blutow

Yep, there is no way Oregon jumps us today if OU wins against Kansas yesterday. And it's also a timing thing. Memories are short, recent games get much more credit than early season games. Our best win of the year (unless we make the playoffs) will be a week 2 win. Our best possible win going forward happens next week against a team barely in the top 25. Would have been nice to knock off OU in CCG when they were sitting in the top 5 (or whatever). At that point, you'd have 2 top 5 wins and no debate against other 1 loss champs. I'm not as convinced as others that a 12-1 Texas gets in over a 1 loss Oregon or Washington. Media has been propping PAC up all year and beating on Big12 (somewhat fairly). Everyone will forget how bad SEC was OOC by the time decisions are made.

I have no concerns about a bunch of undefeated teams, I'm more worried about rankings between 1 loss conference champs if Texas is one of them. But mostly I'm worried that we'll drop a game and make it all a pointless discussion.

If we win out, we could easily get left out over a 1 loss Oregon, Washington (depending on who they lost to) or Alabama. 1 loss ACC/B1G champ probably wouldn't jump us if Alabama keeps winning. As much as I hate measuring "quality of loss", OU's glorious loss yesterday could come back to bite us. If we had ended beating an undefeated OU in the CCG, our 1 loss would look better and we'd have a win again a top ~5 OU right at CFP decision time (timing is everything). Now, if we win out and meet OU (or someone else) in CCG, we'll only have a single signature win - Alabama before they got their shit together (that will be the narrative/justification). And our OU loss will look worse. Texas would almost certainly be passed over by a 1 loss Alabama if they beat an undefeated GA in the CCG (again timing is everything). Lots of football to be played, just win and see what happens.

Yeah, lots of people speed and take their chances, but most try to be smart about it. If someone blows through a school zone doing 80, they are probably getting a ride to the station. The level of stupidity that UM appears to have exhibited here is pretty impressive. Whether NCAA can or will do anything about it will be an interesting watch.

Oh, I'm sure the SC DC knew how the signs were obtained, but there may not be a paper trail that proves that he knew. So, if SC thinks he's a good OC, he probably keeps his job because they say he didn't know. If they are looking for any reason to get rid of him, they fire him because he should have asked/known and SC is such an ethical school and all the crap.

The DC could probably make a decent case that he didn't know how the signs were obtained. Is it illegal for a UM coach to give a SC coach some info on signs that were obtained within the rules (as far as the SC coach knows)? It all sounds wrong, but wrong and against the rules aren't always the same thing.

It's not really about who pays, but whether the folks paying should reasonably know what's going on. A common corporate tactic for doing shady shit (bribes for gov't officials, price fixing, etc.) is to pay a 3rd party to do your dirty work and be smart about the paper trail (money passes hands to a BD consultant for non-specific tasks, etc.). If done well, it can be hard to pin something back on the company. That said, these coaches and athletic administrators are obviously not the sharpest knives in the drawer. The fact that they employed this guy (and possibly directly reimbursed tickets and travel) and put him on the sidelines instead of keeping an arms-length relationship is beyond dumb. I'm sure UM is trying to construct a story that they didn't how the guy was getting the signs, but good luck with that.

The most entertaining outcome would be watching the season play out and UM falling apart because their success was based on knowing the signs. I assume there is no way they can continue doing it since they will be under a microscope.

McElroy's reaction here is priceless (about 2 minutes in) - Nuno - "I don't think Texas has the same level of defense" McElroy "As A&M?" (thinking Nuno must be comparing Texas to Alabama or some other reasonable comparison) Nuno "Yeah" (without hesitation, it's not a lie if you believe it I guess).

Yeah, it was all tongue in check, trying to channel my inner aggy.

