Jump to content

Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: They Can't Keep Getting Away With This


Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Basketball is not football.  This shouldn’t have to be pointed out to you. 

Point is NIL spending is going up....Last years 30 million roster is a 35-40 mill roster this year. 

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

First, lets state the obvious; You don't actually have any actual information about the NIL budgets, costs, packages, or anything else at any other school. You don't have any actual information about those things at the fucking school you follow, Texas. So the fact that you say declaratively that other programs don't care about cost is stupid to the point that it should be immediately dismissed, mocked, and you should be laughed at, heartily. 

Second, we just inked the number one class, loaded at damn near everywhere, a few short months ago, including some big time over the top efforts at the end to get key, high cost players. And this was after everyone piss and shit themselves all summer about out class. And, this is something I actually know, our fundraising has only gotten stronger and improved since last year. So maybe, maybe, act like you can remember at some point in your life what it was like to have a set of balls. 

Cool so we should be able to get the recruits we really want then irrespective of their NIL wants! 

Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Point is NIL spending is going up....Last years 30 million roster is a 35-40 mill roster this year. 

No fucking shit. I actually know the posters who told you that shit on this very fucking board. But I guess our staff and program aren't aware...

Quote

Cool so we should be able to get the recruits we really want then irrespective of their NIL wants! 

Maybe. Since this is going down pretty similarly to last year, why don't you untuck your shriveled cock and balls and see what happens this fall?

I will say, the lack of roster turnover at Texas is fucking insane compared to other programs. If that means we might miss out on some blue chips we wanted to maintain guys we like in the program, every few years, which I'm not even saying is the case, I'm probably OK with it. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Haha 1
Posted

The one thing I've heard which I don't recall seeing mentioned here is that some schools are upping their spending this year because of off-the-books payments made before 7/1, and on-the-books official payments made after 7/1, and then also making promises when schools' official NIL payments start over at 0 in January 2026. But that's just what I've heard. No idea what Texas is doing. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

No fucking shit. I actually know the posters who told you that shit on this very fucking board. But I guess our staff and program aren't aware...

Maybe. Since this is going down pretty similarly to last year, why don't you untuck your shriveled cock and balls and see what happens this fall?

I will say, the lack of roster turnover at Texas is fucking insane compared to other programs. If that means we might miss out on some blue chips we wanted to maintain guys we like in the program, every few years, which I'm not even saying is the case, I'm probably OK with it. 

 

On a more serious note and not trolling anymore but I think this year could be different in regards to late flips and we shall see. I have a theory that teams are writing these NIL deals to be more binding to the school than they already were and will want them signed or agreed before whenever that 3rd party stuff is supposed to start.. Especially since there is no long NLI and signing day is kind of going away. I think that is why some of these schools are rushing to get the commits and why the visits are getting canceled after the commitments. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
13 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

No fucking shit. I actually know the posters who told you that shit on this very fucking board. But I guess our staff and program aren't aware...

Maybe. Since this is going down pretty similarly to last year, why don't you untuck your shriveled cock and balls and see what happens this fall?

I will say, the lack of roster turnover at Texas is fucking insane compared to other programs. If that means we might miss out on some blue chips we wanted to maintain guys we like in the program, every few years, which I'm not even saying is the case, I'm probably OK with it. 

 

That last part is where it's at.  The retention of the two-deep talent right now is insane.  Shit, roster retention as a whole from All-Americans down to the developmental guys is competing to be the gold standard right now in college football.  

 

I have zero idea on the staff's strategy when it comes to raising the floor for OOS recruitments, etc. - but I think they're involved in most of these because they genuinely want the kid and feel they have a chance to win them.  LB recruiting OOS has been laser focused on the very best guys in the country with no wavering or flinching.  When Atkinson and Griffin recruitments seemed to cool, Thomas Davis Jr. was hoping for/expecting/lobbying for an offer (especially as Texas staffers began heavily recruiting Greater Charlotte).   The staff kept their powder dry.   They are going to get guys they truly want, and they aren't good with "settling".      

