Sandbagging Steve

It's progress but I do have a question on that: How do elite high school kids and possible transfers know for a fact they are going to get six to seven figures when they show up? If other schools are offering them guarantees the moment they sign? Even small percentages before they sign? I don't know enough about NIL. That's something I've always felt is hard to overcome. Maybe there is an answer to it, especially if enough money is raised above board. From looking at it from the outside, with no real knowledge on NIL, I fear it is going to take a substantial amount for above board operations to counter someone offering guarantees to specific elite prospects. I know Texas can get there, but that's asking a lot and will actually make us a loser in the perception game. Everyone will blame Texas for being the pay for play model, whether true or not. When you need to raise that much money for the entire roster in order to guarantee elite athletes their monetary value. Other programs are just paying the elites substantial amounts in NIL and guaranteeing them thru lawyers before they even arrive to campus (my guess, considering how the old pay system worked). I'm here just waiting for NCAA to die for good. I don't think I would be active again if that wasn't a reasonable possibility. We need a commissioner, salary cap, easily enforceable rules and about to 30 to 40 of the best schools in the country playing each other every week. The rest can have their own championships, ending a few weeks before the big boys, and then their winner is invited into the major championship at the worst seed (8). It's would be a win for everyone involved. Fan participation would go way up across the country. I'm a huge fan who checked out a long time ago. College football is crooked, not competitive and full of nonsense. Why would I want to watch that?

Since I can't edit, "good chance" probably wasn't the best wording. And I'm not a lawyer, of course. But if the NCAA was willing to breakup and go pay for play, Title 9 won't stand in the way IMO. The courts would make changes IMO. It was an overcorrection when written. Counting football in with everything else to the point men's Olympic sports don't get scholarships while women get scholarships in those same sports is wrong.

Really good write-up and spot on. But I do have one question: Do you really think most college football programs win by landing great coaches? I don't think our coaches (minus Strong) are much worse than most of the other coaches out there. I mean, Kirby Smart is a good defensive coordinate who wins by landing the best players (and finally hired a good OC after how many years?). From a coaching standpoint, he's David McWilliams. Cookie Monster is the worst head coach in college football history and won a title. Les Miles had 2 strokes and can't even talk. Cristobal is a joke in everything but oline and buying players. Saban is the best out there and he was a decade late in changing his schemes and recruited personnel. It didn't matter because of his talent advantage. He was also known as way too uptight to win before his talent advantage just made it not matter anymore. I could keep going and discuss the Joker's that won titles in the old days. The point is, the other things you mentioned keep us from landing the elite talent and you cannot win without it. There's no amount of the 200th ranked players in the country that can overcome that at a Blueblood. We face way more pressure than TCU. You must land a balanced roster with 5-star talent. The Title 9 mess needs to go to court. I've been told it would have a good chance of getting a compete overhaul. It is unconstitutional as currently written IMO. It's not that there shouldn't be a Title 9, it's just the law has overreach and was changed at the last minute to discriminate against males. In an attempt to make things fair, there was an overcorrection. Texas is full of Title 9 apologists and it is a major issue IMO. Most colleges don't want to challenge it because it's a cover for amaeutusm IMO.

NCAA was correctly named, that's for sure:

Thompson bombs kinda like a Russian. It always misses the target.

It's better to be elite on one side of the ball then average on both. Oklahoma (offense) proved this for over a decade. Georgia (defense) the past half decade is another data point. Obviously, you'd prefer to be elite on one-side and at least good on the other, but it's better to be elite one side, below average on the other side versus just average on both sides. Elite is unstoppable, which always gives you a chance in the end.

Touchy, I don't believe I said I did. I'm just telling you everything you said has already been happening for over 100 years. Why were you here in the first place? You said you were gonna leave because of mercenaries. They are trying to take the black market away and make it above board and that is problem with you? You prefer the black market? That was your stance, not mine. You do as you choose. I never said otherwise. It just doesn't make any sense.

I agree with everything you'd at here. I don't believe any so-called journalist has the balls to say it. Wouldn't you say on #2: Title 9, although this is correct at the moment, discriminates against male athletes the way it is written? The original idea was to not count football scholarships in the law. And by doing so, it shifts the balance to where males can't get full rides in many sports. And that some in the Texas admin and other colleges around the country feel that the law could be changed but they don't want to touch it? What are your thoughts on that?

Mercenaries have been the name of the game in college football for over 100 fucking years. I'm tired of reading these comments. You should have never been "in" in the first place if you hold this line of thinking. All this is doing is bringing it up above board. I wonder if we have any Bellmont shills spreading their propaganda on here? I know that actually used to be a thing in the early days of the internet.

