset classes at the same age. Higher returns from a similar capital basis will do that. Another reason this is likely to happen, although not tied to your question, is the huge transfer of wealth (inheritance) to many Millennials and Gen Z over the next 30 years. While there are many advantages to owning a home, renting is a much better option for many of us nowadays; especially given all of the other "hidden" costs to suck up money when owning a home. Keeping my fixed housing expenses low and investing more into the market has been the greatest boon to my net worth thus far, and I'm very happy I both did so and started young.
  7. I didn’t say that. I said we were never among the most competitive in the basketball bag game, nor basketball NIL. I.e., we are not, and have not been, the Joneses in basketball.
  8. Nah, I believe a loss to Arkansas kills us. You can't be a three-loss team with two of those losses to teams with losing records and get in - unless there's a shit ton of other fuck ups that allow it to happen. That would be a crazy scenario though: beat UGA and A&M, have four wins over top-10 teams, but three losses, two of which are horrible.
  9. Spot on 100% agree. But our OL needs to keep that a point of improvement for UGA. Can't have a shitty OL game this week. From your fingers to the football Gods' ears, please. You know what I meant. If my assumptions end up being wrong, I will be glad I was wrong.
  10. Look, I agree with you that Wisner was a total differentiator in this game, especially receiving and getting YAC. I don't agree that our RB run game overall was effective. We did, however, fair better than other teams had up to that point against OU's run defense. RB rushes over three yards by quarter: 1st: 2 rushes, 8 & 4 yards 2nd: 1 rush, 37 yards 3rd: 4 rushes, 7, 9, 9, 5 4th: 3 rushes, 4, 5, 7 (by Niblett) Arch's rushes really helped our overall rushing effort too. We won the game because we didn't turn the ball over (and OU did three times), the defense played really well, we absolutely halted any OU running game, and we had a ST TD. We don't need to run this topic further. Overall, I am not optimistic about Texas' chances on Saturday, especially running the ball. In UGA's losses over the past couple of seasons, they got out rushed, and I do not believe we will do that. However, I will gladly be wrong if I end up being incorrect.
  11. There will be no good outcome to this. If the B1G does it, other conferences will be forced to follow suit. It then will escalate until PE has controlling shares of all conferences; at which point, they do what PE does and erode all differentiation, culture, and client experience at the expense of operating and profit margin to drive returns for a select few large equity holders. Oh, all while piling on massive debt to the operating model to amplify equity returns. This is such a shitty path to go down for college sports.
  12. I'm not sure whether it materially has, meaning that schools are getting their shit together with collectives and the money is actually flowing, or if it's simply based on future assumptions and promises made due to the new revenue sharing model. It's likely some combination of both, especially given schools can allocate rev sharing how they see fit. Some will spend most of it on football, while others will distribute it more evenly among all athletes (even if football and basketball still receive the lion's share). With USC, it seems like much of it is based on future promises with some level of current payments to keep recruits from decommitting. At least that's what I've seen said.
  13. Nice dig, but that doesn't mean the outlier driving your statistical analysis make your point. While you're right that Wisner was effective in the later stages of the game, the run game was nonexistent and extremely poor in the first half. Overall, the average outside of one play was shit. Average can be, and was in this particular game, a false expectation of what would happen we Texas tried to run the ball. That is all true. So, while the average figure you presented was correct, it did not at all reflect what the run game looked like on the majority of carries and it's not why Texas won the game, overall. Also, I might be wrong in this assumption, but one offensive TDs and three FGs will get us beat by UGA. If it ends up being wrong, I'll eat crow hard and admit it.
  14. That's all far. Texas has been much too inconsistent of a team (especially on offense at all positions) to simply use stats to predict outcome here. However, the big predictor in my mind is I trust Kirby over Sark to scheme well and adjust over the course of the game. Throw in it's a road game for Texas and I think we lose. However, we certainly have the talent and potential to win.
  15. Monday - Bobby Notes on: injury progession (seems good) OL construction (and why we should cut the coaching staff slack - meh) UGA (they don't have any holes as a team and are more efficient than super effective this season) Strategic factors for Texas that will decide the game (limit the run on early downs, force negative plays and TOs. Things UGA has been good at exploiting and not allowing in wins)
  16. Average is a shitty stat. Wisner ran for 57 yards on 21 carries (2.71 per) if you take away the one long carry of 37 yards. Our rushing attack from the RBs was terrible and ineffective most of the game. Wisner caught fire in the fourth quarter, especially catching the ball. OU is not comparable to UGA, especially on offense and running the ball, where UGA has been extremely effective. OU's offense sucked and Texas scored only one offensive TD, a ST TD, and went 3/5 on FGs. If we play like we did against OU against UGA, especially on offense, we'll lose.
  17. He's also a 2027 recruit from CA and USC is going hog wild with NIL offers and early money. Gerry talks about NIL pressure from USC, OSU, Florida, and LSU below. Shit, even schools like UNC can throw disproportionate offers (compared to Texas) at guys like Thomas and beat us. Recruiting: Who is Texas battling down the stretch? - Gerry
  18. No, it's not weird. This is not the first time BYU has done this in the past two years. Also, when has Texas ever prioritized basketball to the extent of those teams you listed? Never... Correct. BYU has gone all in on basketball. Their NIL is currently top-five, maybe top-three. They have unique (to say the least) fundraising mechanisms, as well. Trying to build and maintain top-tier NIL collectives across all major sports is going to dilute some purchasing power somewhere. It just will. Texas is massively competitive in football, baseball, and just about every non-revenue sport. However, in Men's Basketball, we're not even top 10. Shit, we've been in the middle to upper tier of the second third just in the SEC. We're not "The Joneses," and especially not in basketball. If we were, we'd have more than one modern-day FF banner. NIL has allowed more competition and parity among "The Joneses." BYU has targeted basketball. Tech has targeted football and softball. Texas is trying to sustainability set up every single sport NIL wise. It's happening, but it takes time.
  19. Vanderbilt won. They’re still very much in the CFP race. The CFP format is much better. I like the parity. Just mad Texas may have stepped on their own dick one too many times by season’s end to make it, even though they might have four very good wins.
  20. I admittedly don’t know anything about him since leaving CU. I was merely talking about his potential, athleticism, and production at CU. Now that I’m informed, I redact my excitement.
  21. No, we could use a WR on our roster to have that production. Which hasn’t happened yet due to horrible QB play, OL play, and injuries at the WR position, for much of this season. If BT was on our roster, he wouldn’t have his same stat line. He has a limited route tree, doesn’t give great effort as a blocker, and many of the same issues that led to him transferring in the first place would likely still apply.
  22. It's fucking wild Texas may end the season with four top-10 wins but not make the playoffs because we lost to fucking shitass Florida.
  23. Saturday - Two new offers - Bobby
  24. Recruiting 2026 class: News and notes from Sark and staff on the road - Gerry
×
×
  • Create New...