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

And that’s called a budget.  Which these programs have. 

There's a fundamental asymmetry to losing a NIL recruitment vs. winning one. You have to outspend many schools to win a recruitment, but it takes just one school outspending you to lose a recruitment. For Edwards it was A&M. For Bowman it was USC. For Lott it will be Oregon. For Atkinson it will be Georgia. We can certainly pride ourselves on not overspending, but whether we finish in 2nd place for a recruit or whether we never even pursue the end result is still the same.

Yes, you can say A&M/USC/Oregon/Georgia/Ohio State are stupid for overspending and that we'll ultimately benefit. But teams can now pick and choose which recruits to overspend on, knowing that the House settlement has freed up a lot of additional funding and scholarship limits are much looser. For each of them it's one recruitment won, with a decreased chance of winning future recruitments that we or other unaffected schools may or may not be involved in. But for us it's already four big recruitments lost and counting. We're trading concrete, known losses for the hope of nebulous, hypothetical future recruiting wins.

Edited by satyanash
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, Boko Bevo said:

That last part is where it's at.  The retention of the two-deep talent right now is insane.  Shit, roster retention as a whole from All-Americans down to the developmental guys is competing to be the gold standard right now in college football.  

I'm not sure if we have lost one player in the portal era that made me go "Ah fuck, not him!". Maybe I'm blanking on someone, but that's pretty insane, considering how we have also been recruiting in this period. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I'm not sure if we have lost one player in the portal era that made me go "Ah fuck, not him!". Maybe I'm blanking on someone, but that's pretty insane, considering how we have also been recruiting in this period. 

All while landing Top 3 classes.  It’s a message board, so folks have to complain, but this is rarified air. 

Posted
27 minutes ago, satyanash said:

There's a fundamental asymmetry to losing a NIL recruitment vs. winning one. You have to outspend many schools to win a recruitment, but it takes just one school outspending you to lose a recruitment. For Edwards it was A&M. For Bowman it was USC. For Lott it will be Oregon. For Atkinson it will be Georgia. We can certainly pride ourselves on not overspending, but whether we finish in 2nd place for a recruit or whether we never even pursue the end result is still the same.

Yes, you can say A&M/USC/Oregon/Georgia/Ohio State are stupid for overspending and that we'll ultimately benefit. But teams can now pick and choose which recruits to overspend on, knowing that the House settlement has freed up a lot of additional funding and scholarship limits are much looser. For each of them it's one recruitment won, with a decreased chance of winning future recruitments that we or other unaffected schools may or may not be involved in. But for us it's already four big recruitments lost and counting. We're trading concrete, known losses for the hope of nebulous, hypothetical future recruiting wins.

*an

Posted
28 minutes ago, satyanash said:

There's a fundamental asymmetry to losing a NIL recruitment vs. winning one. You have to outspend many schools to win a recruitment, but it takes just one school outspending you to lose a recruitment. For Edwards it was A&M. For Bowman it was USC. For Lott it will be Oregon. For Atkinson it will be Georgia. We can certainly pride ourselves on not overspending, but whether we finish in 2nd place for a recruit or whether we never even pursue the end result is still the same.

Yes, you can say A&M/USC/Oregon/Georgia/Ohio State are stupid for overspending and that we'll ultimately benefit. But teams can now pick and choose which recruits to overspend on, knowing that the House settlement has freed up a lot of additional funding and scholarship limits are much looser. For each of them it's one recruitment won, with a decreased chance of winning future recruitments that we or other unaffected schools may or may not be involved in. But for us it's already four big recruitments lost and counting. We're trading concrete, known losses for the hope of nebulous, hypothetical future recruiting wins.

Exactly, just like when Georgia bought Justus Terry and Oregon bought Sharma right out from underneath our noses. Don’t forget when Ohio State poached Hero Kanu off of our roster this past spring. 
 