Trying to project Sark's future based on the performance of other coaches is just a dumb way to support a given opinion. Coaches evolve just like any professional field and the game is also evolving around them. If it was possible to evaluate a coaching prospect and guarantee consistent playoff-level success at a given program, schools would pay 10's of millions as a finder's fee for that service (a lot cheaper than hiring/firing coaches until the stars align). I like it when I hear Sark highlighting the things he personally screwed up and needs to improve on. I know some of that is to deflect from the players, but I believe he is a guy that looks at his own performance with a critical eye to improve. Sark may never figure out how to be an elite coach, but he might. I'm not sold on Sark as the savior of Texas football, but I also wouldn't rule it out and I wouldn't want to start over with anyone else right now. If I wanted to "cherry pick" some history to support the notion that Sark has potential as a head coach, I'd just compare Saban's record at Michigan State and first year at LSU to Sark's at Washington/USC. Similar schools with similar resources. Until Sark's alcohol reboot, the records are almost identical. Saban never had a 10 win season until he was over 50 (older than Sark). If we just give Sark a mulligan for last year (since it was his first year back as a head coach), we're trending for a run just like Alabama. Just to be clear, I'm not saying Sark is the next St. Nick, just highlighting how easy (and stupid) it is to pick some history to support any position you can dream up. Nobody knows how Sark is going to turn out as a head coach. If he isn't the guy, we'll eventually move on to another. This is the way.

I don't like the continuing self inflicted mistakes, but a lot of them have been at QB and OL. I'm not saying the coaches don't take some blame for this crap, but young players are gonna do stupid stuff and it's magnified at those positions. I hate to use Sarks "Brand/Style" reference, but I really like what the team is doing in all 3 phases and I think it will eventually translate to more consistent results. Add more talent on defense and more experience at OL/QB, and I could see this staff having us in the mix for conference championships and playoffs. I'm not sold on Sark yet (odds are never good with these things), but I'd bet on Sark before replacing him with the latest shiny object in the coaching world (again, any new hire is long odds).

I'm sure they are looking hard for reasons to fire for cause (or other loophole), but that approach would likely keep the dumpster fire smoldering for a long time. I'd bet both sides are ready to part ways and active discussions are underway to figure out exit terms. A&M is probably threatening to fire for cause (maybe with the concussion thing if it's real), but that path would get really ugly and public. The promise of a clean exit (with no "cause") might be enough for Jimbo to concede a portion of the buyout to just be done with it. I suspect Jimbo has been in quiet quitting mode for a while, enjoying his african safaris and time on his ranch. He was probably happy to keep coaching/coasting as long as it was going OK, but that $85m has to be looking really good compared to the shit storm he's in right now.

I keep hearing this and it certainly makes it a challenge, but the $85 million is already committed. It's a sunk cost that is budgeted, it's just a matter of timing on the payout. "only" 25% has to be paid upon firing and then annual installments for the balance (at least that's what I've read). Sure, it's tough to pay 25% up front, but they would have a way to raise the funds for the buyout and pay that portion back (plus interest) over time. The decision is really whether they are willing to pay 2 coaches for the next 9 years. Assuming they found a new coach at around $5m/yr, the incremental cost of firing Jimbo and bringing in someone new would be around $6m (I'm assuming around $1m year for interest on the payout). It's an risky bet either way. If you don't fire him soon, it might result in years of decline costing the program a lot more than the $6m/yr incremental to bring in someone new. But if the new guy doesn't work out (50/50 at best), you'll be paying 3 coaches when you need to bring in the next savior. The Jimbo contract (as I understand it) is really next level stupid on A&M's part. The 10 year guarantee is nuts to begin with, but having to pay such a big chunk the day they fire him with no offset if he takes another job is just mind bending stupidity. He can make significantly more $ over the next 9 years by getting fired now and sitting on the beach than he would if he stayed (because he can invest the buyout $). If he gets another job, he get's that $ as well. He's leaving millions on the table by not getting fired as soon as possible. Based on his last couple press conferences, I can't believe he's trying to keep his job at this point.

You know what's better than $10m/yr to not show up for your job? An $86m check to walk away today and be done with that crap forever. And go get a different job at another place if he wants to keep coaching. Jimbo can't be having a good time right now. He could try to work his way out of it over time for $9m year if he is really invested in the program (doubtful). Nobody likes to get fired, but walking papers with $86m in hand has to be the path Jimbo's wants right now. He'd probably do A&M a solid and leave for $80m just to get the hell out of there. In my opinion, he's absolutely trying to get fired at this point. If I was trying my hardest to get fired from a coaching job, I don't think I could do a better job of it than Jimbo is right now. All I hear in that press conference babble is "fuck you, buy me out if you want me to stop destroying your program". Maybe he is just that bad at his job, but I suspect he may be just smart enough to be pushing buttons to get out of there ASAP with a big check.

