Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Unless Cody Campbell, among others, decides to turn his back on Tech, they aren't running out of money like some posters keep alluding to in this and the NIL threads.  Update your Tech profile in your brains, and I don't mean that as a slam.  It's just different from what many folks are thinking.

Then he should pony up instead of trying to limit others.  He alone could fund the program's NIL for 30 years at 30 million and not be poor.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Nivek said:

Then he should pony up instead of trying to limit others.  He alone could fund the program's NIL for 30 years at 30 million and not be poor.  

How do you know that is his objective?  He has spent bigtime leading up to this.

and before it goes there, I am not a CC fanboi, other than he puts his money where his mouth is.  He has wanted some things for the program in the past with which I strongly disagreed related to coaching hires.

Edited by Iceman
Posted
2 minutes ago, Iceman said:

How do you know that is his objective?  He has spent bigtime leading up to this.

and before it goes there, I am not a CC fanboi, other than he puts his money where his mouth is.  He has wanted some things for the program in the past with which I strongly disagreed related to coaching hires.

But if he doesn't have to pony up as much that is better for him.

Posted
Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

But if he doesn't have to pony up as much that is better for him.

I just see the limiting of NIL or any iteration thereof taking the business of college football/ hoops right back where it was. Not sure why Campbell would want that.

I think some of this narrative is being made up because it fits old ways.  Like I said, his spending doesn't reflect a desire to limit things.

Posted
1 hour ago, Iceman said:

I just see the limiting of NIL or any iteration thereof taking the business of college football/ hoops right back where it was. Not sure why Campbell would want that.

I think some of this narrative is being made up because it fits old ways.  Like I said, his spending doesn't reflect a desire to limit things.

BOW just stated the reason.  If there was a cap on NIL, say $15 million, then Campbell could take Texas Tech and give it a NIL budget to compete with Texas and that puts them on more equal footing relative to recruiting ability at a cost saving (allegedly Texas was at $30 million last rumor I saw).   So he could save half his cash to achieve that level playing ground.   While not definitive, it would seem to me that saving $15 million a year and elevating a program to the elite tier would help out as according to this website there are only 9 schools above $15 million.    If he opted for $20 million, he could take Texas Tech into a top 4 program.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I can see even big schools wanting a limit of sorts. Every dollar a donor gives for payroll is money that isn't going elsewhere like facilities and yes academics. That's the strangest part of this new world to me, donors making huge donations for one year mercenary contracts. I gotta say as much as I love my alma mater I'm not sure I'd be up for giving millions every year just for one year of a player's salaries. At least the coach is a single person with a long term contract. 

Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Nivek said:

BOW just stated the reason.  If there was a cap on NIL, say $15 million, then Campbell could take Texas Tech and give it a NIL budget to compete with Texas and that puts them on more equal footing relative to recruiting ability at a cost saving (allegedly Texas was at $30 million last rumor I saw).   So he could save half his cash to achieve that level playing ground.   While not definitive, it would seem to me that saving $15 million a year and elevating a program to the elite tier would help out as according to this website there are only 9 schools above $15 million.    If he opted for $20 million, he could take Texas Tech into a top 4 program.  

 

That's your guess.

The past sure doesn't support it with regard to Campbell, but maybe...so work that narrative.  LOL  If anything, the limits would support a return  to SEC bagman method.  Again, why in the hell would that favor Tech?

Edited by Iceman
Posted
On 5/12/2025 at 1:02 AM, Horn of Gabriel said:

There is zero good things that can come out of this.  Saban isn't working in Texas best interest here.  He wants to roll back the clock.  The TTech guy definitely isn't working in our best interest.  Both would love to create a new system that is a super-league (that just-so-happens to include TTech), with caps on player movement and earnings and an anti-trust exemption.  That requires a CBA and congress to pass a law.  Oh and the best part, the Double Eagle guy wants the super-league geographically divided, which would push Tceh back onto our schedule every year.

