Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Mavric

      The 2018 HuskerBoard Starting Lineup   01/17/2018

      The 2018 HuskerBoard Starting Lineup is now live! Click HERE to read the rules, and look in the Contest Crib for nomination and voting threads throughout the next several weeks.   This is a great opportunity to say "thanks!" to your fellow HuskerBoard members for keeping you informed or entertained throughout the past year. Nominate your favorite HuskerBoard member today!
Kiyoat Husker

Challenges to a robust walk-on program in 2017

Recommended Posts

What are everyone's thoughts on the changes in college football that have made having a big, contributing walk-on program at Nebraska more difficult?

 

What can be done to get around these obstacles?  I feel like HCSF sounded determined to make it happen, and i tend to believe that he will try.  T.O. always seemed to be good at finding creative solutions to Nebraska's disadvantages.  How is Nebraska going to convince players NOT to take advantage of scholarship opportunities?  Are NCAA rules about number of coaches and practice time an obstacle?  How about "volunteer" coaches?

 

Or is it just as simple as the fact that past coaches just didn't "get it"?

 

Even Frank started the trend of a smaller walk-on program, IIRC.

Edited by Kiyoat Husker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of challenges that make having the same type of walk-on program we used to have hard in 2017.

 

Kids can go get a scholarship at other schools, still be on TV and still be a part of an exciting program.  Also, one of the biggest obstacles is the cost of education.  You are basically asking a kid to give up over $20,000 per year just to walk on at Nebraska over going to another school where he has a better chance at playing time.  That's a big difference from in the 80s when I was in school.

 

Now, how is that fixed?  It's not going to be fixed totally.  It's not going to be like it used to be.  We are still going to lose kids to other schools because they want the scholarship.  However, I think this is where winning helps with in state kids.  If we were a dominant program, someone like Fant would be much more interested in coming to Nebraska than Iowa.  Sure, he would have received a scholarship, but there are a number of players like him who got scholarships elsewhere and took them.  If we are winning championships, maybe some of the kids that go to South Dakota State walk on if their family can afford the education.

 

Now, I am a little confused about something.  We have had a number of walk-ons get playing time the last 5-10 years.  Every year there's some on the field.  So, I'm not sure why people think it's being under utilized or disrespected by the coaching staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my thoughts on the walk-on program.

 

1.  It is more difficult to get kids to walk-on in today's environment.  College is getting more and more expensive every year, and with numerous colleges nearby going to the D-1 FCS level, kids still like to say "I am a D-1 scholarship athlete".  That said, I still think the walk-on program can be effective.

2.  I think all of the coaches post-Solich have struggled to manage the walk-on program.  Yes, there were players under all the regimes that came through as walk-ons and excelled, but I think Callahan, Bo, and Riley preferred to have a smaller roster to manage.  Callahan wanted hardly any walk-ons, Bo increased that a bit, and Riley kept it around the same as Bo, or a little lower.

3.  I think where the walk-on program can excel is if the coaches can use the walk-ons to push the players in practice.  If the new coaching staff is able to run 2 practice stations simultaneously, this means less standing around and more work getting done by everyone.  The key is for the coaches to treat all the players on the roster the same, regardless of whether they are a 4-star recruit or a walk-on from Podunk-town, Nebraska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

If the new coaching staff is able to run 2 practice stations simultaneously, this means less standing around and more work getting done by everyone. 

 

 

This is huge and an area where the 10th  coach should be able to help with.

 

How in the hell do you expect any player, especially a walk-on to improve by just watching?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be interested to see if some of our large non-coach football staff can somehow help manage a larger group of walk-ons without running afoul of the NCAA.  I have no idea what all the specifics are with regard to those rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what BRB and ColoradoHusk have said. It just can't be today what it used to be but if managed correctly can still have value to the program. There is just no way to run multiple station practices like they did in the 90's with the reduced numbers. The thing that will help the walk on situation the most is winning and getting back to where a majority of the in state kids really want to be a Husker. I doubt there are too many of those kids currently who dream of playing for Nebraska. It hasn't been a desirous deal for a long time and it will take awhile to get it back to that point. Winning will help but still with the reduced numbers and cost of college it just can't be what it was but I think Frost will find a way to make it as advantageous as is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Exactly what those sacrifices are remains to be seen, but there are Title IX implications that could come into play if NU wants to raise the total number of athletes in a male sport like football.

 

“I’ve got to get a feel for where we are right now in regards to compliance to the gender equity piece,” Moos said. “I liked the concept of the walk-on piece. How high we can raise that cap, we’re going to have to explore. I have on two occasions spent a good deal of time with Tom Osborne talking about his philosophy on that subject back in the days that he was coaching and it’s very, very interesting. It has, in the past, been very successful.

 

“It’s something Scott wants to explore and I do as well.”