My understanding is that the targeting is reviewable, but you can't reverse the roughing even if was an obvious bad call. That seems really dumb in situations where roughing is only because of targeting, but that's how I've heard it explained.

Ouch...

That all seems pretty squishy to me. "Enrollment in an institution of higher education" has some teeth, but could probably be addressed by an athlete signing up for an online class at the local community college. #2 just serves as a guideline for how to execute this stuff. Everyone understands that many NIL deals are about inducement. #2 just says you can't be explicit about it.

I'm guessing that is someone's interpretation of what happened, I doubt the $ folks were dumb enough to be that direct. Regardless of how it went down in the Utah case, I think it's fair to say that many of these NIL deals (recruiting, retention, or portal) are obviously indirect inducement that fall within the current rules. I don't like it, but the box is open and I don't see a clear way to regulate it. It's too grey/subjective. If a company CEO pushes for a lucrative NIL deal for a recruit or transfer, is it inducement if that CEO is a Texas Ex? If the company only does business in central TX and will only give NIL deals for kids playing at Texas, is that just smart business or is that inducement? Unless they find a way to put up some guard rails, I'm of the opinion that you play the game (within the rules) as aggressively as possible. Get the best lawyers and put strong oversight in place. I don't think this current NIL model is sustainable long term, but watching the world pass you by while "trying to be noble" will be a losing approach.

"Snitch" would imply someone is cheating. Just sounds like whining to me. It's not even bad whining, mostly frustration that I don't blame him for. Is there anything illegal (or even shady) about a collective going to a collegiate player and showing them how much $ they could make with NIL playing for a high profile program like x (ie not utah)? I don't like the dynamic, but I believe it's fair game under current rules (maybe I'm wrong on that?). Yes, everyone understands that it's ultimately an indirect inducement to play at a certain place, but it's within the rules as long as it's structured properly (as I understand it). Either push to revise the rules or learn how to play the game. If that Utah AD called me (as the AD of the other school) and asked me to reach out to the collective to "back off", I'd nicely tell him that the collective isn't under my control and this is just how things work under the current rules.

If we can get to the point where the offense is consistently dominating and the defense struggles at times, that's a big step in the right direction in my book. OU won a lot of games and conference championships with that formula. Riley is playing the same script at USC and has turned that program around in year 1. Sure, it would be great to dominate in all phases, but offensive production rules today's game and the defense will come around if we can start winning more games and pulling in better talent. One big positive I see from Sark - he calls an offensive game with consideration to the defense (not using high tempo when the defense needs a rest, etc.). I don't think he's ignoring the defense, but it's clearly not his top priority and that's fine with me (for now) if he can get this offense to an elite level.

For any playoff shot, TX would obviously have to win out and it would require another conference champ to have 2 losses. Neither of those are likely, but stranger things have happened. We'd probably have a good shot under that scenario with our early losses (unless the other 2 loss champ was SEC, which always seems to trump any logical argument). Very, very long shot. I'd be elated to see a conference championship this year, but I want to see this team play at least one solid road game before I get my hopes up.

A lot, but not nearly as much as another one in the next few years after a 20 year drought. I assume a lot of the big $ folks are not spring chickens. How much would it be worth to see TX win another before you die? Probably some egos in play to motivate them to be "part of the solution" for bringing home another NC (legacy and all the crap). I'm not saying these extreme situations are likely with a Quin or Arch, but at some point all you need to do is sell some boosters on a story of hope. They are just like most of us, they want to believe. And they actually have the power to affect the outcome and essentially become partial team owners/GM's with the purse strings and no salary cap. No need to justify a profit, all decisions based on emotion and hope. What would you spend to cure your child laying in the hospital with cancer? Extreme analogy, but that's been TX football for a long time for some folks. I fully expect NIL to get regulated at some point to prevent this kind of dynamic, but I'm not sure how they do that based on the way it's currently structured.

Yeah, I get that it wouldn't be a "normal" thing, but maybe for unique situations. Let's say ARch takes us to the NC game as a junior (after dominating all year) and gets hurt in the first quarter and we lose a close one. Right or wrong, many would think a NC would be very high probability the next year with Arch and big $ would likely flow if it would make a difference in keeping him another year.