You really are just a whiny bitch with a room temperature IQ. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 6
Posted
30 minutes ago, satyanash said:

There's a fundamental asymmetry to losing a NIL recruitment vs. winning one. You have to outspend many schools to win a recruitment, but it takes just one school outspending you to lose a recruitment. For Edwards it was A&M. For Bowman it was USC. For Lott it will be Oregon. For Atkinson it will be Georgia. We can certainly pride ourselves on not overspending, but whether we finish in 2nd place for a recruit or whether we never even pursue the end result is still the same.

Yes, you can say A&M/USC/Oregon/Georgia/Ohio State are stupid for overspending and that we'll ultimately benefit. But teams can now pick and choose which recruits to overspend on, knowing that the House settlement has freed up a lot of additional funding and scholarship limits are much looser. For each of them it's one recruitment won, with a decreased chance of winning future recruitments that we or other unaffected schools may or may not be involved in. But for us it's already four big recruitments lost and counting. We're trading concrete, known losses for the hope of nebulous, hypothetical future recruiting wins.

Nearly everything in here is completely wrong. I don't even know that any of those guys even end up at those schools. It's June. 

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, satyanash said:

There's a fundamental asymmetry to losing a NIL recruitment vs. winning one. You have to outspend many schools to win a recruitment, but it takes just one school outspending you to lose a recruitment. For Edwards it was A&M. For Bowman it was USC. For Lott it will be Oregon. For Atkinson it will be Georgia. We can certainly pride ourselves on not overspending, but whether we finish in 2nd place for a recruit or whether we never even pursue the end result is still the same.

Yes, you can say A&M/USC/Oregon/Georgia/Ohio State are stupid for overspending and that we'll ultimately benefit. But teams can now pick and choose which recruits to overspend on, knowing that the House settlement has freed up a lot of additional funding and scholarship limits are much looser. For each of them it's one recruitment won, with a decreased chance of winning future recruitments that we or other unaffected schools may or may not be involved in. But for us it's already four big recruitments lost and counting. We're trading concrete, known losses for the hope of nebulous, hypothetical future recruiting wins.

Here’s ChatGPT’s response. 
 

Spoiler

Sure, here’s a clear, grounded rebuttal to that argument:

 

 

 

Your argument frames the NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) recruiting landscape as a zero-sum game where losing one recruitment due to being outbid is an irreplaceable failure, while winning requires consistently outspending the field. But this overlooks several key strategic and structural realities:

 

 

1.

The “one-bidder” asymmetry is overstated.

 

 

Yes, it only takes one school to outbid you. But that school also has to:

 

  • Identify the same top talent,
  • Have the positional need,
  • Have the NIL structure ready and be willing to allocate budget there,
  • Win over the family, coaches, and support network.

 

 

In reality, that means the pool of serious competitors for any single player is rarely 50+ schools, but more like 3–5. You don’t have to beat everyone, just a few, and NIL isn’t the only factor. Culture, development, draft track record, and early playing time still matter—particularly to top-tier recruits who view NIL as a bonus, not the destination.

 

 

 

 

2.

The long-term risk of “selective overspending” cuts both ways.

 

 

You’re assuming that A&M, USC, Oregon, and Georgia can pick and choose which recruits to overspend on without long-term downside. But NIL overextension does come with risks:

 

  • Locker room culture disruption when players see others being “bought.”
  • Donor fatigue and budget misallocation (see Texas A&M’s 2022 class fallout).
  • Transfer risk when “bought” players don’t get early time or clash with staff.

 

 

Selective overspending today often leads to higher transfer attrition and lower retention down the line. That’s not a model of sustainability—it’s an arms race with a ticking clock.

 

 

 

 

3.

The difference between 2nd place and non-participation is meaningful.

