Steamboat Willie

I’m with you on Dani Carnegie and Zya Vann; Those are the types Vic loves because they give you both ends. Athletic, switchable, and still bring real scoring juice, which is what Texas lost more than anything. That’s why the guard piece still feels like the swing factor to me. Replacing what Rori Harmon did structurally is the hardest part of this whole thing. The reason the Cody/Dauda split keeps coming up for me is because it fits reality. It patches the biggest losses without asking one player to do everything.

If Texas ends up landing Gracie Merkle and Dani Carnegie, the missing piece that makes the whole thing work is a true point guard like Nevaeh Caffey. Merkle gives you something you didn’t have at all in a real low-post scoring presence, and Carnegie replaces a big chunk of the lost perimeter production, but neither solves the structure you lose with Rori Harmon. Add Caffey into that mix and now you have balance again, someone to control the game, keep turnovers down, and let everyone else play in their natural roles. At that point it’s not just a good rebuild, it’s actually a higher ceiling version of the roster because you’ve added interior scoring and perimeter firepower without sacrificing control.

Taking both Maryam Dauda and Essence Cody actually makes a lot of sense given how much Texas is losing in the frontcourt. This isn’t redundancy, it’s replacing over half your rebounding and interior minutes with two players who bring different strengths. Dauda gives you the higher ceiling and rim protection while Cody gives you physical, consistent minutes and toughness. Together that’s a complete frontcourt rebuild instead of hoping one player can carry the load. Dauda = starting 5, rim protection, higher impact Cody = rotation big, rebounding, physical minutes Covers foul trouble and keeps you stable vs elite size Matches up better with South Carolina and LSU type teams If you pair that with the right perimeter adds, the roster really starts to make sense. Texas still needs a true point guard to replace Rori Harmon, another scorer to offset the lost production, and a versatile forward to bridge everything together. Nevaeh Caffey = defensive PG, ball security, keeps the system intact Jada Williams = shot creation, scoring punch, late clock offense Skylar Forbes = two way forward, secondary scoring, lineup flexibility Reduces pressure on one player to carry the offense Lets Forbes naturally play the 4 instead of forcing small lineups Keeps defense, rebounding, and structure aligned with Texas identity Builds a complete, balanced, SEC-ready rotation with no major holes

Three portal adds that make a ton of sense for Texas if we are trying to reload without losing identity Nevaeh Caffey Indiana PG about 2 years left cleanest fit to replace Rori Harmon with defense ball security and structure Skylar Forbes Marquette forward about 1 to 2 years left scoring and versatility upgrade over Aaliyah Moore gives you a real second option Essence Cody Alabama forward center about 1 to 2 years left SEC ready physical presence to anchor the paint and fix the frontcourt That group covers every major hole and keeps Texas firmly in the Final Four tier!

As she’s a liability on the defensive end, that would honestly surprise me. Doesn’t really line up with what Vic typically prioritizes.

What CC is really pushing for isn’t some neutral “fix the system” framework, it’s access. A seat at the table where the biggest decisions and money flows are already concentrated. And like you said, if that access doesn’t come naturally through performance, brand, or market pull, then the next lever is trying to reshape how the pie gets divided. That’s where the “fairness” language starts doing a lot of work. The other point you make is just as important. Most schools aren’t trying to move into that top tier, they’re trying to manage costs and stay competitive at a sustainable level. So you end up with two very different incentives in the same system. A small group pushing to redefine the top tier and how it’s structured, and a much larger group that’s fine staying out of it. That’s why this whole thing feels less like a system-wide solution and more like a targeted push by a few programs trying to change where they sit in the hierarchy.

If you pooled oil revenues, you’d be redistributing from the most productive fields to the least. That’s basically what’s being hinted at here with college sports. It sounds like “fairness,” but it’s really about shifting resources based on where you sit, not how much demand you generate. And that’s the part people don’t want to say out loud. This isn’t really about protecting college sports, it’s about pushing back on who’s winning right now. Same idea, different industry. But just like with energy, once you start forcing redistribution instead of letting production and demand drive outcomes, you don’t fix the system, you distort it.

