Taking this back to recruiting, Iistened to Bobby and Gerry from yesterday's recording on my morning run and while most of it has been covered up thread, I think it's a few points are interesting and not getting sufficient attention (combining my thoughts with theirs below):
1. Texas has a strategy in how it's allocating money, and while it's reasonable to think they are having to make adjustments, the basic outline of it follows a professional drafting model in which the team assigns a player a value. That value is somewhat predicated on the player's demand, what was spent in the last class, and position group budget. I'm presuming most smart teams are organized in this method, but losing the Ojo's (big guarantee on a riskier outcome) is likely a way for the smaller D-1 schools to remain an annoyance.
2. I would also suspect these are exceptional but we'll see. Basically, if the bottom 35 (of the top 60) D-1 school each offer an Ojo like NIL offer, that's probably compelling to a lot of the top rated prospects.
3. Bobby wrote about this in what was posted up thread, as well, but the allocation of money amongst the top 25 or so is going to make for some interesting and diverse roster constructions, and maybe some of this ends up impacting stylistic choices, too. For example, Texas and a lot of the SEC teams are chasing the same caliber of offensive line talent with the same basic scouting criteria (size, chiefly, over other attributes). Maybe there's a market efficiency for going after cheaper, smaller lineman and tailoring the offense around the athletic limitations (obvious example is an offense that executes a lot of pulls, misdirection, options, etc.) in order to free up money for skill positions. I doubt Texas would experiment here, but it might be the sort of thing a Vandy should try.
4. Gerry reiterated that Texas will continue to pursue Malakai Lee and Winfield from USC, and hasn't given up on Jamarian Carlton (presumably getting Double Eagle offers). Mark Bowman has an open offer, so does Lott. It sounds like pretty much anyone who is at the top of the board is considered open until signing day, regardless of commitment status, and Texas is counting on coaching staff turnover, NIL chaos, and 2025 on field performance to have at least a few of these become open to renegotiation. I'm guessing that's true for our current commitments, too.
5. I know we're all gritting our teeth reading anything like "Texas is going to play by the rules" and "Texas won't be the first team to engage in NIL chicanery", but we are fortunate that Texas is coming off two very strong seasons in both on field performance and recruiting classes. It's not just that there's talent on hand, it's that there appears to be a significant enough amount of player leadership that recruits can see how that's contributing to wins and draft positions. It's going to be a lot easier to fend off Baylor, for example, offering someone like Okpala an extra $100K and/or early playing time if there's very clear developmental superiority and a team of aspirant professionals.
6. Taking it back to recruit through the whistle, Sark hasn't historically moved on to subordinate choices but I think the roster needs and expansion under House would justify it. There's going to need to be space for a Broughton to come in and develop for a few years at a lower payroll number even if he's not playing until year 3 or 4.