"Every cycle is different."
Since the 2022 cycle forward, NIL and the portal have combined to create an extremely complicated landscape to navigate. Texas (the Surly/Burton cabal, the AD, Sarkisian and staff, big money boosters) have solved the riddles presented in front of it each time. It hasn't been voodoo or just following the same "process". It's taken a lot of collective buy-in and hard, smart work and some luck each time.
Hell, part of why Saban quit is because he couldn't model future recruiting cycles and portal activity into his "process". I don't know how much of the details he's gone into publicly about that, but he's gone into the nitty gritty on it in private, and he's become a plaintive bitch about it.
At some point during each cycle, something has clicked for everyone involved and Sarkisian has been able to close on recruits, the current roster, and portal candidates. You can find the moments on the timelines for each period, really. Whatever the case, each cycle from July 1, 2021 forward has involved a spring/summer period of complete fucking shock. This one looks no different. I think a lot of folks are currently flatfooted by how some other programs are initial handling ramifications around House.
"Past performance does not really inform future returns."
I think this is important to note for this board, largely because there seems to be a reflexive "this is how it always goes" notion from the natives of this forum. I get it, but I'm not personally subscribing to that line of thinking. Why? Because the dynamics of this cycle are, yet again, different.
Some of the money being thrown around by other schools, whether because they can (Oregon, Michigan) or because they're desperate (USC, LSU, Florida) or because they cannot help themselves and refuse to fall behind (Ohio State, Notre Dame) is fucking shocking. This is not a case of $100k making the difference. When other offers are coming over the top of yours by more than $1M for non-QB roles, that's just flat out new.
Don't conflate some of these situations with a collective getting or staying aggressive, either. Some of this is coming through the school and not subject to the same compliance. It's "rev share" money. What happens if what's reported to be 85% of $20.5M is really $35M because the program can just do that? I haven't read the House agreement, but what I've heard and what makes sense is that if someone is washing through the rev share, no one externally is going to have the mechanisms to see or hinder that, or punish it.
So what can programs do if that's the case?
Do it as well? Not likely. Most schools cannot. The $20.5M is a huge fucking burden to get to in the first place. Other schools are just not going to take that approach. It seems pretty clear to me that Texas isn't going to do anything of that sort.
Keep building through collectives? The burden has now been lightened for boosters at places like Texas, no doubt. However, if Texas wants to reach the mountain top and stay around there, they're going to have to be honest with themselves about it, much as Ohio State and Notre Dame are currently having to be as well. Will Texas? I don't know, but I'm relatively informed and still optimistic.
"Maybe everyone is just catching up to us in NIL!?"
I feel like this anxiety needs to walk away from the keyboards of this board, if nowhere else. No one is going to "catch" a competitive advantage. There is a very small handful of schools that sit above the rest in terms of access to capital and House doesn't change that. Texas would have to choose to give that up. Is that something a totally aligned organization and its benefactors are going to let happen? It seems unlikely.
I think it is fair to think that Texas is still surveying the landscape and not making all of the moves early, but it will eventually take action and flips and surprises will fall in our favor down the line. I also think it is prudent to realize that there's risk on in this cycle that either may not happen or the calculations will be wrong, with timing being yet another factor that could work against Texas out of nowhere.
"The current season doesn't really impact the current recruiting cycle."
One final thought around all of this is that the performance within the season now matters more than ever. The old thought above this in bold is now an old trope. Money being funneled in for recruiting and roster management is some of the same money recruiting to buyout an old coaching staff and to hire a new one.
Florida's money started flowing after they decided to keep Sun Belt Billy. If that flips and they have to fund a big buyout, there will be blood with that roster and recruiting class. If USC fucks the chicken again, they likely still can't afford to buyout Riley, but that obvious future need may well close off the NIL valve and lead to serious attrition even without coaching change. These are scenarios that will play out at multiple schools before the mythical "signing day" in December.
I think Texas is going to have another amazing year on the field, so it can only benefit from the carnage within the realm of poor performance and coaching hot seats and firings.