Let's be clear: the current wild west NIL situation is the perfect setup for Texas.  Paying players is legal and above board, so we don't have compliance getting their panties in a bunch and we don't have donors and administration clutching their pearls about dropping bags.  The House settlement will only raise the floor via rev sharing, we'll still set the ceiling with our NIL efforts.  The NIL clearinghouse will either get defanged or sued out of existence.

You can see why most of the schools want to go back to the old way, or put a soft/hard salary cap on players: it was much better for them. Saban can feign ignorance but he had bag men dropping illegal cash to buy players and everyone knew it. Because that was under the table the amounts pale in comparison to what those players are getting today.  Now NIL can be up to NFL 3rd round type money. There are only a handful of schools who can keep up in that world: Texas is at the top of that pile.

We should look at any change as negative because the current situation, while broken and imperfect, sets Texas up for success better than any other post integration.

Looks like Saban wants only 40 schools in the super league, which really means ESPN only wants 40:


https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6351340/2025/05/13/nick-saban-cody-campbell-college-sports/

Posted
4 hours ago, 'stache said:

I can see even big schools wanting a limit of sorts. Every dollar a donor gives for payroll is money that isn't going elsewhere like facilities and yes academics. That's the strangest part of this new world to me, donors making huge donations for one year mercenary contracts. I gotta say as much as I love my alma mater I'm not sure I'd be up for giving millions every year just for one year of a player's salaries. At least the coach is a single person with a long term contract. 

I think Campbell is doing his Jerry Jones imitation - saving rich people from themselves.

Posted

I would love to know what the NFL thinks about this gradual move to a super conference which will help a select number of schools, but will make it tougher for those on the outside to compete and fund at their current levels similar to a club being relegated in Europe.

The NFL has had the perfect feeder system for decades in which they really spend no money on the development of their prospects unlike baseball.  

 

Posted
18 hours ago, 'stache said:

I can see even big schools wanting a limit of sorts. Every dollar a donor gives for payroll is money that isn't going elsewhere like facilities and yes academics. That's the strangest part of this new world to me, donors making huge donations for one year mercenary contracts. I gotta say as much as I love my alma mater I'm not sure I'd be up for giving millions every year just for one year of a player's salaries. At least the coach is a single person with a long term contract. 

There's no reason why you can't sign players to 4-year NIL contracts.

Posted
5 hours ago, PGFrog said:

I would love to know what the NFL thinks about this gradual move to a super conference which will help a select number of schools, but will make it tougher for those on the outside to compete and fund at their current levels similar to a club being relegated in Europe.

The NFL has had the perfect feeder system for decades in which they really spend no money on the development of their prospects unlike baseball.  

 

Why wouldn’t the NFL love it?

Back in the ‘40s, NFL scouting involved buying a preseason annual and seeing who it said were the best players. Players at major programs had much easier NFL paths than those from minor programs. 
 
In the ‘60s, teams (led by the Cowboys) realized that there was real talent at smaller programs, often better than those considered stars at big programs. They expanded their scouting departments (and formed scouting consortiums) so they could cast their nets wider. 
 
Now, all programs are looking for talent at least one level down. That’s why there are more draft picks than ever at SEC and B1G schools. The talent is rationalizing itself before they are draft eligible.

 

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, statsman said:

Why wouldn’t the NFL love it?

Back in the ‘40s, NFL scouting involved buying a preseason annual and seeing who it said were the best players. Players at major programs had much easier NFL paths than those from minor programs. 
 
In the ‘60s, teams (led by the Cowboys) realized that there was real talent at smaller programs, often better than those considered stars at big programs. They expanded their scouting departments (and formed scouting consortiums) so they could cast their nets wider. 
 
Now, all programs are looking for talent at least one level down. That’s why there are more draft picks than ever at SEC and B1G schools. The talent is rationalizing itself before they are draft eligible.

 

Right - the SEC and B1G are doing that level of scouting now, bringing them up a level and then the NFL scouts them against the best of the best. 

