Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

2023 Recruiting Board/Thread


TFloss32
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
4 hours ago, TFloss32 said:

DL Hunter Osborne (Trussville, AL)

High school teammate of DL Justice Finkley.

https://247sports.com/player/hunter-osborne-46104085/

https://www.hudl.com/profile/9896181/Hunter-Osborne

Osborne told 247 that Texas is a school he's always wanted to hear from even before Finkley signed.

Coach Davis supposedly made a great impression recently, and Osborne said he's hoping Sark will recruit him personally.

Depending on how things develop in the coming weeks, he may take an unofficial visit and go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
7 minutes ago, TFloss32 said:

CB Calvin Simpson-Hunt (Waxahachie)

Great early eval by Tech's staff as the kid has blown up.

https://247sports.com/player/calvin-simpson-hunt-46127886/

https://www.hudl.com/profile/13213690/Calvin-Simpson

He was offered last week, but waited until this evening after talking with Coach Joseph.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TFloss32 said:

 

This could explain the 35 or 36 number from Sark, assuming he was confident it would happen. 

This seems like a big deal , particularly for teams that had lots of portal losses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, TFloss32 said:

OL Ian Reed of Austin Vandegrift tells 247 has has June official visits set up to Clemson and Texas.

He's working on others to A&M, Michigan and Ohio State.

https://247sports.com/player/ian-reed-46127899/

IT added that the official visit for Reed will be that big June 25th weekend.

He is now leaning towards making a decision before his season starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
39 minutes ago, dssl said:

This could explain the 35 or 36 number from Sark, assuming he was confident it would happen. 

This seems like a big deal , particularly for teams that had lots of portal losses. 

I like this combined with tighter portal windows to help with roster management.

Hopefully that includes increasing the number of transfers allowed in, which is capped at seven right now regardless of how many players you lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TFloss32 said:

I like this combined with tighter portal windows to help with roster management.

Hopefully that includes increasing the number of transfers allowed in, which is capped at seven right now regardless of how many players you lose.

Isn't the real limit 25+7 total new players?, so if no 25 limit I was assuming that the only limit is the 85 total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dssl said:

Isn't the real limit 25+7 total new players?, so if no 25 limit I was assuming that the only limit is the 85 total.

The 7 extra ships were aone time only option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eastexhorn said:

The 7 extra ships were aone time only option.

I understand that is/was the official position,  but considering the popularity of the portal its difficult for me to imagine that they would have moved back to a 25 total for high school signers plus portal athletes. 

Obviously things are very dynamic and they are making it up as they go along. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dssl said:

I understand that is/was the official position,  but considering the popularity of the portal its difficult for me to imagine that they would have moved back to a 25 total for high school signers plus portal athletes. 

Obviously things are very dynamic and they are making it up as they go along. 

 

I think the removal of the 25/7 limit is for a two year trial. Something needs to be put in place or what we saw happen to the LSU basketball team will occur much more frequently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule they passed said onetime only! They can pass anotherif they choose.

First time rule failed two weeks later it passed. Iffootball as we know it is to suvive some things will have to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Eastexhorn said:

The rule they passed said onetime only! They can pass anotherif they choose.

First time rule failed two weeks later it passed. Iffootball as we know it is to suvive some things will have to change.

If voted in it will be for two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Baron said:

I think the removal of the 25/7 limit is for a two year trial. Something needs to be put in place or what we saw happen to the LSU basketball team will occur much more frequently.

Someone earlier argued we needed to treat the players like employees and pay them what they are worth.  Why stop there?  Why not let a school employ as many athletes as they want?  Why not allow them to contact other “employees” at other schools and hire them anytime they want?   Alls fair in love and NIL correct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UT1983 said:

Someone earlier argued we needed to treat the players like employees and pay them what they are worth.  Why stop there?  Why not let a school employ as many athletes as they want?  Why not allow them to contact other “employees” at other schools and hire them anytime they want?   Alls fair in love and NIL correct? 

Doesn't that bring in contracts, unions and CBA's? Not to mention politics since the players become state employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Baron said:

Doesn't that bring in contracts, unions and CBA's? Not to mention politics since the players become state employees.

I am not saying that making them employees is the way to go, but if you did, you would have binding contracts, a union, a CBA and some of what we are seeing currently could actually be controlled. You could set limits on number of employees (see NFL roster limits), you could actually have some ability to penalize tampering.

As it stands, the student athletes don't have the benefits or the restrictions of a contract or employment. The NCAA was previously restricting their actions (transfers, NIL) without giving them a fair value in return. Supreme Court deemed this to be unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BWilk55 said:

I am not saying that making them employees is the way to go, but if you did, you would have binding contracts, a union, a CBA and some of what we are seeing currently could actually be controlled. You could set limits on number of employees (see NFL roster limits), you could actually have some ability to penalize tampering.

As it stands, the student athletes don't have the benefits or the restrictions of a contract or employment. The NCAA was previously restricting their actions (transfers, NIL) without giving them a fair value in return. Supreme Court deemed this to be unconstitutional.

You would be forced to have contracts because as USC and Alabama have shown, boosters will always tamper. NCAA has no teeth. 

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.

Loading...
 Share


Our Affiliation

USATDP_Logo.png

Quick Links

×
×
  • Create New...