Wonder what $$ was

Any star player that has eligibility left is not smart if they are not looking around. Especially those that play on the team that wins the NC. Once you've done that, money should be numero uno from that point forward imo.

people are claiming 4 million

but most of that could be in Miami sponsorships

He will do well against ACC defenses

$4 mil

The Fox affiliate in Miami reports that UM's contract with Carson Beck is a one year, $4 M deal. As perspective, former second round pick Will Levis made $950,000 base as Tennessee Titans starting QB this season.

— Barry Jackson (@flasportsbuzz) January 10, 2025

Hill08 said:

---

Wonder what $$ was

---

I think it's time for you to quit following college football since all you talk about is your disdain for NIL. Either accept it and shut up about it or find something else to do.

FarmersFight95 said:

---

So by your logic-- should only positive, supporting comments be allowed on sites like this?

Direct us to which websites we should post negative, dissenting comments on, please.

---

Not at all. When you constantly just make comments about NIL and how much you hate players getting paid, it's just tiring. It's the same ol' sht. Get some new material.

Good for him.

Hill08 said:

---

concac said:

---

FarmersFight95 said:

---

So by your logic-- should only positive, supporting comments be allowed on sites like this?

Direct us to which websites we should post negative, dissenting comments on, please.

---

Not at all. When you constantly just make comments about NIL and how much you hate players getting paid, it's just tiring. It's the same ol' sht. Get some new material.

---

What part of my post was critical of him getting paid? Sounds like your dumbarse is the one with issues. Great post, beatch

---

LOL, your act is so transparent. Sip troll.

It was just reported Miami offered 10M. Damn.

And it's very likely not accurate

vander54 said:

---

And it's very likely not accurate

---

About as accurate as Beck is.

concac said:

---

Hill08 said:

---

concac said:

---

FarmersFight95 said:

---

So by your logic-- should only positive, supporting comments be allowed on sites like this?

Direct us to which websites we should post negative, dissenting comments on, please.

---

Not at all. When you constantly just make comments about NIL and how much you hate players getting paid, it's just tiring. It's the same ol' sht. Get some new material.

---

What part of my post was critical of him getting paid? Sounds like your dumbarse is the one with issues. Great post, beatch

---

LOL, your act is so transparent. Sip troll.

---

You don't like his post so he's a sip troll. Surely you're more creative than that.

Pot meet kettle

vander54 said:

---

Pot meet kettle

---

Never called anyone a sip troll, but I understand if you don't like being called Vanderpumper. The shoe fits. So wear it.

PS. When will the next "massive get" come from the portal?

Your response is always vanderpumper. That's not original. And Wallace is a SR proven productive 4 star WR. That's massive when we need experience productive WR v

Sorry it's not negative like you love so much.

If we land him that would be 4 top 20 transfer WR. That's a great haul.

Quote:

---

This was about muff, not cash.

---

Where there's cash, there's muff.

CB, '67

vander54 said:

---

Your response is always vanderpumper. That's not original. And Wallace is a SR proven productive 4 star WR. That's massive when we need experience productive WR v

Sorry it's not negative like you love so much.

If we land him that would be 4 top 20 transfer WR. That's a great haul.

---

I didn't know other people called you Vanderpumper, but that's utterly unsurprising.

Denver Harris was the #2 rated player in the 2023 portal. Was he a "massive get" for LSU? Was Hudson a "massive get" for us now that it looks like he may not even play?

You bring good recruiting information to the board, but your complete absence of objectivity ruins it.

And you bring nothing to the board and your complete negativity only makes it worse.

Also Harris was a high risk high reward transfer. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't

But Wallace isnt Harris

vander54 said:

---

And you bring nothing to the board and your complete negativity only makes it worse.

Also Harris was a high risk high reward transfer. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't

But Wallace isnt Harris

---

Objectivity is not negativity, but I get that you can't understand that.

Your illogic is equally impressive. Harris (#2 overall in the portal) was merely "high risk, high reward", whereas Craver, our #40 player (13th receiver…LOL) and Hudson (who has stepped away from football) were "massive gets".

Craver is the 42 overall and 13 best WR. That's a very good portal pick up. Especially since he's not our best WR pick up.

Also as a true freshmen playing in only 8 games he would have been our second best receiver last year.

Hudson cannot be counted on right now but he's still at school and the thought is he will be back. At this point he's a high risk high reward WR. Although i guess technically he's not a high risk because we can just move on if need be.

And another thing you are one of the least objective posters here. Everything is negative to you. That's not objective.

As for me I have said our offense outside of TE should be improved but our defense is a huge concern. Especially secondaty and DL, mainly DT.

vander54 said:

---

Craver is the 42 overall and 13 best WR. That's a very good portal pick up. Especially since he's not our best WR pick up.

Also as a true freshmen playing in only 8 games he would have been our second best receiver last year.

Hudson cannot be counted on right now but he's still at school and the thought is he will be back. At this point he's a high risk high reward WR. Although i guess technically he's not a high risk because we can just move on if need be.

