LECHorns

I think he’s thinking of his brother, who I believe went to Florida. I don’t think he was ever on campus, but maybe decommitted?

Eh, Siani has two years. There's a lot of value in knowing 2027 has its starting OTs as well, not to mention depth for 2026.

One slight* difference -- you guys are playing for a national championship on Monday, and your success over the last two seasons is unmatched in your program's history. We know that if we don't win a national championship next year, we'll have wasted the college career of Arch Manning. There's a lot more angst and urgency to be expected from our fanbase vis a vis yours, which is one reason for "sky is falling" around every recruit. We're also the hunted no matter how good or bad we are. Like it or not, we're Texas, and we have a massive target on our back. Right now, we feel the increased pressure of competing with Texas Tech and Cody Campbell, A&M made the playoffs, OU made the playoffs, etc. I'm not saying Indiana won't be the hunted next season, but if you went 0-12, no one burns down your campus. You're living a dream right now. We are also reluctant to entertain Texas losing any recruit for any rational reason. My guess is this board has significantly more participants than yours...and not all are informed, rational, sober, etc. The more participants you have in an online forum, the more extreme the takes will be. I can't imagine Alabama's board being more reserved than ours. But to answer your question, no, we haven't recruited, retained or developed OL very well under Coach Flood. We lost 4 guys to NFL in 2024, and all of sudden we saw the cupboard was bare. We didn't address it in the portal last year, even though there were plenty of signs to tell us we needed to, and as such, we lost an early October game in Florida that kept us out of the playoffs - mainly because we had a revolving door of pitiful play on the iOL that afternoon. Indiana and Miami look incredible right now, but Texas was a very talented team starting to peak, and I think we could have made things interesting. Alas, we left LG to chance.

See, @Gerry Hamilton I think I agree with your premise, but I disagree with some of the specifics. I think guys like C. Jones (724th kid in nation), Sweat (605), Ford (1200), Helm (666), and Sorrell (683) are exactly who you're going to see most of your class made up of. I don't mean those specific players -- so nothing about size, scheme, fit, etc. -- just general profile of prospect. I might agree with you on Barron (343) and Murphy (393). Cummings (603), Walker (746), Scherer (1160) and Jilek (1502) were all last minute adds once we embraced this new model. I think HS classes for the elite programs will be 8-12 Atkinson, Wesley, Bishop -- top 100 -- and then a lot more of the guys ranked 400+. I think you could still see classes of 25-30 bodies, they're just filled with these longer development types. To be clear, those guys will have to be willing to accept ~$0 of NIL. So, Barron who flipped from Baylor (did Murphy, too?), probably isn't eligible. The vast majority of these kids will know they aren't playing in Year 1. After Year 1, some will leave. But it will have cost you $0. After Year 1, the coaches may be able to better assess the talent level, so some may get paid a bit (this is the old school way of giving a walk-on a scholarship), but most will continue being scholarship-only players. The purpose of this group is a) to find a Christian Jones, Michael Taaffe, Gunner Helm, etc., but also b) give you bodies to hit in practice and establish your foundation and culture. I think it's the Broughton, Livingstone, Cruz, Dubose -- guys ranked ~150-400 -- that never get brought in. They'll want to get paid, then they'll want raises regardless of production - and that's what can't happen. I totally agree with your second category -- those guys are allowed to walk today. I think you'll still carry 80-90 players, but you'll only be paying 50 studs and maybe another 15 depth guys. Recruit ~10 elite HS kids a year, you'll churn some and there's an average tenure of ~3 years -- you'll carry 30-35 of these at any given time. Go get ~10 portal studs (big money) that expect to start immediately -- you'll carry ~10 of these at a time. Bolster your depth through the portal with 5-10 a year, so carry ~10 at a time. And then fill the rest with $0 HS kids (incl specialists) at ~12 a year, so carry ~30 at any given time. All said, you'll carry ~80-85, maybe 90 scholarships. I think we're at 90 today if you assume we add 8 more through the portal. By my count (currently) 37 HS Studs (but this will decline as we evolve to new model) 15 Portal Studs (assuming we add LB, 2 OL, DB, DE) -- this will decline over time as the new model evolves, but you'll have years of spikes based on exPorts/NFL 10 Portal Depth/Specialists (assuming we add RB, QB, OL) -- this will increase over time as the new model evolves 28 HS Hopefuls =90 PS - Cig got a great head start on everyone. I think the term "Moneyball" is thrown around too loosely as a term for "good general management," but I do think Indiana replicated Moneyball -- they put focus and value on metrics (i.e., production and experience) where other programs prioritized other more common metrics. But now the cat is out of the bag and others will copy. The market for 23 year old players will be more competitive and efficient. Can Indiana/Cig repeat what they've done? Was Mendoza a product of Cig's system, or did Cig buy the Heisman trophy winner for free? I'm not knocking what they've done this year - it's incredible. But the book is written and now there are other, e.g., DePodestas, out there.

Seaton to Texas is >0%. A few of the sites have been leaving little breadcrumbs. Just buckle up and trust this staff. And don’t jump if he goes elsewhere.

Roberson is a player. I know this is just a sign of the times, and I'm sure our staff has a plan, etc., but Roberson was another one I was really hoping to keep. Btw, Underwood fumbled that ball at the goal line.

You have to worry about “overpaying” for other guys so you can blow it all on guys like this.

Yep. Once guys visit other places they never return to their original home.

@Bobby Burton You mentioned in the live chat yesterday (?) that you think this portal madness extends throughout the spring - or at least beyond the Jan 16 end that we're all looking forward to. Are there any [archaic] deadlines - e.g., classes start, etc. - that could change the calculus on certain players/decisions?

They absolutely have, and I'm not doubting them entirely. I would point out that they haven't been perfect, and we're watching the playoffs from our couches this year because they whiffed a year ago at a few spots. But...it's just a little jarring when you're told that we have three targets ranked higher than a proven SEC LB who the pundits seemingly all love, the names can't be disclosed, and the staff is all-in. Then when one of those three is unveiled, he's ranked ~500-600 best player in the portal. I'm all for hidden gems, I'm all for doubting the rankings. I guess I was just expecting something a bit more exciting. I hope this is more Kanu and less Levon.

Ya, I get it. I guess I'm more questioning whether or not that this is one of the three, big time "TBA" targets that we were prioritizing over the Auburn kid.

Industry rankings aren't always perfect, or even good, but our "top LB" is rated like 2 pages lower than Auburn or Cal guys who are also in the portal. Are we that good at evaluation? Something feels off, no? Based on OTF's reporting, I was expecting the three "TBA" to be slightly better than this.

Oh thank God. I had no idea this existed.

Awesome, thanks. That’s what I was hoping GH was saying, but by the wording I couldn’t tell whether or not it was that or if he was hinting that Sharma was on exPort watch.

Sorry, would not affect the pursuit of Sharma, or just Sharma’s role? Should we be waiting on an announcement of Sharma’s retention?