Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I'm confused. The house settelment puts a cap on what the schools themselves can pay, but I thought NIL was still uncapped. How does putting a cap on NIL jibe with the unanimous Alston SCOTUS decision?

 

Here is what ChatGPT told me...is this wrong?

 

What the House settlement caps:

  • Schools that opt into the settlement will be allowed to pay current Division I athletes directly from school revenue—up to an annual cap.

  • That cap starts at $20.5 million per school for the 2025‑26 academic year and is expected to increase by about 4% annually over the next decade (potentially reaching around $33 million) uscannenbergmedia.com+15cbssports.com+156abc.com+15.

What they didn’t cap: third‑party NIL deals

  • Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) money that athletes receive from third-party sources—such as individual endorsement deals, collectives, or boosters—is not counted against the school’s revenue-sharing cap. These deals remain unlimited in terms of the amount, as long as they reflect fair market value and serve a valid business purpose

Edited by Josef Pwag
I went to ChatGPT
  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted

 

4 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

I'm confused. The house settelment puts a cap on what the schools themselves can pay, but I thought NIL was still uncapped. How does putting a cap on NIL jibe with the unanimous Alston SCOTUS decision?

I'm with you on this. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how this is going to stand up in court. Unless there is some sort of collective bargaining agreement with the players, this is some sort of restraint of trade bullshit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

List of thread details, from best types to the most inane, insipid shit imaginable. 

1) Arguing over hottest famous women.

2) Arguing over hottest women on campuses.

3) Personal stories about random subject matter triggered by some mention in a recruiting update.

4) Cheese puns.

5) Campus weather discussions.

6) Academic dick-measuring among schools competing for a player.

7) Reliving terrible shit in Texas football history.

8 ) BBQ snobs finding their way from the food board to discuss brisket smoking nuances and other super dumb shit associated to BBQ snobbery. 

 

Where does chicken fried steak fit?

Posted
55 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

List of thread details, from best types to the most inane, insipid shit imaginable. 

1) Arguing over hottest famous women.

2) Arguing over hottest women on campuses.

3) Personal stories about random subject matter triggered by some mention in a recruiting update.

4) Cheese puns.

5) Campus weather discussions.

6) Academic dick-measuring among schools competing for a player.

7) Reliving terrible shit in Texas football history.

8 ) BBQ snobs finding their way from the food board to discuss brisket smoking nuances and other super dumb shit associated to BBQ snobbery. 

 

People are feeling blue. But there's no need to pray to cheesus. Most of us are really grateful for Sark, he is the goat. We've got more than enough cheddar to cream the competition.  We have TWO munster incoming O linemen. The bedwetters don't know jack.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

List of thread details, from best types to the most inane, insipid shit imaginable. 

1) Arguing over hottest famous women.

2) Arguing over hottest women on campuses.

3) Personal stories about random subject matter triggered by some mention in a recruiting update.

4) Cheese puns.

5) Campus weather discussions.

6) Academic dick-measuring among schools competing for a player.

7) Reliving terrible shit in Texas football history.

8 ) BBQ snobs finding their way from the food board to discuss brisket smoking nuances and other super dumb shit associated to BBQ snobbery. 

 

If you ever need to change your name, how ‘bout “closetosigning”?

Posted
4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

I thought he changed his username to @closetojumping.

I tried, 

4 hours ago, irishtexan said:

Jesus fuck. Another goddamn handle? Half of the profiles I have on ignore are different handles he keeps creating so he won't be on ignore and people will see his posts. 

Relax. It's only my third name. We haven't even made it to five yet.

  • Haha 1
Posted

 

20 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

I'm confused. The house settelment puts a cap on what the schools themselves can pay, but I thought NIL was still uncapped.

Same, and I think this is one of those “the AD’s message is this” when Burton feels obligated to toe the party line.  
 

I think it’s more likely we (and by this, I mean Sark as the architect and the main NIL donors) are in agreement that a bunch of schools feel a lot richer all of a sudden and are making promises that, if we’re offering to match, are poised to make retaining the last couple of classes really expensive (I.e., well outside of the budget).  It doesn’t serve sustained program success to have the top rated recruiting class year after year, only to lose 50% or more after year 1 because the financial commitment isn’t there.  

Posted
4 hours ago, irishtexan said:

Jesus fuck. Another goddamn handle? Half of the profiles I have on ignore are different handles he keeps creating so he won't be on ignore and people will see his posts. 