Just a matter of time until we see a transition of NFL scouts into SEC/B1G programs to just strip away the middleman. Longtime NFL scout-now-Sark staffer tells Sark "hey this kid at Texas State has real NFL potential," he gets offered and transfers - bam, drafted, without the NFL team having to send scouts to TXST games. 

Edited by Js1
Posted
7 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

Maybe Campbell wants a seat at the table to keep Tech from being limited.

All he has to do is give Trump a big bag in appreciation for allowing him to serve on his commission, tell him how smart he is and how good his hair and make up look, and pressure will be placed on ESPN to include Tech. Easy peasy.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, statsman said:

Why wouldn’t the NFL love it?

Back in the ‘40s, NFL scouting involved buying a preseason annual and seeing who it said were the best players. Players at major programs had much easier NFL paths than those from minor programs. 
 
In the ‘60s, teams (led by the Cowboys) realized that there was real talent at smaller programs, often better than those considered stars at big programs. They expanded their scouting departments (and formed scouting consortiums) so they could cast their nets wider. 
 
Now, all programs are looking for talent at least one level down. That’s why there are more draft picks than ever at SEC and B1G schools. The talent is rationalizing itself before they are draft eligible.

 

Except that quality of talent in the NFL has been on the decline in key areas and they don't develop talent anymore with the manner in which they practice.

NFL teams struggle to piece together decent offensive lines and if the scouting process has gotten simpler why do we continue to see more and more struggles finding capable quarterbacks.  

They don't need fewer schools developing talent, they need more and they need more players staying with programs and getting developed instead of hoping to a new team each year.  

The SEC and Big 10 are going to roll out players who can contribute sooner, but how many of those are maxed in terms of productivity?  This is just an extension of the argument of why you shouldn't simply recruit from programs such as Katy, Lake Travis, Southlake, and Aledo. Those programs roll out some very good players, but a number are maxed out as well as been ground out and physically can't carry on much longer.

There was always that need for the recruit who was untapped, raw,  with the higher ceiling and there is a need for the NFL to be draft from more than 40 teams.  

Roughly just under 1,100 players from the SEC and Big 10 are in the NFL, but the league has over 2,200 players in it which means there are still a number of players from elsewhere and that math isn't going to change.

Posted
21 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Doesn’t sound like he’s that keen on a presidential commission anymore. Saban probably figured out that his former college lineman co chair wasn’t going to sit back and let him run everything.

Posted

I haven’t thought any more into this than having the idea pop into my head 10 seconds ago but what if CFB went towards more of the champions league relegation model? NCAA sort of operates like it now but not in such an overt way with different divisions. I’m sure someone on this board has thought of it before and others have probably poopooed the idea.

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, theBigHen said:

I haven’t thought any more into this than having the idea pop into my head 10 seconds ago but what if CFB went towards more of the champions league relegation model? NCAA sort of operates like it now but not in such an overt way with different divisions. I’m sure someone on this board has thought of it before and others have probably poopooed the idea.

I like it from a theoretical idea,  if a school wants to dump a ton of money into their programs so be it and if someone is just happy to offer sports as part of the college experience great as well.

In theory a great way to weed out the programs who are part of the SEC and Big 10 that are along for the ride so to speak, but the biggest issues with any such idea are two fold.

First, you have people in the conferences whose existence and compensation are based upon job tied to the current systems and they aren't going to willingly give that up so who is the entity that creates such change?

Second, if you are a player why agree to any change from the current system where you have gone from having no control to a system where the only constraints are you are what are set by the courts.

Granted, I don't think the current model is sustainable but there are just too many parties currently feeding at the trough and the changes needed are so dramatic I am not sure they can truly be put into place. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Iceman said:

Oh, but we love writing the stories on our own basis and need for hat

Spoken like a true tech fan. Victim complex. I bet it’s Texas’ fault!

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Spoken like a true tech fan. Victim complex. I bet it’s Texas’ fault!

That is exactly the narrative.  LOL.  but not the content on this subject.

