You see heres the thing if you wont let a potential 5*come back in the class then why would you even enterain bringing in a kid who is committed to another school.
According to IT we are only taking kids who are are ALL IN!! A kid who is committed to the enemy isnt someone who is all in, IMO. Are we making an exception? Not trying to stir the pot but it seems hypocritical.
Who is the potential 5-star that won't be let back in? Unless you are talking about the kid who de-committed on a game day. If so, that may be viewed a bit differently. Kind of like finding a prettier date and breaking up with your current one (Colton) and kissing another girl while still committed to your current date (Game day decommitter). Sorry for the crude analogy, too much time in soonerville.lol
No, its not the same thing.
I dont care if the stadium is named after his daddy. Its even worse that he choose our nemesis over us, you want another Kobie McKenzie on your hands?
If we were seeing any red flags with Vasek, then I would entertain the idea that he's possibly not the best fit for what Sark is trying to build.
I have to agree here. I was back and forth between A&M and UT when selecting colleges (I hate to admit that). After going to UT I never miss a UT game and bleed burnt orange. Can't imagine wearing maroon or having gone there. Vasek in particular wanted to get out of Austin originally. I also wanted to get away from the spot I grew up in for sense of freedom and change of scenery. If he likes what he sees from the horns enough to keep him here and decides that he can still have the freedom he wants it doesn't matter who he chose previously. Loyalty and buy-in is built over time. What you don't want is someone who really wants to be at another school and has his heart somewhere else, but commits to you for the money (good luck to A&M on this front). I don't think that is the case for Vasek.