And another thing you are one of the least objective posters here. Everything is negative to you. That's not objective.

As for me I have said our offense outside of TE should be improved but our defense is a huge concern. Especially secondaty and DL, mainly DT.

---

Wilson (UH): 11 catches; 118 yards; 2 seasons
Craver (MST): 17 catches; 368 yards; 3 rushes; 7 yards
Hudson (TT): stepped away from football immediately after joining us
Concepcion (NCST): regressed as a sophomore where he had 460 total yards receiving

These guys come from scrub schools and have utterly unimpressive statistics. That's objective.

You call them "massive gets" and are giddy about our WR haul. I'm unimpressed and I find it hard to believe they're going to help us beat Texas, ND, Bama, Georgia, etc.

All that said, I don't object to taking any of them. We're absolutely desperate and desperate times call for desperate measures. I just don't see the need or benefit of not calling it like it is.

I never included Wilson

Also Craver is an upgrade

Concepcion statistically took a step back in 2024. If you look at NC State this year vs last year you would see he was the guy last year and had over 3 times the yards of the next closest WR (839 vs 247) and only 2 receivers had over 20 receptions. KC had 71 and the next had 24. This year they had 5 guys all range from 314-661 yards. They actually spread the ball around a lot this year but he led the team in receptions (24-53). He's an experienced WR that is the #6 WR in the portal. That's a huge pick up.

Hudson is big on talent and potential but I did not expect him to start next year.

Wallace would be at the very least equal to Thomas but we haven't landed him yet.

Overall we have upgraded our WR room and are not done yet.

But again you ALWAYS are looking for the negative and never acknowledge anything positive or potential.

And massive is a realative term. We need talented/experienced WR and we're landing them. That is massive considering it was our weakest position.

vander54 said:

---

I never included Wilson

Also Craver is an upgrade

Concepcion statistically took a step back in 2024. If you look at NC State this year vs last year you would see he was the guy last year and had over 3 times the yards of the next closest WR (839 vs 247) and only 2 receivers had over 20 receptions. KC had 71 and the next had 24. This year they had 5 guys all range from 314-661 yards. They actually spread the ball around a lot this year but he led the team in receptions (24-53). He's an experienced WR that is the #6 WR in the portal. That's a huge pick up.

Hudson is big on talent and potential but I did not expect him to start next year.

Wallace would be at the very least equal to Thomas but we haven't landed him yet.

Overall we have upgraded our WR room and are not done yet.

But again you ALWAYS are looking for the negative and never acknowledge anything positive or potential.

And massive is a realative term. We need talented/experienced WR and we're landing them. That is massive considering it was our weakest position.

---

I quoted their stats. That's as objective as one can be and they all stunk. Adding a 4'-1" guy to a team of 4'-0" midgets is not an "upgrade" that's going to beat Texas, ND, Georgia, Bama, etc.

Quoting stats is not objective. Quoting stats is informative.

Also stats are great but easily misleading if you do not have the entire data set.


And one more thing which WR would you take from the portal since ours didn't produce and are scrubs?

vander54 said:

---

Quoting stats is not objective. Quoting stats is informative.

---

LOL. You're beyond help.

Here's what AI says:

A true statistic is objective, not merely informative. Here's why:
Objective: A true statistic is based on measurable, verifiable data, independent of personal feelings, opinions, or biases. It represents facts as they are, without interpretation or manipulation.
Informative: While a statistic can provide useful information, its primary nature is objective. How informative it is depends on the context and how it's used, but its truth remains grounded in objectivity.

For example, "Kevin Concepcion had 71 receptions in 2023" is an objective fact, while its informative value depends on how it's interpreted (e.g., compared to other players).

Never mind this arguement is really dumb

In the end you are one of the most negative poster on this site and rarely objective.

You are either a troll, not an Aggie fan, or just a completely misserable person.

vander54 said:

---

Actual definition

Objective: 1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Informative:
providing useful or interesting information.

Just stating facts is informative adding opinion or direction would make it objective. Uou are always negative and never look at all the facts. That is not objective.

But this is getting beyond silly and really rather dumb.

---

Wrong again. Stats are "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions" and, therefore, objective. Your definition. Likewise, something "useful or interesting" is subjective and, therefore, the opposite of objective. Your definition, again.

Don't take it hard. It's probably not fair to expect a sunshine pumper to understand objectivity.

vander54 said:

---

Never mind this arguement is really dumb

In the end you are one of the most negative poster on this site and rarely objective.

You are either a troll, not an Aggie fan, or just a completely misserable person.

---

I don't blame you for deleting your post. At least staff didn't have to bail you out this time. For what it's worth, I don't mean to offend you. I like the raw recruiting info you bring to the site, it's just the sunshine pumping that comes along with it that I take issue with, which at the end of the day serves the purpose of the board to foster discussion among people with different perspectives.

No offense it's just really dumb argument

But again stop speaking like you're objective. You're one of the least objective posters here.

Also I have never said these guys will be our savior but they are some of the best in the portal and that is objectively massive considering our needs.