Current NIL is not a hindrance for Tech football, which is an outlier, for sure.  I am also confident one could find Tech fans bitching about it, but not the ones who are paying attention.

 

Edited by Iceman
Posted

I like relegation in theory.

The biggest problem with relegation in college athletics is: Why would any of the have-not schools opt for a system that puts them further at a disadvantage?  And then, why would any of the have schools opt for a system that puts them at risk of becoming a have-not, if the ball bounces funny a few times?  Nobody's going to vote for relegation.

This is why a full breakaway is more likely than relegation/promotion.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

pro/rel is a masterbatory fantasy for soccer nerds

Also the idea that the conference powers want to only play conference top dawgs and not the dregs.

The dregs are needed.  You can't play 9 conf games against Texas/Bama/Georgia talent.  You need an aggy or arkansas or Vanderbilt in there. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Also the idea that the conference powers want to only play conference top dawgs and not the dregs.

The dregs are needed.  You can't play 9 conf games against Texas/Bama/Georgia talent.  You need an aggy or arkansas or ousux in there. 

Fixed for recent accuracy.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Sounds like Campbell wants revenue sharing and more regional conference alignments (i.e., he wants Texas’ media money and for Texas to have to play Tech). Just another wealthy west Texas communist. Screw him. 

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, statsman said:

Sounds like Campbell wants revenue sharing and more regional conference alignments (i.e., he wants Texas’ media money and for Texas to have to play Tech). Just another wealthy west Texas communist. Screw him. 

Sounds like all the communist billionaire NFL owners. Their greediest impulses had to be reined in so that just their greedy impulses could flourish.

Edited by Satchel
Posted
50 minutes ago, statsman said:

Sounds like Campbell wants revenue sharing and more regional conference alignments (i.e., he wants Texas’ media money and for Texas to have to play Tech). Just another wealthy west Texas communist. Screw him. 

Link?

or are you just crying again?

Posted
On 5/14/2025 at 8:23 AM, Fondren & Main said:

Maybe Campbell wants a seat at the table to keep Tech from being limited.

Lulz. Its tech. You can polish a turd for hours, its still a turd. 

Posted

Fans are nothing more than props in this money game and are the absolute last consideration in any decision made by schools and their enablers. Not sure any of this is worth getting worked up over.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 hours ago, statsman said:

Sounds like Campbell wants revenue sharing and more regional conference alignments (i.e., he wants Texas’ media money and for Texas to have to play Tech). Just another wealthy west Texas communist. Screw him. 

Not having Texas on the schedule at home every other year does a number to their interest / attendance / ticket sales

As usual, we are the hottest ticket in town.  We tend to help schools set attendance records when we roll in

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 5/13/2025 at 3:49 PM, Nivek said:

BOW just stated the reason.  If there was a cap on NIL, say $15 million, then Campbell could take Texas Tech and give it a NIL budget to compete with Texas and that puts them on more equal footing relative to recruiting ability at a cost saving (allegedly Texas was at $30 million last rumor I saw).   So he could save half his cash to achieve that level playing ground.   While not definitive, it would seem to me that saving $15 million a year and elevating a program to the elite tier would help out as according to this website there are only 9 schools above $15 million.    If he opted for $20 million, he could take Texas Tech into a top 4 program.  

 

 

On 5/13/2025 at 3:57 PM, 'stache said:

I can see even big schools wanting a limit of sorts. Every dollar a donor gives for payroll is money that isn't going elsewhere like facilities and yes academics. That's the strangest part of this new world to me, donors making huge donations for one year mercenary contracts. I gotta say as much as I love my alma mater I'm not sure I'd be up for giving millions every year just for one year of a player's salaries. At least the coach is a single person with a long term contract. 

I have no doubt this commission's conclusion will be that there needs to be a strict NIL cap that's lower than the House Settlement number being thrown around because there's been no talk of any player representation on the committee, only boosters and school-side people. It will all be for nothing though, because any attempt to limit the NIL earnings without collective bargaining of the players is going to get struck down in court. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, statsman said:

…and bring in national TV broadcasts, where they weren’t before. 
 
