Jump to content

Texas Recruiting Notes 2023: Strippers, Monkeys, and 5-Stars


Machinator

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

The Georgia situation is interesting regarding Manning. 

1) The Atlanta market is dense with corporate power. It's also arguably the capital of The South. There is a fucking ton of NIL value for a legit star as a brand ambassador. If you think about markets that can compete in that vein, they're Austin, Los Angeles, Chicago?, Miami? Not sure of anyone else. I'm talking about with potentially relevant colleges and market exposure. No one gives a shit about CFB in Seattle or San Fran. NYC doesn't have a local favorite. I don't know. To me and others with whom I've spoken, it seems like it Austin, Los Angeles, Atlanta (UGa) and everyone else. 

2) There aren't whispers about Georgia's inability to do much for QBs in the recruiting world. There are shouts. I don't even know how that gets combatted any time soon. 

3) Georgia is outright slimy. The Mannings may reside in the slimiest city in the slimiest state, so they know it when they see it. Behind Smart's thin veneer of Good Ol'Boy, he's a weaselly shitheel. To some personality types, it's repellant. 

4) Georgia is landing elite talent at almost every position.

5) Georgia's OC situation looks like it will remain fluid, as Monken isn't viewed as someone who's looking to buy in Athens. 

6) Georgia hasn't won hardware in 41 years and while they look like the big dog this season, the smart money should be on Kirby Smart fucking it up somewhere along the way, even with 11 starters on defense who will play in the NFL.

So, it's a mixed bag for sure.

Yeah that seems like a good summary. On paper, sure seems like more positives for us than them, but you never know which outweigh the others. Other factors: path to playing time (favors UT), location (probably favors us but he seems to like Athens a lot), possibly education (UT but UGA is 2nd best on his list). And we actually might match UGA's recruiting on offense in '22. Ultimately, I don't see how they get over #2 and #5 assuming they aren't totally short-sighted, which I don't think they are. 

52 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

That said, my longer answer is that Texas needs to win this weekend and put up 10 wins on the season with the continuation of big offensive numbers. Other schools, neverminding other shit they're touting against Sarkisian, or the usual tropes about Texas, are hammering the Seven Win Steve moniker he earned from UW and USC HC'ing.

You think we'll win out? If that's a requirement, I'm not holding my breath. I think we're a good team, the offense will show out, and that we have an even brighter future under Sark, but I'm expecting at least one more slip up in his first year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nahlin:

Controlling Your Own Destiny

That's all you can really ask for and that's the position Steve Sarkisian finds himself in the Arch Manning recruitment, and therefore in many ways, recruiting in general. Arch would be that big for Texas' perception and recruiting momentum.

A win this weekend coupled with demonstrating the ability to outfit Manning with more weapons would have Texas on the fast track to win the recruitment.

The easiest way to finish the class strong is to beat Oklahoma State then hit the trail hard during the bye week to take advantage of a solid start to Sark's Texas tenure. With a win there would be a post-visit bounce, not just with Arch but other priority targets in attendance. Harness it.

A defeat this weekend leading to momentum loss and eventually missing on Manning is an opportunity cost that's impossible to calculate, especially given the SEC move. That's not to say a loss to Oklahoma State kills UT's chances with the Mannings -- the Mannings aren't reactionary -- but I could make the case Sark no longer controls his own destiny and things will become much more difficult than they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tex-19 said:

You think we'll win out? If that's a requirement, I'm not holding my breath. I think we're a good team, the offense will show out, and that we have an even brighter future under Sark, but I'm expecting at least one more slip up in his first year.

Texas will play as few as 13 games and as many as 14. 10-3 or 10-4 are the floor of my expectation. The season doesn't end after 12 games are played for anyone with a winning record.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Texas will play as few as 13 games and as many as 14. 10-3 or 10-4 are the floor of my expectation. The season doesn't end after 12 games are played for anyone with a winning record.

Oh ok I thought you meant 10-win regular season.

I would hope one OSU game wouldn't sway the Mannings too much just bc they're in person but this is clearly a big one for recruiting in general. Guess that's what we get for blowing it vs OU. Staff better be prepared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Nahlin:

Controlling Your Own Destiny

That's all you can really ask for and that's the position Steve Sarkisian finds himself in the Arch Manning recruitment, and therefore in many ways, recruiting in general. Arch would be that big for Texas' perception and recruiting momentum.

A win this weekend coupled with demonstrating the ability to outfit Manning with more weapons would have Texas on the fast track to win the recruitment.

The easiest way to finish the class strong is to beat Oklahoma State then hit the trail hard during the bye week to take advantage of a solid start to Sark's Texas tenure. With a win there would be a post-visit bounce, not just with Arch but other priority targets in attendance. Harness it.

