Jump to content

Hookem75

New Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hookem75

  1. Zach from OB posted this yesterday:

     

    "UPDATE (6/13):

    There will not be an official announcement today from Texas regarding the status of David Pierce due to contractual matters, but it has been made clear and the next step will be an official announcement from CDC (Texas) that Coach Pierce has been fired.

    As far as who will be the next coach, that name has not been released, but they have narrowed it down to an individual and he has stated that when the official offer is made, which can only be done once Pierce is officially removed, he will say yes."

    Anyone know what the contractual matter might be?

    • Hook 'Em 3
  2. Any thoughts on what Inside Texas had to say about "in house NIL" going forward possibly being bad for Texas?

    Spoiler

    “From chaos, comes order.” 

    This quote, commonly assigned to Friedrich Nietzsche or Ray Nitschke, one of the two, seems apropos for where college football currently finds itself. We’ve been in the chaos stage the last handful of years and now the powers that be, who seem to be a rotating cast of characters, are looking to restore order.  

    My main concern, and everyone affiliated with Texas, should be: How well will Texas be positioned to win once we’ve found order?

    It’s no coincidence Texas’ resurgence coincides with the NIL era. Collectives play a large role when it comes to name, image, and likeness and Texas has a well-oiled collective that is the envy of most schools.

    Texas’ collectives have been key
    Yesterday during our Livestream I mentioned the following at around the 30:00 minute mark. 

    By far my biggest concern is not roster size…Texas fans should be most concerned about what the role of NIL collectives will be going forward. Del Conte mentioned he’d like to bring those in-house. 

    I need a lot more clarity on what that’s going to look like long-term because nothing has benefitted Texas more than NIL in its current climate where it’s very free market-based. The more the central planners get involved and bring it in-house, the more it’s probably going to hurt Texas, and there’s a very good chance the next landscape sees a return to illegal inducements under the table. 

    Just because they have so much to spend, that doesn’t mean they won’t spend more and the boosters won’t act different than Texas boosters. Texas is very cognizant of compliance. If they played the game like others, Texas wouldn’t have seen this giant bounce just as NIL became legal.

    By far, the biggest concern for Texas fans should be the role of collectives, how they’re viewed going forward. 

    Nothing else really matters if you want to win championships and be competitive in the SEC. Texas leadership hopefully has a very good understanding of what could happen if collectives are diminished. 

    You’re going to go back to being 8-4 if Texas doesn’t have this legal advantage.

    That last part was a bit hyperbolic but it’s going to be much more difficult to win if Texas is forced to pretend to be poor.

    Lost advantage
    It should be abundantly clear that anything that calls into question the existence of collectives, especially with an imposed salary cap (currently projected to be $22 million) hurts Texas, unless there will be legislation that allows for some kind of bonus structure.

    A world where Texas remains compliant while others don’t is an uphill battle, to say the least. Right now it doesn’t matter if schools break compliance because the current structure still allows Texas to overcome their questionable processes. 

    Key quotes from those in the know
    During the last few days of the Spring SEC meetings, Joe Cook gathered some quotes that are worth parsing. Joe provides the goods for this section:

    One of the more eye-opening statements made in Destin was from Texas athletics director Chris Del Conte. He said that if it were up to him, he’d like NIL collectives to move in house, which would mean under his direct purview.

    “I think at the end of the day, I understood the reason why they came about,” Del Conte said. “I think the reality is, with what the future looks like, I would prefer everything be brought in house.”

    SEC commissioner Greg Sankey was asked about this on Thursday.

    “Quite consistently the communication with me is we’d like to see collectives moved away,” Sankey said Thursday. “I think there’s a positive response to the opportunity in the settlement to bring Name, Image, and Likeness activity in house. We’ve even heard from student-athletes talking about how you don’t really know who you’re signing agreements with. Is that really healthy for us?”

    Sankey would continue, “When you think about a healthier circumstance, I think that’s what the perspective that Chris shared is. It’s shared by most, if not all, of his colleagues, that they’d like to see change in that area.”

    UT president Jay Hartzell was on hand as well. A few quick hitters…

    Here’s what he had to say on collectives: “NIL is essentially a couple of bundles. There’s a part where it provides resources for student-athletes to come pursue their education, play a sport, and align some of the revenue that’s been generated with those producers of the revenue.

    “There’s a part there, but there’s also what some people label true NIL. I think about Bijan (Robinson) and his mustard. In hindsight, it’s kind of wonky that was not allowed up until now. I think when people talk about the collectives, they have in mind primarily the former, thinking about there should be different models instead of just paying somebody to be on the team.

    “Every model I’ve seen and debated still has that second component to it. The question is… how do you distinguish between good mustard and bad mustard? What’s fair compensation for endorsing mustard versus one that seems more egregious and starts to infringe on pay to play? That’s where the enforcement mechanism debates come about. If we go down that path, what kind of entity that we design does that well and fairly. Ideally, we just can’t have things drag out for years where we figure out if the mustard deal was fair or not.”

    Keeping self-interest
    I’m the very last person to question Texas’ will to win under its current leadership, but what must be understood, is, an attempt to create parity could very easily lead to a return to the old ways. What’s to stop schools from ignoring the salary cap by going back under the table to induce recruits to their school?

    Sure, the new governing body could probably create an enforcement arm with more teeth than the NCAA, but the new body is just as likely to go after its revenue creators as the last one. Which is to say, not all that much.

    Fortunately, Texas certainly understands this, but understanding and politicking legislation in your favor are two different things.

    Notes from Cigars
    Here are a couple of notes after talking to sources last night:

    People at Texas aren’t sure what direction this is all headed from a legislative standpoint. There are many other considerations, including Title IX. The school is actually hoping the Federal government gets involved and thinks this issue is one that should attract people from both sides of the aisle. There are ways to thread that needle…theoretically. One positive, and I’m chuckling as I write this, is the Federal legislation could help with the enforcement of rules. That’s probably one of the dumbest things I’ve ever written, but again, we’re talking theoretically. 

    Texas will handle NIL in-house. What that means exactly, I’m not sure. Are they going to help athletes get marketing deals and then handle the paperwork? Texas will continue to have an advantage in this regard over every school given the fervor for football in a very large college town. If this is all they have, however, for most recruits it might not cut the mustard when competing against illegal bags and poker chips. 

    Does CDC want this or is he saying “the reality is, with the way the future looks like, I would prefer everything is brought in-house,” because he knows that’s where things are headed? We know that CDC is on the same page with Sankey. I doubt we see those two speak out of step with one another. CDC’s and Sankey’s interests overlap in places but they also diverge in others. Hopefully there’s going to be some hard discussions behind the scenes and Texas can massage the direction this is all heading. 

    With this recent settlement in mind, we hear collectives will be a thing of the past. This should happen within the next two years. I’ve seen it written nationally that some schools will keep their collectives but if you read the quotes above, the SEC seems intent on abolishing them. 

    Optimism and skepticism
    It’s not all bad for Texas. $22 million, which will increase over time, will be a tough number for schools to come up with. (Though, Title IX looms large when it comes to how money will be disbursed)

    There are other enduring advantages UT has that can’t be taken away. For example, Texas is good at politicking. That will be another article. 

    But, for myriad reasons I am a little skeptical of where this is all headed. If you know the history of ‘order’ it often isn’t kind to well-intentioned people.

     

×
×
  • Create New...