 

 

You say the outcome is the same—no commit—but in practice, it’s not. Coming in second:

 

  • Builds relationships for future transfers (portal routes matter more than ever).
  • Signals seriousness to next year’s class and to high school programs.
  • Allows a staff to better understand market pricing and value alignment.
  • Preserves brand equity with agents, collectives, and recruits.

 

 

Finishing second is often the difference between being in the conversation next time or being written off entirely.

 

 

 

 

4.

Betting on long-term sustainability isn’t “nebulous.”

 

 

Programs that stay disciplined with NIL spending are positioning themselves for:

 

  • Lower attrition.
  • More stable locker rooms.
  • A sustainable pipeline of development-focused players.
  • Greater alignment between coaching, culture, and collective strategy.

 

 

It’s not a guarantee—but neither is paying $750K for a freshman defensive tackle. What is guaranteed is that NIL arms races are already producing regrettable contracts, internal division, and inconsistent results on the field.

 

 

 

 

5.

Smart NIL strategy isn’t the same as “not competing.”

 

 

Being fiscally responsible doesn’t mean passive. There’s a difference between refusing to match every inflated offer and refusing to play the game. The best programs are building targeted NIL strategies: investing heavily in select players, offering backend bonuses tied to performance, and structuring their roster with portal veterans instead of overpaying 17-year-olds.

 

 

 

Bottom line:

Yes, we’ve lost some top recruits. But refusing to join a reckless bidding war isn’t the same as refusing to compete. Over time, the programs that build smart, sustainable NIL infrastructure—rather than just chasing splashy wins—will not only win recruiting battles, they’ll also win on Saturdays.

 

Edited by Ricky Butler
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
53 minutes ago, satyanash said:

There's a fundamental asymmetry to losing a NIL recruitment vs. winning one. You have to outspend many schools to win a recruitment, but it takes just one school outspending you to lose a recruitment. For Edwards it was A&M. For Bowman it was USC. For Lott it will be Oregon. For Atkinson it will be Georgia. We can certainly pride ourselves on not overspending, but whether we finish in 2nd place for a recruit or whether we never even pursue the end result is still the same.

Yes, you can say A&M/USC/Oregon/Georgia/Ohio State are stupid for overspending and that we'll ultimately benefit. But teams can now pick and choose which recruits to overspend on, knowing that the House settlement has freed up a lot of additional funding and scholarship limits are much looser. For each of them it's one recruitment won, with a decreased chance of winning future recruitments that we or other unaffected schools may or may not be involved in. But for us it's already four big recruitments lost and counting. We're trading concrete, known losses for the hope of nebulous, hypothetical future recruiting wins.

If this is serious, you need to check yourself into an institution.

If this is satire, you deserve a Pulitzer.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Point is NIL spending is going up....Last years 30 million roster is a 35-40 mill roster this year. 

Cool so we should be able to get the recruits we really want then irrespective of their NIL wants! 

Do we have to do this shit every June?  I am not a blanket trust the coaches fan.  But I have noticed a pattern with this staff.  We get rolling in July through December and end up with a top 3 class.  We all freak out in June.  This staff has earned the benefit of the doubt.  Our roster is in the best shape it's ever been.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Frank Drebin said:

Do we have to do this shit every June?  I am not a blanket trust the coaches fan.  But I have noticed a pattern with this staff.  We get rolling in July through December and end up with a top 3 class.  We all freak out in June.  This staff has earned the benefit of the doubt.  Our roster is in the best shape it's ever been.

This is the key point for me. After 3 years of elite recruiting + probably the best retention of any program (I can't recall losing one singular player off our roster that I cared about), there's not a single recruitment that feels make or break in June. Plus, if all of this is stemming from schools like A&M "creatively" deploying the House settlement... we're working with that same pot of money and there's no indication that anything has changed regarding our financial position at the top of the landscape. In all likelihood, we will add a top 5 class to a top 3 roster, minimum. Hell, we have a whole slew of blue chip defensive linemen on the verge of committing. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
42 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

This entire post is built on the assumption, and assumption for which there is no evidence for, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, that Texas will be incapable of winning big recruitments down the road that are the ones they deem as must wins. 

