harveycmd

You wonder if Elko will get the remainder of that '22 recruiting class turned around. My guess is he'll need to be pretty tough this spring and then again in August, which will likely result in some departures. Better to cut the cancer out now so the healing can take place.

No, there is nothing on that. As long as the system is "open," there will be no restrictions on where the money comes from. This is why you get all the caterwauling about "Wild West," "no guardrails." This is part of the reason why the SEC and Big 10 need to seriously consider breaking away from the NCAA and establishing their own rules. If they go to an employment model with contracts, they can begin to regulate things like agents, movement, etc.

For those who think this is just some lowly judge, and it's temporary, and we don't know yet, etc., you must take into account the federal court system and the legal principal of precedent. Precedent is the key. The 2021 Supreme Court decision that opened NIL was very strongly worded. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion basically warning the NCAA that they had better change, and they better not come back to the federal judiciary trying to protect their monopoly (this is where the "anti-trust" stuff comes in). Thus, when the NCAA went after the Vols for the NIL payments to Nico during recruiting, all the legal experts immediately chimed in and said there is no way the NCAA can win this battle in court because the Supreme Court already told them no. This district judge from eastern Tennessee is merely following that precedent. It will stand: bet on it, mark it down, take it to the bank, however you want to describe it. It's over for the NCAA. They must accept this and try to adapt, or they will go the way of the dinosaurs. The only question of import left now is, "Should the SEC and Big 10 wait and see if the NCAA will get its act together?" Given the facts of NCAA long term and recent history, the answer to that question is no, and it's clearly time to move forward without them.

Sounds like someone trying to help Jimmy Smith get more money.

Those shots look like tennis balls in his hands.

This has been going on the last two years.

It's a temporary injunction until the case is formally adjudicated by the federal district court. Given the strong language of the Supreme Court ruling that allowed NIL a few years ago, however, there is very little doubt it will stand. That's what everyone said when the NCAA first came out with their attempt to slap the Vols a few weeks ago. They should have known they had no chance to enforce it, but, like Bobby said, they refuse to accept reality and move forward. Hence they probably must go.

That would make the most sense for the well being of the program.

"The leader of the Tennessee collective is apparently saying that he plans to send financial offers out to players beginning next week." You have to think the Tennessee coaching staff doesn't like this. It's not a good idea to have non-football staff making offers (financial or otherwise) independent of the coaches. That basically tells you the coach really isn't in charge. Ask Cowboys fans how well it works to have the money man stepping between the coaches and players.

It's all over but the crying now. The NCAA is going to need to go away or get out of the way.

Typical Mavs fan. They take on the character of the owner.

Seems like Sark's zone run scheme would fit Stewart's game well.

Gerry, is Jordan Davison significantly or even marginally better than Stewart?

I know Gerry said Lacey can make all the throws, and Sark doesn't recruit QBs who can't make all the throws, but looking at his tape, he doesn't appear to me to have much zip or overall arm strength. I'm sure that will improve quite a bit over the next two to three years.

Legally, it looks like they're moving to some kind official employee status with binding contracts.

Any word on replacing William Gay with another DB analyst?

Must admit I don't agree with the "grading." Any player drafted in the first three rounds (with the exception of some QBs) is taken with the expectation that he will be a starter within two, at the outside, three years. Many RBs, LBs, and OGs are taken in the fourth or fifth round with the expectation they will be starters within three years. That covers all these guys down to Christian Jones, maybe Ford and Watts too.

Someone else asked, "How are you coming up with this?" The answer is demographics, which control the two factors that make up the lifeblood of college football: recruiting and television audience. Now, those two factors are correlational, if not in some kind of reciprocal cause and effect relationship. That said, demographic trends project to favor Texas, Florida and Georgia over the next generation, if not longer. I threw LSU, Auburn and Tennessee (although Tennessee has positive demographic trends too) in the mix because I don't think you can get both Georgia and Florida to give them up.

Someone asked who OU would then have as their permanent rival(s). I don't really care, but geographically Missouri makes the most sense if Texas puts OU in the place where they belong. If OU has two, they can add Arkansas. If the SEC goes to nine games, I still want OU shut out of the game with the Longhorns. A&M wants LSU and then probably Texas. You could then give the Aggies an easier one with Arkansas. The Razorbacks certainly want a permanent Texas team. Arkansas could then have OU, Missouri and A&M. I don't think LSU wants A&M, but if they think about their best long term interests, they will conclude they better off with A&M and Texas as two of their permanent rivals. They can then pick Ole Miss or Alabama. Bama could have Auburn, Tennessee, and then either LSU or Ole Miss. Georgia would probably like Florida, Auburn and then either Tennessee or Texas (the Longhorns from a recruiting perspective). Florida takes Georgia, Tennessee, and then Texas or whomever. For the long term interests of the Longhorns, it's A&M, LSU and then either Florida or Georgia. OU can have Missouri, Arkansas, and then Mississippi State or whomever. Obviously there's are many other teams who would need to sort out their one to three rivals. My point is that it's in our interest to remove OU from the rivals of the Longhorns if we seriously want to consistently play for titles and pursue what's in our best interest.

I would prefer to move the Red River Rivalry to LSU. Play it in Houston every year. The Red also runs through Louisiana, LSU is better than OU, and it will do more for Longhorn recruiting. As a side benefit, it will place the Sooners in recruiting purgatory.

I'll go with 10-2, which should put them in the playoff.

Grice, (east) Texas here. Where are you moving, Blake?

That doesn't surprise me. As I said, I basically knew it wasn't going to happen from a common sense perspective. What I found instructive was the worry you could see from the Sooner guys at just the thought that they wouldn't be able to play Texas every year. After that, they became what I think of as irrational by saying they think the Sooners will be much better next year with a new QB, a completely new offensive line and pedestrian run game while the Longhorns will almost certainly be noticeably worse than they were in 2023. They offered no analysis on that.

I've watched a couple of Sooner channels talk about CDC's comments on the nine game schedule and the Longhorns playing A&M every year. There is a mixture of Sooner reaction to the nine game schedule. About half want to keep the extra cupcake on the schedule that goes with having eight conference games, knowing it's going to be really tough for them to take another heavy hitter every single year. The other half says, that's why they joined the SEC, so let's do it. What really interested me was that there was some conjecture on the "one permanent rival" game if there isn't a nine game conference schedule. If the Longhorns play the Aggies every year, and there's only one permanent rival with an eight game schedule, then where does that leave Texas/OU? I would personally love to see OU denied the opportunity to play the Longhorns every year. That would be the best way to take them out of being able to recruit well in Texas, and would eventually then result in them being somewhere between Arkansas and Nebraska. I know that's not going happen, but I would like to see it.

When you have a two team "conference" attempting to blackmail their way into being treated as a fully equal member of the other "power" conferences, you are watering down the level of competition in the sport if you give in to them. Most people seem to think it doesn't matter too much. They have two years of veto power. Pay them and try to get them to go away. If you pay them, why would they go away? They won't. It'll be the same thing next time, or worse. It's better to cut the cord now by letting them and NCAA know who's really in charge.