He’s always been on ignore for me every time he’s changed his handle. In fact, I always know when he's changed his handle because I will have 17 consecutive ignored posts from a handle I’ve never seen before. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
Just now, Hookem2147 said:

IMG_9005.thumb.jpeg.b3184816c8a5ee8a0398549a6b430fac.jpeg

It's as I've been saying, one of three things is happening, probably all at different places:

1) Programs are making up money and hoping to backfill it on success and rev share later. (USC, at least)

2) Programs are foregoing what they have on campus to make big offers to recruits and build from there. (ATM, Florida)

3) Programs are going to wash through more than $20.5M and call it all rev share, whatever the numbers are. (LSU)

There are probably some morons who just aren't calculating the current roster much at all for future monetary needs and just assuming "it will work itself out" when, indeed, it very well may not. 

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
10 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

 

Same, and I think this is one of those “the AD’s message is this” when Burton feels obligated to toe the party line.  
 

I think it’s more likely we (and by this, I mean Sark as the architect and the main NIL donors) are in agreement that a bunch of schools feel a lot richer all of a sudden and are making promises that, if we’re offering to match, are poised to make retaining the last couple of classes really expensive (I.e., well outside of the budget).  It doesn’t serve sustained program success to have the top rated recruiting class year after year, only to lose 50% or more after year 1 because the financial commitment isn’t there.  

I assumed it was either this or the fact that there's only one pot of money, whether you push it to NIL or to revenue sharing. If there's $30 million in the pot, but $20 million into rev share and $10 million into NIL. Maintaining the current roster has eaten up a lot of money that would have otherwise gone to high school recruits. 

But I'm not sure that can be right. Can't the school now kick in money? If we were all donor supported before, we should have an extra $20 million from the AD's budget to play with. My "one pot" idea only makes sense if the AD isn't kicking in any money and it's still all donor supported, while other schools are using donors and AD money. 

I'm probably not explaining this very well - and I certainly don't know what I'm talking about - but the gist is that I am also confused and trying to figure out what the problem is. 

  • Haha 1
Posted

Sadly, the title of this thread still works very effectively. The direction of the comment doesn't feel the same right now, however. Might be time for a change.

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Swing-And-A-Miss Steve Rides Again"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Still Doing Better Than Oklahoma"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Hoisted By Other Fucktards"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Getting the Chokehold Buttfuck"

I don't know. Something along those lines.

Posted
12 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

It's as I've been saying, one of three things is happening, probably all at different places:

1) Programs are making up money and hoping to backfill it on success and rev share later. (USC, at least)

2) Programs are foregoing what they have on campus to make big offers to recruits and build from there. (ATM, Florida)

3) Programs are going to wash through more than $20.5M and call it all rev share, whatever the numbers are. (LSU)

There are probably some morons who just aren't calculating the current roster much at all for future monetary needs and just assuming "it will work itself out" when, indeed, it very well may not. 

It's kind of funny that the fanbases at the top of the pile right now are some of the dumbest.  

GIF by Giphy QA

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Sadly, the title of this thread still works very effectively. The direction of the comment doesn't feel the same right now, however. Might be time for a change.

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Swing-And-A-Miss Steve Rides Again"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Still Doing Better Than Oklahoma"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Hoisted By Other Fucktards"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Getting the Chokehold Buttfuck"

I don't know. Something along those lines.

Not to add insult to injury, but those seem to play to the BO&W tantrums. If we’re going in the negative direction, I would make it something like “Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: BO&W’s Suicide Trigger and Satya’s Wet Dream.”

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

I'm confused. The house settelment puts a cap on what the schools themselves can pay, but I thought NIL was still uncapped. How does putting a cap on NIL jibe with the unanimous Alston SCOTUS decision?

 

Here is what ChatGPT told me...is this wrong?

 

What the House settlement caps:

  • Schools that opt into the settlement will be allowed to pay current Division I athletes directly from school revenue—up to an annual cap.

  • That cap starts at $20.5 million per school for the 2025‑26 academic year and is expected to increase by about 4% annually over the next decade (potentially reaching around $33 million) uscannenbergmedia.com+15cbssports.com+156abc.com+15.

What they didn’t cap: third‑party NIL deals

  • Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) money that athletes receive from third-party sources—such as individual endorsement deals, collectives, or boosters—is not counted against the school’s revenue-sharing cap. These deals remain unlimited in terms of the amount, as long as they reflect fair market value and serve a valid business purpose

Well, any summary of the House settlement is going to be inadequate, because a) it's a summary b) there are unintended consequences, some of which can be foreseen, and some it of which cannot.