We were losing to LSU for Collin Simmons till we weren’t, we lost Anthony Hill to A&M until we didn’t, we lost Sharma to Oregon until we didn’t, and Banks, and Cam Williams. Ryan Wingo was staying home. Kade Phillips was going to LSU because we blew it by telling him he was a safety. Was Justus Terry even  considering us until we decided shit, we might need DTs? Georgia and Oregon didn’t seem to be able to do shit about it once we did decide it was a need.  When did all these flips or commits come? Hmm, I bet it wasn’t June. 
 

In summation, you have terrible fucking takes and you might be the only person on earth who resents getting his dick sucked. 

My favorite satya melt was over Grant Polley. 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, satyanash said:

There's a fundamental asymmetry to losing a NIL recruitment vs. winning one. You have to outspend many schools to win a recruitment, but it takes just one school outspending you to lose a recruitment. For Edwards it was A&M. For Bowman it was USC. For Lott it will be Oregon. For Atkinson it will be Georgia. We can certainly pride ourselves on not overspending, but whether we finish in 2nd place for a recruit or whether we never even pursue the end result is still the same.

Yes, you can say A&M/USC/Oregon/Georgia/Ohio State are stupid for overspending and that we'll ultimately benefit. But teams can now pick and choose which recruits to overspend on, knowing that the House settlement has freed up a lot of additional funding and scholarship limits are much looser. For each of them it's one recruitment won, with a decreased chance of winning future recruitments that we or other unaffected schools may or may not be involved in. But for us it's already four big recruitments lost and counting. We're trading concrete, known losses for the hope of nebulous, hypothetical future recruiting wins.

You’ve become a caricature of yourself. Just straight up a cartoon character at this point.

Edited by Lonestar88
Posted
2 hours ago, jeevsie said:

Our poor pets' heads.

I was actually just typing that out. 

People need to learn to chill when it comes to recruiting. We are still in the second quarter, just like every year. Set your clock for December whatever, wake up, and hopefully rejoice. And if it doesn’t work out, that’s life. 

Posted

By this time last year, Graceson Littleton was committed to Clemson as well. 
Summer wins are cool, but signing day still looms. Then you gotta pay more to keep them after you hopefully develop them enough to be productive.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

First, lets state the obvious; You don't actually have any actual information about the NIL budgets, costs, packages, or anything else at any other school. You don't have any actual information about those things at the fucking school you follow, Texas. So the fact that you say declaratively that other programs don't care about cost is stupid to the point that it should be immediately dismissed, mocked, and you should be laughed at, heartily. 

Second, we just inked the number one class, loaded at damn near everywhere, a few short months ago, including some big time over the top efforts at the end to get key, high cost players. And this was after everyone piss and shit themselves all summer about our class. And, this is something I actually know, our fundraising has only gotten stronger and improved since last year. So maybe, maybe, act like you can remember at some point in your life what it was like to have a set of balls. 

Yeah, it's pretty fucking sad that while other schools/programs are evolving with the times, apparently Texas is not, and won't. Man, we should just fold up shop then.

-BO&W

Posted
3 hours ago, texifornia said:

It doesn't get better than this, folks. We're watching a master of the craft at the peak of his game. He just gets better with age.

That’s my favorite thing about Satya. Each individual line is some degree of true. Each individual line is successively less true most of the time, but only rarely veers off into abject falsehood. And yet through the most brilliant Eeyore-esque writing manages to be the most incorrect, bleating sour sop I’ve ever seen on this site. It must be like watching Rembrandt as a contemporary

Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

I don't want anyone who uses that word.

Our natty winning softball pitcher used it in her post natty interview. Better get her outta here if we want another natty.

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...