Started By
Message
re: Interesting take by Sark on 105 scholarships and NIL
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:38 am to thunderbird1100
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:38 am to thunderbird1100
The number should have gone down to 75 rather than increasing it to 105.
0
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:55 am to HTX Horn
quote:
“I’ve got 85 scholarship players, and the money gets spread around. I don’t get more money, just a watered-down version.” He’s right. What good does it do to bring in 20 more players if you can’t afford to pay them? … When I asked Sark if he planned to bring in another running back, he went on a rant about the credibility of some agents and said, “It’s all so strategic. It’s about need and money and the cost and where’s the market and which agent are you dealing with. Some agents are rational, and some I don’t even know if they are licensed. We have no certification in college like the NFL. An agent may be a college roommate who is throwing out numbers we can’t even deal with. It’s unfortunate. So many factors come into play. What are our needs, and what are our luxuries.”
I think he's looking at these extra 20 scholarships the wrong way. This is about giving yourself a chance to have practice team players like the NFL who can be called up to the active roster in a pinch. These scholarships should be used for people who will be happy to have the full ride and no NIL. Sure, they're not bluechips you want to be playing but they know your scheme and would probably be starting at some G6 programs.
Essentially, some scenario where you have a short-term OL injury (a game or two) and the true freshman behind the starter isn't ready to play because he's so far behind technically that he's a liability to the whole offense. Instead, you can throw some senior practice team guy out there with a lower skill ceiling but does not frick up the protections.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 8:19 am to HTX Horn
While making valid points....you will get torched on here because, this is the rant...and, well....you're Texas. 
Appreciate the post, regardless.
Appreciate the post, regardless.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 8:29 am to HTX Horn
You want to fix it? Go back to the old transfer portal system where a player had to sit out a season if he transferred to another school. The money part would go away. Nobody will want to pay a player that has to sit out a season.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 8:38 am to gaius julius bevo
quote:
I get that there's a cap on the revenue sharing pool. That said it's troubling if Texas boosters keep their powder dry with NIL.
I'd actually go the opposite way, if even TEXAS is too broke to play then it's probably time to reign it in a little.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 2:04 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
105 players makes absolutely zero sense and such a dumb move by NCAA/SEC
With 85 you already have like 10-15-20 players who basically dont play the whole season or play some mop up snaps here or there
Agreed. Never understood how they even managed 85. 85 freaking players at practice. Now with 105 that's almost 5-deep at every position.
Just not sure how you even manage that on a practice field logistically. And lowering the coach:player ratio certainly won't help with development.
And no one can simply stock load talent anymore.
As others have suggested I suppose it will allow you to bring in some 2-3 stars, try to help them develop, and have a little more depth (or maybe find that diamond in the rough).
But even if you could pay all 105 of them I still don't understand how you manage that many bodies without it affecting reps.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 2:35 pm to ColtTiger247
quote:
Sounds like sark is several cockxxxxs deep.
FIFY
Posted on 12/31/25 at 2:37 pm to rebeloke
Oh look, another game where Sark doesn't have his team ready to play. He needs to concentrate on coaching not whining.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News