PonyFans.com

goodread nil
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... recruiting

indianmustang wrote:goodread nil
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... recruiting

Has Tortilla Tech built a colege (spelling intentional) football power? Not necessarily.

1. Lubbock

2. "And then the plan worked a little too well." I'll leave to JasonB or others more qualified than I to work out who exactly is stockpiled on top of each other, but I am fairly confident that their accidental overrecruiting did not precisely work out with the needed numbers at the needed positions.

3. Cody Campbell is one of the more Texas Tech names to ever Texas Tech.

4. They seem confused, as if NIL front-loading met with school/settlement 20-million backloading is some sort of genius move. No, tortilla geniuses: the school payments are entirely apart from NIL. Alabama will not drop off on NIL because school payments began. These things are additive, not replacements. Lol.

5. Lubbock.

6. Tortillas.

7. Lubbock.

Team chemistry is not to be overlooked in the transfer portal era. We have been fortunate that our transfers have come in and mixed well with the guys already here. Of course it's easy to have good chemistry when you are winning. Wouldn't bother me one bit to see Texas Tech win the Big XII. Hopefully we can do our part by handing Baylor and TCU an early season loss for both of them

but it seems like we need 10 million for B12

Tech is doing exactly what SMU is accused of doing: buying a roster.
Pretty simple.
Fun fact: so is everybody else.

I think I read that Ohio State had invested $20 million in the roster that brought them a National Championship. Peanuts compared to the cost of a typical NFL roster, especially when you acknowledge the fact that NCAA Division I football is basically the NFL's "minor league" system

So you mean you didn't agree with it when Steve Sarkisian said that recruits don't choose Texas for the money -- and said it while standing in front of a row of orange and white Lamborghinis?

SMUFan wrote:Tech is doing exactly what SMU is accused of doing: buying a roster.
Pretty simple.
Fun fact: so is everybody else.

I would estimate that in the State of Texas SMU is a fairly distant third in NIL spending behind UT and A&M. Those two schools will dominate the SEC if NIL is the main factor. Well, UT anyway. Aggies always do less with more than anyone. We just aggravate everyone else because we are willing to play the game and to do so perhaps more efficiently than others.

Topper wrote:

SMUFan wrote:Tech is doing exactly what SMU is accused of doing: buying a roster.
Pretty simple.
Fun fact: so is everybody else.

I would estimate that in the State of Texas SMU is a fairly distant third in NIL spending behind UT and A&M. Those two schools will dominate the SEC if NIL is the main factor. Well, UT anyway. Aggies always do less with more than anyone. We just aggravate everyone else because we are willing to play the game and to do so perhaps more efficiently than others.

Um, UT has been doing less with more in a fantastical way for more than a century. Yes they have some natties; based on resources, they should have something like half of the natties.