A defeat this weekend leading to momentum loss and eventually missing on Manning is an opportunity cost that's impossible to calculate, especially given the SEC move. That's not to say a loss to Oklahoma State kills UT's chances with the Mannings -- the Mannings aren't reactionary -- but I could make the case Sark no longer controls his own destiny and things will become much more difficult than they should.

I am glad Texas controls its own destiny. All we need to do is win out and land a few 5 stars at OL and WR and Manning is ours!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Elmer_Fudd said:

Isaiah Robinson appears to be the only high end Tackle for this class in-state so hopefully he is a priority unless we are in good early shape with an OOS Tackle??

Guys like Sewell, Shanahan, Deal are all interior guys I think?  Not sure on the guy we recently offered.

I forgot about Andre Cojoe.  He may be a good bet to end up in the class.

https://247sports.com/Player/Andre-Cojoe-46113455/

Also, the recently offered guy I was thinking of is Jaydon Chatman.  Rivals has him listed as a Tackle, 247 as an IOL.  Maybe a swing guy?

Edited by Elmer_Fudd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Elmer_Fudd said:

I forgot about Andre Cojoe.  He may be a good bet to end up in the class.

https://247sports.com/Player/Andre-Cojoe-46113455/

Also, the recently offered guy I was thinking of is Jaydon Chatman.  Rivals has him listed as a Tackle, 247 as an IOL.  Maybe a swing guy?

He's a tackle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, closetojumping said:

Regarding LA, the difference is the uniqueness of that city to exposure in general. When USC was good, their guys were getting on tv, in magazines and in gossip columns anyway. Now with NIL? Once USC or UCLA (yeah, I know, right) ascends to top 10 status again, guys will be printing money on the roster.

I think LA is an interesting one... I don't know how much water UCLA football has or will ever draw, but when USC was at its Pete Carroll zenith it also coincided with there being no NFL teams in LA, the Lakers were in that kind of post-Shaq / pre-Gasol malaise, and the Dodgers were pretty meh, too. That isn't the case anymore, at all. I'm not saying that LA doesn't have huge NIL potential, but you are now competing with two NFL franchises for headlines in the fall (both of them look to be Superbowl contenders going forward for the foreseeable future) the Dodgers outspending everyone and being perennially in the World Series hunt, and a Lebron/Anthony Davis Lakers team. I'm not even mentioning that the Angels have the biggest freak to wear a baseball uniform since Babe Ruth and even the Clippers are title contenders owned by a Microsoft billionaire. This is a vastly, vastly different sports landscape than what was happening in the mid-2000's in Los Angeles. There is more competition for sports dollars in LA than ever before. 

Edited by Mitch Cumsteen
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I think LA is an interesting one... I don't know how much water UCLA football has or will ever draw, but when USC was at its Pete Carroll zenith it also coincided with there being no NFL teams in LA, the Lakers were in that kind of post-Shaq / pre-Gasol malaise, and the Dodgers were pretty meh, too. That isn't the case anymore, at all. I'm not saying that LA doesn't have huge NIL potential, but you are now competing with two NFL franchises for headlines in the fall (both of them look to be Superbowl contenders going forward for the foreseeable future) the Dodgers outspending everyone and being perennially in the World Series hunt, and a Lebron/Anthony Davis Lakers team. I'm not even mentioning that the Angels have the biggest freak to wear a baseball uniform since Babe Ruth and even the Clippers are title contenders owned by a Microsoft billionaire. This is a vastly, vastly different sports landscape than what was happening in the mid-2000's in Los Angeles. There is more competition for sports dollars in LA than ever before. 

USC is pretty darn popular up and down California - it's a state whose top-tier public schools aren't really all that into football, so most kids grow up cheering for SC, and in the LA area the NFL has been out for a long time. When they're good, they inspire more passion, especially with the more educated subset of the state, than certainly the Chargers and probably the Rams ever will.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the other interesting Manning question: If Texas ends up like 7-5 or something bad, what option rises to the top?

CTJ outlined UGA's issues. Main ones being a terrible development/NFL history for elite QBs, and future OC / QB coach likely an unknown.

Clemson's offense is a dumpster fire and they aren't even top 25 right now. Small market presence when they're not winning big.

Ole Miss won't be a playoff contender, doesn't have the market presence, the Mannings supposedly aren't Kiffin fans, and Kiffin likely leaves anyway which creates a major unknown. 

Bama will have OC/QB coach turnover, Ty Simpson (with a redshirt year head start) to compete with for playing time, and Saban could retire. Plus do they really want to just be next in line of the Bama machine?