In 2023, Texas @ Baylor was an ABC night game and home sellout. They have not sold out at home or been on ABC since. They have been on streaming almost a third of the time. 
 
In 2023, Texas played at UH. The game was on Fox, and was a home sellout. They have been on Fox once more (never on ABC) but have not had another home sellout. 
 
In 2022, Texas played at TT, in front of 60,975, an attendance they have not achieved again (I think they call 60,229 a sellout, and they have hit that). The game was on ESPN. Tech has played on ABC once, since then, in Austin in 2023. 
 
In 2023, TCU hosted Texas in front of a sellout crowd, and on ABC. Neither has happened for the Frogs since (the BCSCG losers did have sellouts before that game). 
 
Yeah, the B12 Texas schools badly want Texas on the schedule. No, it would not be good for UT. 

I think Colorado not having Shedeur or Travis Hunter any longer will bring their numbers down as well. Obviously they'll still do well because of Deion but I don't think they will be very good this year. What does Vegas have them at O/U wins for season?

Posted
37 minutes ago, statsman said:

…and bring in national TV broadcasts, where they weren’t before. 
 
In 2023, Texas @ Baylor was an ABC night game and home sellout. They have not sold out at home or been on ABC since. They have been on streaming almost a third of the time. 
 
In 2023, Texas played at UH. The game was on Fox, and was a home sellout. They have been on Fox once more (never on ABC) but have not had another home sellout. 
 
In 2022, Texas played at TT, in front of 60,975, an attendance they have not achieved again (I think they call 60,229 a sellout, and they have hit that). The game was on ESPN. Tech has played on ABC once, since then, in Austin in 2023. 
 
In 2023, TCU hosted Texas in front of a sellout crowd, and on ABC. Neither has happened for the Frogs since (the BCSCG losers did have sellouts before that game). 
 
Yeah, the B12 Texas schools badly want Texas on the schedule. No, it would not be good for UT. 

I bet our fan base watches these teams more than their own fans do as well.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I think Colorado not having Shedeur or Travis Hunter any longer will bring their numbers down as well. Obviously they'll still do well because of Deion but I don't think they will be very good this year. What does Vegas have them at O/U wins for season?

6

Posted

I have done business with Cody in the past. He and his partner John Sellers and their third wheel Josh Gregg (Judd Gregg’s son) are all super guys. I disagree with Cody politically.  Yet the tone this thread (in the football board) has taken is totally ridiculous and embarrassing to read. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I have done business with Cody in the past. He and his partner John Sellers and their third wheel Josh Gregg (Judd Gregg’s son) are all super guys. I disagree with Cody politically.  Yet the tone this thread (in the football board) has taken is totally ridiculous and embarrassing to read. 

How so?

Posted
5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Because we are being mean to his buddy 

I don’t think it’s mean. The Athletic article quotes Campbell on what he wants- more media revenue sharing and more regional conferences. I don’t think he means that Tech should be in a conference with UTEP, do you?

Posted
2 minutes ago, statsman said:

I don’t think it’s mean. The Athletic article quotes Campbell on what he wants- more media revenue sharing and more regional conferences. I don’t think he means that Tech should be in a conference with UTEP, do you?

Given his past lobbying and push for legislation, absolutely not.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

All the bullshit from the Big 12 was based on the assumption that Texas didn’t have the ability to leave. There was a small window where:

-all UT regents were Exes

-Governor is an Ex

-Legislator was in a long period between sessions

Texas took that opportunity and bailed, and I remember the caterwhauling from Waco, Fort Worth, Lubbock and Houston. We don’t want to give those assholes another chance. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, statsman said:

Texas took that opportunity and bailed, and I remember the caterwhauling from Waco, Fort Worth, Lubbock and Houston.

That was the best part and it’s still funny 

  • Hook 'Em 1

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...