Glass Joe

I think we lack the short area quickness, burst, “make a guy miss” element but not necessarily the straight-line speed element. There is no J.Blue acceleration on the current team. There is no S.Bolden zero-to-top speed in a blink guy either. Nor is there a guy with the speed / cuts of route running that we had in Bond or Golden. That is how you get open most of the time. D.Moore may have 10.6 speed, but he doesn’t have great quickness in and out of routes, nor great deceleration (stop-n-start). He’s a straight line guy. Wingo has elite straight line speed (10.5), and has great burst / acceleration, but he runs upright and kinda stiff. He is a guy who can win in wide space, but not short area space. I would not call the 2025 team a bunch of plodders, but they are not a team of guys who win with quickness / burst, not make you miss elusiveness.

@Gerry Hamilton do you think Bryant’s circle / agents want him to follow in the class after Dia Bell? Or does a path to playing time not matter as much here?

Sounds like Arch has been really…

Does anyone know the 3 groupings of NIL referenced in the chart above? A guess: ”Commercial” is legit NIL from a 3rd party commercial interest. Ex. Quinn Ewers and Dr.Pepper ads ”Collective” is the deals with the school booster collectives which tend to be more charitable-centric activities for compensation. Ex. Horns with Heart ”Collegiate” is the revenue share payments directly from the school?

I’m guessing the percentages for each positions group are an aggregation of the numbers players in each group. So, if Texas has 15 OL on the roster and 5 TE, we’d need to gross up the TEs to get some comparator of NIL spend percentage. In this example, 3.5% times 3 = 10.5%, which would reflect having an equal number of OL players and TEs on the roster. It also shows that having just 4 QBs on the roster still commands 15%-23% of the total NIL bucket.

And footballs

Offense!!! I see offense!

Prior to 1974, the UPI poll (now “Coaches Poll”), awarded the national championship after the regular season but prior to the bowl games, most notably in 1964 (Arkansas / Bama) and 1965 (MSU / Bama). It was not uncommon for the UPI national champion to lose their subsequent bowl game…since they had nothing to play for and the bowl was effectively an inter-sectional exhibition game. There have been 11 times where the UPI / Coaches poll differed from the AP Poll, but once we arrived at the BCS era, that largely resolved things (except for the final AP protest vote in 2003).

Jam Miller was really good in blitz pick-up, which will be critical for T.Simpson as he develops. Not sure what R.Young brings there.

I wonder if Sean Payton sees a bit of a Taysom Hill type of asset in Sam Ehlinger?

Who will be the starting LT if Zuhn folds inside to Center? Are they going to put true frosh L.Rogers out there to protect M.Reed’s backside this year? That’ll be a win-prevention strategy.

Well, Reed’s passing appears to be in mid-season form already.

Maybe he’s playing for the aggy basketball team instead?

Duke Pettijohn got his kid a better deal than Texas was willing to offer. Enjoy Columbus!

Most aggies can’t spell ROI

19 yards, but who is counting. 😂

You really can’t blame Zach…the long-term damage to his body of 9 career NFL carries can’t be underestimated.

Bosworth - OU Crabtree - Tech

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).