Askew

Didn't we fill this need sufficiently well with Wright and Lourd this class? In the ideal scenario: Thompson wins the job this year, plays lights out. Thompson gets drafted in '22 or '23. Card, Wright, Lourd, Murphy for '22 +/- Thompson. Less ideal scenario: Card wins the job, Thompson transfers. Card, Wright, Lourd, Murphy for '22. No matter what, Card has at least three years of eligibility in '22 and you have 4 bodies in the room for the foreseeable future, barring transfers. Wright is for sure a 5-year guy. Why not use the '22 recruiting spot on another position instead of taking a Lourd replacement? For transfer purposes I do like the idea of taking two-person classes with a 5/4-star and a high floor guy, rather than two 5/4-stars.

Ironically, Iconic was a Ewers thing. Herman/Carrington were definitely going to do another "UT 22" play on words. Then Ewers wanted to big dick Carrington and did a twitter poll, with "Iconic 22" ending up the winner. Carrington adopted it shortly after--gave up his whole schtick because of a Twitter poll by a high school kid... Then Ewers decommitted. Embarrassing.

This would be a great glue guy for the LB room and overall culture. Could probably play on the edge. He was a beast when we played Rice in 2019.

What makes his verbal pledge to tOSU different than his verbal pledge to UT? If it's only based on game results, that's not integrity, that's pragmatism.

Yeah I was watching 2019 Mizzou and 2020 Arkansas film and saw all 3-2-6. But did see that in the article. Good sign that he's multiple. Our roster is probably suited for a nose and a DT with Keondre, Sweat, and Collins being the best players there now.

Don't love going back to 3 down-linemen. But Barry Odom knows more than I do.

Just as far as the reality of it: Seeing as if this extremely unlikely scenario happened, we wouldn't know about the change until this Wednesday at the earliest, there is no way those kids would be able to opt back in, join the walkthrough on Thursday, and hop on the plane on Friday. So none. I could see TQ and CB maybe trying. But Cosmi and Sterns no way.

Big 12 uses total losses and then head-to-head in an unbalanced scenario. We'd go over Ok St. https://big12sports.com/news/2008/7/31/1546006.aspxUnbalanced Tie-Break Procedures to Determine Conference Championship Game Participants In order for teams to be considered in a tie-break scenario to compete in the Big 12 Football Championship Game, teams must play no less than one fewer conference games than the average number of conference games played by all conference teams (rounded up/down at .50). For example, if the average number of conference games played in the 2020 season is 8.25 (value of 8 when rounded down) a team would be eligible to play in the Championship Game if that team played 7 conference games. The Championship Game participants will be determined by the best winning percentages within the conference. In the event of an unbalanced schedule where there is a tie for the best, or second best, record in the loss column, head-to-head results will take precedence over winning percentage as long as the required number of conference games were completed. If the teams remain tied, the following procedures will be applied to determine the Big 12 Championship Game representatives:

Looks like Mike Rose is questionable