College football is in something of an existential crisis. How can that be, SL Xpress? It's never been more popular! The ratings are through the roof. There's more money pouring in than ever before! 

Sure, then a disruption happens, and suddenly we see the cracks in retrospect that were always there previously.

College football has lost control of their labor costs. Over the past 30 years there has been a meteoric rise in salaries among coaches and administrators. There have been facility funding wars. But a lot of that was possible because of the artificial suppression of wages for the players, set at the cost of a scholarship, and then amended over the years to some cost of living and travel expense allowances that didn't even approach the market value of talented players. There has always been a black market since college football became a thing, that grew exponentially after WWII with black market trend setter OU. Saban and others brought around another era which saw the amount given to everyone associated with talented players - including the players themselves, but not exclusively - rise extensively, but since it was a black market, it didn't come close to what their real market value is.

The thing is, college football wages are not tied to profit/loss statements. Businesses can overpay their labor force, until they go out of business or are purchased by someone else because they're no longer competitive. Like someone told me, the numbers don't matter until they matter. For most businesses layoffs occur prior to that because they're not growing enough or they're losing money. 

But for college football players, they're insulated from those dynamics somewhat because their market value is determined by the ego of wealthy boosters, not by profit/loss statements. 

That hasn't changed. The House settlement didn't change that. It's put up some parameters to try to help keep the labor costs from spiraling out of control, but the market is going to do what the market is going to do. Just because someone sets up some boundaries, doesn't mean those boundaries are going to be respected. To have people respect boundaries - and this is in any setting, not just football - there better be some consequences for going off the rails. The more severe the consequences, the more effective the boundaries will be.

What are the consequences for not abiding by the House settlement? Nobody knows. Until that's clear, plenty of groups are going to test things. Which is what we're seeing. Texas is not going to be one of those. Texas sees that the labor market for college football players is unsustainable, so while Texas has a competitive advantage in that landscape, it's not good for the sport as a whole, so they're taking a disciplined approach so far and trying to abide by the letter of the House settlement. At least right now. 

Here's the dirty secret. None of the key decision makers in college football think the House settlement is any kind of answer. They're not fools. That's why the Big Ten and SEC commissioners were in Washington trying to get a bill passed. That's why the Notre Dame AD went golfing with Trump. What they're hoping is that the House settlement shows lawmakers they're trying, but the message to them is "we need legal help from the federal government." Which is a scary phrase to utter, but in this case it's true. There's no mechanism which will allow college football to govern itself effectively. Whatever they try to do will end up in court and be struck down due to antitrust, Title IX, or the issue of players not being classified as employees. Like the movie Wargames "the only real choice is to not play the game," but I think we can all agree none of us want to see Texas opt out of college football a la Ivy League style. 

As far as this recruiting cycle the dynamics have changed, just like they changed when the Alston decision was first handed down. It will continue to change and evolve. closetojumping has the best post I've seen on the subject, and he's as close to a subject matter expert as we have on this board. Here's the link to his post for anyone who didn't see it on the previous page:

 

So we're just going to have to wait and see. We have a great roster right now. UT's response to this new environment is going to continue to evolve, but we have a chairman of the board of regents and an AD who are on the same page with this stuff. We didn't make the decision to join the SEC just to turn into Vanderbilt. I feel highly confident Texas is going to come out of all of this A-OK. But in the short term there's going to be some rough patches. That's what we're seeing right now. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
10 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Sadly, the title of this thread still works very effectively. The direction of the comment doesn't feel the same right now, however. Might be time for a change.

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Swing-And-A-Miss Steve Rides Again"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Still Doing Better Than Oklahoma"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Hoisted By Other Fucktards"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Getting the Chokehold Buttfuck"

I don't know. Something along those lines.

Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Who is Spider2YBanana Today?

  • Haha 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

It's as I've been saying, one of three things is happening, probably all at different places:

1) Programs are making up money and hoping to backfill it on success and rev share later. (USC, at least)

2) Programs are foregoing what they have on campus to make big offers to recruits and build from there. (ATM, Florida)

3) Programs are going to wash through more than $20.5M and call it all rev share, whatever the numbers are. (LSU)

There are probably some morons who just aren't calculating the current roster much at all for future monetary needs and just assuming "it will work itself out" when, indeed, it very well may not. 

Also they're using third party NIL money and daring the new enforcement mechanisms to do their job either by not reporting it or reporting it and seeing what happens. 

Posted

Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Outbid by Cletus and Boudreaux.

Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Napier is the GOAT

Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Sharp spinning proctological instruments

Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Drink More Ovaltine

Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Graham Harmon was right

  • Haha 3
Posted
14 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

I assumed it was either this or the fact that there's only one pot of money, whether you push it to NIL or to revenue sharing. If there's $30 million in the pot, but $20 million into rev share and $10 million into NIL.

This is probably true to a point, I.e., a lot of the program’s revenue includes donations that can either go into Bellmont or Texas One.  The advantage UT/Austin (keeping those separate because location is a big part) should have is that, over a long enough time line, the specific advantages for the school to generate real value independent of wealthy donors should make the revenue stream bigger and more consistent.  
 

In other words, it’s healthier to have a Ewers getting paid to do Dr. Pepper commercials than to have Cody Campbell at Tech pony up extra money for NIL that maybe comes out of what he’d normally spend on Tech university donations (or maybe he just donates more in total but is apt to get fatigued as the money demands increase).  

Posted
2 hours ago, closetojumping said:

List of thread details, from best types to the most inane, insipid shit imaginable. 

1) Arguing over hottest famous women.

2) Arguing over hottest women on campuses.

3) Personal stories about random subject matter triggered by some mention in a recruiting update.

4) Cheese puns.

5) Campus weather discussions.

6) Academic dick-measuring among schools competing for a player.

7) Reliving terrible shit in Texas football history.

8 ) BBQ snobs finding their way from the food board to discuss brisket smoking nuances and other super dumb shit associated to BBQ snobbery. 

 

9) Open discussion on "witty" thread titles

  • Haha 5
Posted
4 hours ago, RGBIII said:

Push boundaries like creating the nation's biggest and best NIL collective, spending more in NIL than everyone else in the nation, while killing the portal and ending with the #1 recruiting class in the nation, LITERALLY LAST YEAR? Other schools are pushing those kinds of boundaries? Oh wait, some 17 year olds made non binding decisions based on absurd potential numbers before fall camp has even started and you for some unknown reason let that ruin your entire mental state...but oh, ah yes, Texas and their vaginal tendencies.

 

How the fuck have you not been crowdsourced yet you thin skinned puta, take your pants pissing over to Orangebloods

Hbo Gemstoneshbo GIF by The Righteous Gemstones

To answer the question, he hasn’t been crowd sourced solely because he posts links on the football board and gets rep. 

4 hours ago, irishtexan said:

Jesus fuck. Another goddamn handle? Half of the profiles I have on ignore are different handles he keeps creating so he won't be on ignore and people will see his posts. 

Weird. I knew it was him because despite the handle change, he was still on my ignore list. Since I have only 3 dudes on that list it was easy to deduce. 

2 hours ago, closetojumping said:

List of thread details, from best types to the most inane, insipid shit imaginable. 

1) Arguing over hottest famous women.

2) Arguing over hottest women on campuses.

3) Personal stories about random subject matter triggered by some mention in a recruiting update.

4) Cheese puns.

5) Campus weather discussions.

6) Academic dick-measuring among schools competing for a player.

7) Reliving terrible shit in Texas football history.

8 ) BBQ snobs finding their way from the food board to discuss brisket smoking nuances and other super dumb shit associated to BBQ snobbery. 

 

I feel like 7 should be closer to 4 or 3. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

neither accuse, admit or stuff bags

tosu announcing they are playing by the rules is so stupid, i will be surprised if aggy can't resist creaming their summer cake with the same confession ejaculation

the screencap upthread about fake money being thrown around is the best explanation

college football is creating their own version of mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations

we are winning with a diverse portfolio - can we at least get to december and see how this first settlement cycle plays out?

Posted
Just now, LCHorn said:

This is probably true to a point, I.e., a lot of the program’s revenue includes donations that can either go into Bellmont or Texas One.  The advantage UT/Austin (keeping those separate because location is a big part) should have is that, over a long enough time line, the specific advantages for the school to generate real value independent of wealthy donors should make the revenue stream bigger and more consistent.  
 

In other words, it’s healthier to have a Ewers getting paid to do Dr. Pepper commercials than to have Cody Campbell at Tech pony up extra money for NIL that maybe comes out of what he’d normally spend on Tech university donations (or maybe he just donates more in total but is apt to get fatigued as the money demands increase).  

The only problem with that is the NIL money from Cody Campbell types is front loaded, whereas Dr. Pepper commercials are potentially there, but speculative. 