Calling college sports a “public asset” that Congress needs to manage just doesn’t make sense. This isn’t taxpayer-funded, it’s schools competing in a market that’s finally showing what things are actually worth. Yeah, it’s messy right now, but that’s what happens when you take away years of artificial limits. Making it a federal issue just brings in politics and slows everything down. The real point isn’t being said out loud. This is about pushing back on SEC and Big Ten dominance and trying to even out the money. If Texas Tech were in the SEC or Big Ten with those same payouts, this argument probably never gets made. That’s the tell. It’s less about protecting the system and more about where your program stands in it. Those leagues are ahead because that’s where the demand is. You don’t fix that by forcing balance from the top down, you just protect teams that can’t keep up. Let it play out, clean up the rules, and it’ll settle on its own.

I hope he is close to receiving his doctorate degree.

Texas parked itself at the top of the offensive line market and never really came down. When true difference makers didn’t enter or agents couldn’t get deals across the finish line, the staff chose to keep aiming high instead of pivoting to what was readily available. That wasn’t disorganization, it was intentional. But intentional bets still have consequences. The interior OL market was thin from the jump, home programs did a solid job holding their ground.

There’s no sure-thing interior OL left in the portal, but that doesn’t mean Texas is out of options. The portal is still full of linemen without homes, and if you’re smart, you’re digging through FCS and D2 tape for cheap guys with size and traits. Not every answer has to be a headline. Texas can put five starters on the field right now. The issue is how thin the margin is if one interior spot struggles. “Probably fine” is not a real plan when you’re trying to protect Arch Manning. The good news is the solution might already be in the building. Baker probably fits better at guard, and Cojoe could be the swing piece if he’s healthy. Let Cojoe and Siani fight it out at tackle, slide the loser inside, and suddenly the line looks a lot sturdier. No panic. Just competition. And don’t be shocked if the fix comes from the roster instead of the portal.

Brown and Smothers are a clear upgrade over the players who left. They force defenses to account for them on every snap and can turn ordinary plays into real damage, something the departing group simply did not provide.

Texas has materially raised the ceiling of its top players, but the offensive line still needs reinforcement. The only true unknown remains left guard, and overall depth is still thin. Kyle Flood still has work to do.

Why Scarcity, Not Panic, Is Driving the Strategy The transfer portal right now is chaotic, loud, and unforgiving. Even programs with money and brand power are scrambling. Texas has taken a few hits this window, but nothing that suggests panic or loss of direction. What looks like instability from the outside is really controlled risk management. This is not a staff reacting emotionally. It is a staff allocating resources with a clear timeline and a clear objective. Losing young offensive linemen always feels bad in the short term. Depth matters in the trenches, and nobody likes seeing bodies walk out the door. But the real question Texas is answering is simple. Can you afford to carry a lineman who is not ready to play and cannot be paid like a backup. That question does not disappear when a player transfers. Wherever he lands will face the same math. Can he sit without costing too much. Can he play without hurting the unit. Those are not value judgments. They are roster economics. Texas is clearly prioritizing the next season as the focal point. Once that decision is made, everything else follows. You do not allocate major resources to developmental players when the immediate goal is protecting an elite quarterback and stabilizing the offense. Where the Offensive Line Actually Stands Post departures, the offensive line room looks like this. One veteran interior player who provides stability and flexibility Two legitimate starting tackles A few players with upside but uncertainty due to readiness or health One or two usable depth options right now The rest are developmental pieces or longer-term projects If Texas had to line up tomorrow, it would work… as long as nobody sneezes, twists an ankle, or gets called for holding. Add one legit tackle or guard and you can reshuffle the deck chairs into something that actually floats. Even then, the margin for error is still thin enough to read a playbook through. This isn’t being ignored by the staff; it’s exactly why they’re shopping carefully instead of panic-buying the first lineman with a pulse.

Texas lost one developmental piece and one player who simply didn’t work out. Umeozulu is a legitimate SEC level athlete with long term upside, but in the short term he was unlikely to play much because Texas already has elite edge talent ahead of him. In 2026 he probably would have been a 15 to 20 snap player with the chance to become more down the road. Ffrench, on the other hand, showed almost nothing in his freshman season at a position with an extremely high bust rate. There was no real indication he was going to become a meaningful contributor, so keeping him would have meant holding onto a bad investment. Ultimately this came down to money and opportunity. Texas chose not to keep paying players who were unlikely to provide immediate value, and those players believed they could find more playing time and better financial situations elsewhere. Losing them costs some depth, but it also saves money and clears roster space so younger players are not blocked and coaches are not trying to justify past decisions. Both players are expected to land at Power 4 schools, but Umeozulu is the one with the best chance to become a contributor.