If I'm them, I'd still go UT or Bama. The other 3 just have too many risks from a development standpoint which is the bigger issue over the long run. Only UT and Bama pretty much guarantee top-shelf marketability and NFL development. Bama obviously more of a NC contender, but Sark is the better QB coaching option and UT has other advantages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I think LA is an interesting one... I don't know how much water UCLA football has or will ever draw, but when USC was at its Pete Carroll zenith it also coincided with there being no NFL teams in LA, the Lakers were in that kind of post-Shaq / pre-Gasol malaise, and the Dodgers were pretty meh, too. That isn't the case anymore, at all. I'm not saying that LA doesn't have huge NIL potential, but you are now competing with two NFL franchises for headlines in the fall (both of them look to be Superbowl contenders going forward for the foreseeable future) the Dodgers outspending everyone and being perennially in the World Series hunt, and a Lebron/Anthony Davis Lakers team. I'm not even mentioning that the Angels have the biggest freak to wear a baseball uniform since Babe Ruth and even the Clippers are title contenders owned by a Microsoft billionaire. This is a vastly, vastly different sports landscape than what was happening in the mid-2000's in Los Angeles. There is more competition for sports dollars in LA than ever before. 

I'm old enough to remember the John McKay years.  When USC is rolling, the entire West Coast rolls with them.  Rams, Lakers don't make a big difference.  Trojan alums have great pride and tee shirt fans abound.   The current UCLA administration seems singularly disinterested in their football fortunes, but even the Bruins engender great interest when they put a strong product on the field, even though they seem to be a basketball first school.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I think LA is an interesting one... I don't know how much water UCLA football has or will ever draw, but when USC was at its Pete Carroll zenith it also coincided with there being no NFL teams in LA, the Lakers were in that kind of post-Shaq / pre-Gasol malaise, and the Dodgers were pretty meh, too. That isn't the case anymore, at all. I'm not saying that LA doesn't have huge NIL potential, but you are now competing with two NFL franchises for headlines in the fall (both of them look to be Superbowl contenders going forward for the foreseeable future) the Dodgers outspending everyone and being perennially in the World Series hunt, and a Lebron/Anthony Davis Lakers team. I'm not even mentioning that the Angels have the biggest freak to wear a baseball uniform since Babe Ruth and even the Clippers are title contenders owned by a Microsoft billionaire. This is a vastly, vastly different sports landscape than what was happening in the mid-2000's in Los Angeles. There is more competition for sports dollars in LA than ever before. 

Is it your contention then, Mitch, that there isn't any room for new stars or phenomena in Los Angeles these days? It reads like that. That's a ... bold argument, my man.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

Is it your contention then, Mitch, that there isn't any room for new stars or phenomena in Los Angeles these days? It reads like that. That's a ... bold argument, my man.

 

37 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

That’s like saying there isn’t any more room in @Mitch Cumsteen’s house for his wife’s, uh, acquisitions.

I think there’s definitely some truth in what @Mitch Cumsteen is saying. LA’s sports scene is not like many other big cities; it’s very flaky and shallow. There’s a lot of other stuff to do, and the weather is always nice. That said, you put a flashy team or collection of star players together, and the city will rally around them. When it fades, they’ll be discarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sal said:

 

I think there’s definitely some truth in what @Mitch Cumsteen is saying. LA’s sports scene is not like many other big cities; it’s very flaky and shallow. There’s a lot of other stuff to do, and the weather is always nice. That said, you put a flashy team or collection of star players together, and the city will rally around them. When it fades, they’ll be discarded.

Yep.  Lots of celebs were at the rams home opener

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

Is it your contention then, Mitch, that there isn't any room for new stars or phenomena in Los Angeles these days? It reads like that. That's a ... bold argument, my man.

Not at all. I'm just saying that I don't think USC is the slam dunk NIL bonanza that they would have been 15 years ago when they were the de facto pro football team in LA. Maybe it doesn't matter because the population is so large, but at this point in time that has got to be the hottest most competitive local market for sports that I can remember in my lifetime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Not at all. I'm just saying that I don't think USC is the slam dunk NIL bonanza that they would have been 15 years ago when they were the de facto pro football team in LA. Maybe it doesn't matter because the population is so large, but at this point in time that has got to be the hottest most competitive local market for sports that I can remember in my lifetime. 

USC is like the Lakers or the Dodgers. If they’re good, their players will get all kinds of coverage and access. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, squeegeedegg said:

I mean, why not?  The obvious pro for Arch is his name and class bell-cow potential.  Murphy needs experience and development, but that's expected and he is a year ahead of Arch.  As for their on field talent they are very different types of player but probably a wash between the two.  

I'm not expecting many to agree with me but I agree with your post. Obviously want Manning because of the affects it would have on recruiting. But I think Murphy has a higher ceiling along with a lower floor though. Murphy's arm talent jumps off the screen for me, in the games I have watched Arch, the last name is what jumps off the screen, also have to consider his competition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's outrageous to think Murphy could wind up being the guy. His arm is impressive. I'm hoping Card will still be around or Wright/Murphy will be good enough to start in 2023. Let Arch sit for a year or 2. 

Edited by Bevo14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...