I don't care if you read it or not. I'm tired of losing.. I'm tired of listening to everyone scream and yell and put blame on the wrong suspects. I'm tired of hearing about our great recruiting classes (minus this past year) when it is full of fucking bread. Kids who can't run. Kids who aren't talented. These kids give it their all. The coaches succeed elsewhere and can't win here. There's only one constant over the years and they never take any of the blame. If you mention them, the cronies try to run you off. I really don't give AF anymore. It's not like I post everyday like the rest of you. I'll be gone in short order. I'm speaking to the casual fan out there who thinks it's all the coaches fault. Pick up the phone, call and voice your displeasure to this admin. It's not all on the coaches. It's time Texas look in the mirror.

Absolutely, this class isn't a representative of most of our previous overrated classes. Like I said, it is top 10 worthy. I love Brooks, but I would like an updated 40 time. I'm haunted by how many times we've recruited slow players who never had a chance at this level despite high rankings. Like I said, I love everything else about him. His track times haven't been updated. He's also very young for his grade. That helps. I love Ross and Bledsoe. Bledsoe had a lot of things going on off the field and I'm just not sure he deserves such a ranking. He could end up being the best player in the class. But I feel like a top 100 player should have very few question marks. BJ Allen is a downhill safety in a different era that demands a lot more. But I do think he fits PK's system. Will PK still be here in a year? I love Thompson's speed! Something Texas usually lacks on the recruiting trail. My question is the level of competition and the fact I don't see anything on tape that screams every down receiver. That doesn't mean he is not an every down receiver. I think Sark's the perfect coach to get him there. But there are question marks for a so-called top 100 player. He was definitely a take though. We need to land more kids that you look at and go, yeah, that kid is probably gonna be an all conference player for us. I don't see any question marks. And if you don't see any question marks, you're still going to be wrong a lot. That's recruiting.

Top 5 class means nothing to me. I look at the players as well as how many elite athletes in the top 100 nationally. How many near 5 stars? In most years, Texas, with the help of fake evaluators, land a bunch of middle of the road 4-star recruits who are way overrated. There are not 400 recruits worthy of a 4-star ranking. I doubt there's really 200 kids worthy of it. This leads to the perception of a great class ranked in the top 10. It usually isn't accurate at Texas. This class was the best we've had in a long time. It is top 10 worthy, but will need for Sark to hit on evaluations at an elite rate. Evaluations, aka predictions, are not something that most humans are good at. How many first targets did Texas land in the high school ranks? We landed ONE top 100 player in the country that wasn't an offensive lineman bought by the NIL (and that NIL is going to have to go way, way up to keep up in the future). That player, Terrance Brooks, who I do think is going to be a very good player, has very slow track times. This is much harder to research now after COVID, so I could be wrong. But that is a trend at Texas. A bunch of slow players. Many times they lack other qualities as well. That is not the case here. He does have length, hip flexibility, good reactionary time, and a bunch of other stuff you like to see. Biggest thing is he is very young for his age, so he may have gotten faster. Three total top 100 recruits isn't going to cut it. We landed ZERO top 10 players in the state of Texas outside of that offensive line. We landed SIXTEEN recruits ranked 275 or lower. That's not going to cut it at a blueblood in the long term. You can get lucky once or twice but not long term. We did better out of state than many years, but even that needs to be much better. This is supposed to be a blueblood program. The defensive side, top to bottom, wasn't up to par. In fact, it is severely lacking for a blueblood. Could be some great evolutions in there though. But you just can't sustain that year to year at a blueblood. You have to land the elite studs. Wide receiver struggled and was saved by the portal. The QB, if he can develop, will be a huge plus and could even bring a Big 12 title before he leaves here. It still comes back to sustainability. There has to be a foundation of stuff where you go, yeah, the way we recruited that class will work every year. Instead, without the admins help, we are a mess every year. It's way too much of a rollercoaster and gimmicky than it should be at a blueblood. And we usually end up with an entire class of so-called 4-stars ranked 250 and lower in the so-called evaluators online lists. It happens so regularly for 2 reasons: 1. We get way too many leftover scraps after the other bluebloods pay for who they want. 2. The recruiting services need to make money and there is no better way to make money than to keep the largest, richest fan base in America engaged in your service.

Other than Urban Meyer, who you going to hire? Who was really out there? The LSU coach wouldn't have recruited well here because we don't pay the players enough and we don't have Catholicism to fall back on. We also just fired a prick because the base couldn't stand his personality. There aren't many good head coaches out there. Sark at least came here with a reputation as one of the best offensive minds and one the best recruiters in America. He has plenty of warts, but if you can recruit and scheme on offense, all you need to do in today's football is hire a good defensive coordinator and strength coach and get out of the way. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, Sark is having a tough time recruiting here because of last year's on season performance and just because our admin makes it tough to recruit here. He, and whatever the NIL deals CTJ put in place, helped Texas at least put together its best class in a very, very long time. The defense may need a new coach. It definitely needs way more talent. It's much easier to find a solid defensive coordinator than it is to find a genius offensive mind who can scheme his way to points. I wasn't a fan of the hire at first glance. With that said, our best bet right now, unless a savior just falls in our lap, is to let Sark buy some good players and get a defensive coordinator who can get it done. Also, take a look at the strength program. If you have an elite offensive schemer and great talent on both sides of the ball, who's stopping you? Honestly, defense is more about talent and offense is more tilted toward scheme.