I read an article recently about the Zuckerberg-Chan Foundation pulling out of financing an East Palo Alto private school:

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative plans to shut down East Palo Alto school

The moral of the story according to many witnesses is be wary of entrusting your endeavors to one donor because they may cease funding, and then you cease to exist. 

Same is true for Texas Tech and Oregon. Oklahoma State was helped immensely by T. Boone Pickens who singlehandedly helped make OSU athletics more competitive with the rest of the Big 12. Then when he died, those donations dried up for the most part. 

The great thing about Texas is there's a deep bench. It's not an unlimited bench, but it's not one benefactor the way it is with other places.

I feel confident Texas is in a good place whatever the future of college athletics ends up being. But like Littlefinger reminds us, chaos is a ladder. SMU is now in the Power 4, and made the college football playoffs last year. Texas Tech made it to the championship game in softball. There are a lot of places that are going to go all in at least in the short term to see if they can rise up the ladder. Some of that is absolutely unsustainable. But if they see some short term success it incentivizes another wave of programs to try to do something similar, or if they have deep enough pockets, they keep raising the ante in an effort to see how far up the ladder they can go. 

Posted
31 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Sadly, the title of this thread still works very effectively. The direction of the comment doesn't feel the same right now, however. Might be time for a change.

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Swing-And-A-Miss Steve Rides Again"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Still Doing Better Than Oklahoma"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Hoisted By Other Fucktards"

"Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Getting the Chokehold Buttfuck"

I don't know. Something along those lines.

Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: Coming up short on red area again.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Josef Pwag said:

I'm confused. The house settelment puts a cap on what the schools themselves can pay, but I thought NIL was still uncapped. How does putting a cap on NIL jibe with the unanimous Alston SCOTUS decision?

 

Here is what ChatGPT told me...is this wrong?

 

What the House settlement caps:

  • Schools that opt into the settlement will be allowed to pay current Division I athletes directly from school revenue—up to an annual cap.

  • That cap starts at $20.5 million per school for the 2025‑26 academic year and is expected to increase by about 4% annually over the next decade (potentially reaching around $33 million) uscannenbergmedia.com+15cbssports.com+156abc.com+15.

What they didn’t cap: third‑party NIL deals

  • Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) money that athletes receive from third-party sources—such as individual endorsement deals, collectives, or boosters—is not counted against the school’s revenue-sharing cap. These deals remain unlimited in terms of the amount, as long as they reflect fair market value and serve a valid business purpose

I think the last part of your statement is the money quote.  My guess is that some schools are promising players huge NIL payments that are not commiserate with their fair market value, while other schools are suggesting that they could get legit promotional NIL deals.  The former are either banking on being able to get around Deloitte in some way or banking on getting the players on campus before the shit hits the fan. 

Quote

Third parties interested in pursuing NIL deals with student-athletes must understand and adhere to university, state, and NCAA laws and regulations.35 The House settlement stipulates that entities such as booster collectives, referred to as “Associated Entities or Individuals” in the settlement, are permitted to pay student-athletes for the use of their NIL, provided all payments are for a valid business purpose.36 A valid business purpose must be “related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services provided to the general public for profit, with compensation at rates and terms commensurate with compensation paid to similarly situated individuals with comparable NIL value who are not current or prospective student-athletes at the Member Institution.”37 In other words, the deals with booster collectives and other “Associated Entities and Individuals” must be entered into for the actual purpose of promoting a brand or business at market rates, rather than an athletic services deal, which can be at a higher value than what is considered fair market.

...

Although athletic conference commissioners are reportedly confident in the Commission and its ability to successfully oversee enforcement,65 some critics are skeptical as to the effectiveness of the new enforcement arm. Specifically, some coaches, and athletics administrators have argued that the prior system, where recruiting inducements are disguised as NIL payments, will not be easily eliminated.66 The emergence of NIL collectives puts boosters and collectives at the forefront of college athletics, with the amount paid to student-athletes on some college football rosters alone nearing or exceeding the $20.5 million in annual direct payments allowed by athletic departments under the House settlement.67

Although the House settlement imposes restrictions on payments by Associated Entities including collectives, it is unlikely that NIL collectives will take a back seat despite the settlement. Especially in the early days of the Commission, it is likely that collectives will look for workarounds, or in the alternative, revert to exercising their influence behind the scenes as they once did pre-NIL era as boosters.68

 

Edited by Texas Wahoo
Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Wasn’t talking about you specifically but those who get a majority of their rep from there. 

“I wasn’t talking about you specifically” says the guy who literally quoted me in his post. 

  • Haha 4

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...