Glass Joe

Sark destroying Kirby during SEC media days. Love it!

Flip or no?

I hope you’re wrong. I’d prefer Bishop get all the reps possible at WR, and let Lott to elsewhere.

@Gerry Hamilton did we get outbid here, or is this Texas choosing to allocate the funds to another position (instead of paying up for a 5th DT in the class)?

Do we think this will impact Texas’ on-field success as much as missing on Denver Harris or Zach Evans?

That’s the revenue sharing component, not the total compensation. I’m not sure a P4 school is going to be competitive on the field if they choose to not payout the $20.5M allowable to athletes under the revenue sharing component. So, the $20.5m revenue share acts as a “floor” for the total compensation athletes at a P4 school can receive. But the $20.5M revenue share is not the total compensation for athletes, and doesn’t act as a compensation “cap” for athletes. Legit NIL layered on top of the $20.5M revenue share is the total athletes compensation per school, and I don’t believe there can be any “cap” on this (legally). So, the $31M for Missouri in total compensation to athletes under NIL makes sense in this context. I also think this is where the “Texas spends $35M” rumor got started a few weeks back.

Is the $20.5M really a compensation cap, or is it a floor? My understanding is the $20.5m is the revenue sharing amount based off the $2.8B settlement spread across P4 schools athletic departments over some number of years. It is the amount required to be provided to (“shared”) athletes as NIL / marketing compensation, but it does not limit athletes at any school’s athletes from earning amounts above the $20.5M baseline through legitimate NIL / sponsorship deals (which the schools are allowed to facilitate for the athletes). Of course, the scope here are NIL based deals, not pay for play deals. So, the $20.5m is a NIL compensation floor at a P4 school, not a compensation cap / ceiling. Disclosure of NIL deals by athletes of P4 schools goes through the new CSC process and organization. So, in theory, Mizzou can disclose they spent $31m in athlete NIL compensation by simply combining the $20.5M revenue sharing figure with the additional CSC-approved NIL deals (say, $10.5m in total).

And Tech will make a final run at Ojo with a mega offer. This is what made the Roseborough situation so perplexing to me. Texas shouldn’t let that guy walk with the larger aggy offer UNLESS they are very confident in landing Ojo, Krempin, and Turntine in the class. A bird in hand. Instead, we will sweat bullets as OL who prefer Texas may choose aggy or Tech because they’re getting bigger NIL offers there. At this point, I’m assuming aggy will buy two of Roseborough, Turntine, and Krempin, leaving Texas with one at most. And that leaves us at the whims of Ojo and Cody Campbell.

Read: budgetary decisions. We can’t pay both Roseborough’s BIG offer from aggy and Ojo’s massive offer from Tech (and likely a big offer from Ohio St). Decisions, decisions… And that’s before even considering Turntine’s payday.

Me thinks this has been the “Texas has decisions to make” reference you’ve alluded to a few times this week. I’ve assumed aggy would try to money whip at least 1-2 recruits this cycle that would otherwise choose Texas, and aggy having Roseborough and Krempin on OVs the week prior to their Texas OVs was no coincidence. It’ll be interesting to see how Sark plays this one…match the aggy offer for Roseborough here?? Or make a monetary decision to let an otherwise prized OL go elsewhere so that we have money to give other OL? I would also guess the same conversation and decision is taking place with Ojo and his huge Tech money offer. Do you let Ojo go to Tech or Ohio State, if you are confident you can land Roseborough, Turntine, and Krempin to fill the OL class? I have thought all along that we would only get two of Ojo, Turntine, and Roseborough, so this is playing out exactly as I anticipated. We will lose one of Ojo or Roseborough to Tech or aggy (but not both).

Tre Wisner - 2 years eligibility left CJ Baxter - 3 years eligibility left J.Gibson - 3 years eligibility left C.Clark, J.Simon, R.Stewart - 4 years left KJ Edwards - soon to have 4 years left No, we are not worried about RB recruiting

It’s interesting that you’ve not mentioned aggy making a BIG play at Turntine (who was also on an aggy OV last weekend). Perhaps Aggy figured out which OL they have a shot to win with a BIG offer, and which OL just isn’t interested in any offer.

History of blood clot issues and the high altitude of Boulder…a perfect rationale to leave CU.

This is where the new “legitimate” NIL will have its focus and impact. Paying the $20.5M in revenue sharing per the House settlement is pretty straightforward for all schools. In the case of Tech, the other $34M is largely just pay-for-play under the guise of bogus NIL deals. I’m confident in saying there aren’t businesses in Lubbock (or the entire West Texas region) willing to spend $34m annually to have Tech athletes sponsor / represent their products…which is the definition of legitimate NIL. If we assume the $55M figure is accurate, it means that the $34M is largely just a big donor or two paying athletes to play for Tech. That is pay-for-play (not NIL). It doesn’t take too much of a leap to guess the rubber will meet the road when the newly created CSC (College Sports Committee) assesses the legitimacy of these $34m deals…and the Tech boosters will be required to defend the deals. A wild guess here is you’ll see lawsuits from Tech challenging the ability of the CSC to disallow payments to their athletes based “pay for play” standard as opposed to “name/image/likeness” standard.

Cody Campbell invests $2M just to get a better taste of Texas’ ass.