That's the brainwashing of our BMDs. The BMDs aren't the problem. We once had a larger compliance department than the entire NCAA. One of the few schools in America that's breathing down the necks of their own "boys" trying to get themselves in trouble. It's both a reflection of terrible business and also how much the NCAA is just there as a façade to cover for amateurism. They once had very few actual lawyers working on infractions. Even lawyers found the place to corrupt to work for and left in droves. Then there's the cover for the overcorrection that is Title 9. There's a place for that stuff, but it was taken too far. Texas, Stanford and few more are the only one's who continue to celebrate its overreach. It's reverse discrimination as written. And most schools know it and treat it that way. Not Texas. The NCAA has all been about keeping as much money as possible and sharing as little of the profits with the sweat that made it happen. The old system allowed that. The bloated administrations across the country were cover for one goal: Add expenses to counter the incredible rise of wealth. They would rather pay a buddy to sit around than pay a kid his worth. Now, the other bluebloods would make sure to get the very elite paid so they could win. If you paid a few elite players per year, the rest would follow them. That's a much cheaper way to keep the gravy train rolling, but at least the other school's cared about winning. Yeah, I know, not much different than the 10,000 years of civilization you read about in your textbooks. Life is one big fucking loop of greed. We never learn from our mistakes.

dcar00: I wasn't disputing you, just adding on to your argument. Sorry, can't edit.

ATM got busted before SMU and got off on a technicality. And then they didn't stop one damn. They didn't even try to find a new way, much less a legal way, to pay recruits and players. They just kept handing bags out (literally) on the front desk of high school coaches, right in the wide open. And then FedEx. LOL, they finally got busted again. And then they got busted one more time after getting penalized. They've never had any moral values. What they are doing right now is actually 100% within the rules. Go ask Mark Emmert. It's the same thing all the other schools are doing and it is legally within the rules. A third party can pay a third party completely within the rules.

We need more of this. If people would pick up the phone and voice their displeasure, it could speed things up. We are getting to the tipping point (finally, after all these years) where the fans and alumni can finally do something about it. Withhold donations to the athletic side if there are no changes. Give it to the academic side or to CTJ, if you still want to give it away. Make your voice known why. The BMDs don't have time for this. They just do what they are told to do...For decades they've been told it's immoral to pay student-athletes (it's not) and will lead to embarrassment and sanctions (was never going to happen). Now, the excuses ring hollow. If the fanbase puts pressure on admin, they will get the BMDs onboard. It's going to take a large group of BMDs to make this fully operational. Heck, Texas has the power to pickup the phone and end the NCAA tomorrow. The presidents run that shit organization. Only five schools can pull that off: Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, tOSU and Michigan. That's my opinion on this matter.

Forgot to add: but your point about a quicker turnaround thru the portal is a good point.

You make a good point but this is the most overrated word in college football. Development in this game isn't rocket science. Most of these coaches can do it with the right kind of talent. All these coaches have a huge lists of busts on their resumes and I don't see many taking slow, undersized kids and pulling magic tricks.

Because the SWC was paykg players directly (which IS against the rules..it must be done by a 3rd party and to a 3rd party). They all got busted by a journalist egged on by Texas to investigate. After that, no one, not even out of state, wanted to buy players in the state again. It took a decade for Saban to figure out how to do it legally and then the state was open for business again. It was the begining of the end. Don't get me wrong, Mack's laziness and other factors sped up the process, but it was coming. And Mack isn't completely above board in recruiting, he's just not at a systematic level.

They aren't breaking the rules. This stuff has been legal for a while. Not only has the NCAA said so but even during reforms they've deliberately left open loopholes to keep it legal. You just can't pay players directly. Your line of thinking is all coming coming out of the 40. If you want get after ATM, the criminal coverups, illegal practices, many other immoral stuff going on over there would be a better statement to make. It's the wild, wild west over there.

You're barking up the wrong tree. None of this is Gary Patterson's fault. This is the only thing that gets me. Year after year, fans scream at the wrong people. Below is not regarding you: It gets really ugly regarding our players, coaches and BMDs on GameDay. Really nasty and it is uncalled for. Not only is it childish (to the point of threats and even beyond that), but it's misguided anger. At least point the finger at the guilty party if you're going to do it. And keep it civil and don't make threats.