I’ll do a take off and you can maybe add something to this.

I’ve wondered if the Rice model has had any affect on their thinking (I could say Stanford or Vanderbilt, but Rice is closer). Smart kids with talent can accomplish a lot if they have an effective model (offense and defense). I suspect they learn quicker, adapt faster and make fewer mistakes; throw in degrees of emotional maturity and you spend more time directly on football and not on extraneous crap or endlessly correcting the same thing. With the capacity to choose a might wider field than probably all three of those schools put together, Texas might be on to something. I wonder if Major might have had something to do with this.

There’s no doubt we have a talent edge on most teams we play – this could add another kind of edge. The modern game is getting faster and more complex all the time; i.e., edging toward the pro game more and more. But we’re never going to have pro level talent all over the field. Some, but certainly not all. But you can strive for the best combo of athleticism, brains and maturity.

Some schools might opt for the purely athletically gifted. I can see getting linebackers that would scare the bejeesus out of normal people, mean, nasty fatherrapers and motherstabbers. But that does not insure that these same players won’t make critical mistakes on the field. Or off the field. Efficiency is the name of the new game.

Just a thought. Over time schools try to gain an edge; OU at one time went after post WWII GIs and built a dynasty, then did the same with blacks when that recruitment opened up in the early 70s. Some like ND and USC, and for a while, Miami, get pipelines of talent. Some like Florida get the hot coach with the cutting edge system, like DKR with the wishbone.

Are we staring at the beginning of different kind of edge?

Just wondering.