 

LJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

LJS

I think first thing they’re looking at is obviously what they’re doing now, what it realistically could be and how could they make it better...if they truly believe they can get it back to what it was with huge numbers roster wise like the 90s then title IX would come into play as far as numbers. It’s not just scholarship but number of female and male athletes total. They would have to think of a women’s sport to add or force women’s programs to add walk ons themselves. You may see other men’s sports force to reduce numbers but that’s aboit it. It would be a really bad deal if they cut a men’s program for a reason like this but that’s probably not even in their thinking because it would be a really bad look in the eyes of the big ten and even our state. I think simply the cost of college nowadays vs then is just going to make it very hard to make the walk on program what it was however it can still be great and I believe frost will make it great again. It doesn’t need to be 200 people to be great just keep the good talent in the state home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize that walkons counted towards title IX numbers.  That definitely qualifies as an obstacle.  When coach Frost talked about sacrifices, I assumed he meant players turning down scholarships at other schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to the Ringer's GM Street this past week, and they brought up SF at Nebraska. Mike Lombardi started talking about the walk on program back when TO was HC, and basically said their walk on's had financial funding for college through sponsorships from different entities (not being the university) in the state. Any knowledge about this or is Lombardi just blowing smoke ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest issue for Nebraska is the fact that North Dakota State, South Dakota State, South Dakota and North Dakota aren't D-II schools anymore. NDSU and SDSU are FCS powerhouses. USD made the playoffs this year. 

 

Nebraska has 1.9 million people. North Dakota and South Dakota both have less than 900,000 people. It sounds weird, but those teams recruiting in Nebraska is like Oklahoma or Kansas recruiting in Texas. 

 

Each situation is different, but a lot of kids wouldn't turn down a full-ride scholarship for an elite FCS school to spend 80 grand walking on at Nebraska. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HerbieHancock said:

I was listening to the Ringer's GM Street this past week, and they brought up SF at Nebraska. Mike Lombardi started talking about the walk on program back when TO was HC, and basically said their walk on's had financial funding for college through sponsorships from different entities (not being the university) in the state. Any knowledge about this or is Lombardi just blowing smoke ?

He is blowing smoke, another regurgitation of the County Scholarship myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hans Gruber said:

I think the biggest issue for Nebraska is the fact that North Dakota State, South Dakota State, South Dakota and North Dakota aren't D-II schools anymore. NDSU and SDSU are FCS powerhouses. USD made the playoffs this year. 

 

Nebraska has 1.9 million people. North Dakota and South Dakota both have less than 900,000 people. It sounds weird, but those teams recruiting in Nebraska is like Oklahoma or Kansas recruiting in Texas. 

 

Each situation is different, but a lot of kids wouldn't turn down a full-ride scholarship for an elite FCS school to spend 80 grand walking on at Nebraska. 

 

Excellent point. The number of schools moving up in divisions has risen drastically since the 90s. There are a lot of scholarship opportunities these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Hans Gruber said:

I think the biggest issue for Nebraska is the fact that North Dakota State, South Dakota State, South Dakota and North Dakota aren't D-II schools anymore. NDSU and SDSU are FCS powerhouses. USD made the playoffs this year. 

 

Nebraska has 1.9 million people. North Dakota and South Dakota both have less than 900,000 people. It sounds weird, but those teams recruiting in Nebraska is like Oklahoma or Kansas recruiting in Texas. 

 

Each situation is different, but a lot of kids wouldn't turn down a full-ride scholarship for an elite FCS school to spend 80 grand walking on at Nebraska. 

39 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

Excellent point. The number of schools moving up in divisions has risen drastically since the 90s. There are a lot of scholarship opportunities these days.

 

This is precisely why NU missed a golden opportunity to schedule NDSU for an upcoming season.  Instead, we chickened out and scheduled SDSU (which is just as good as NDSU), and UND.  The only way to knock those I-AA schools down a peg(I won't call them FCS) is to slap them around and remind them of who they are.  Until they do, they will keep getting stronger.

Edited by Husker NoNo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hans Gruber said:

Each situation is different, but a lot of kids wouldn't turn down a full-ride scholarship for an elite FCS school to spend 80 grand walking on at Nebraska. 

 

I love my Huskers as much as anyone and my boys are starting to follow suit. But I can not imagine, in good conscience, encouraging them to take on near $100k in debt so they can walk on at Nebraska if they're offered a scholarship literally anywhere else. I have no idea how you overcome that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Husker NoNo said:

 

 

This is precisely why NU missed a golden opportunity to schedule NDSU for an upcoming season.  Instead, we chickened out and scheduled SDSU (which is just as good as NDSU), and UND.  The only way to knock those I-AA schools down a peg(I won't call them FCS) is to slap them around and remind them of who they are.  Until they do, they will keep getting stronger.

 

Does this mean Iowa gets Tanner Lee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of getting the roster to huge sizes again with every team captain from small town America on the squad is not the answer. Just get the best in state players and as many as you can to walk on instead of going to NDSU for example and be happy with that. It won’t be what it used to be! NEBRASKA IS 20k a year in state and ALMOST 40k out of state!!!  The Dakota schools and Wyoming while nothing close to Nebraska have some value to them now because of that.

Edited by huskerhead59

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the walk on program is strong again and not to be negative but I just don’t see it being what it was. Back when college wasn’t so expensive Walking on at Nebraska had value that was higher than accepting a scholarship at NDSU.  Now you can’t argue that. If you think of it as the money you’re paying and the value you’re getting than it’s tough for kids to accept a walk on spot at Nebraska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing talk about trying to get the walk-on program "back" what would everyone's definition of "back" be? It's almost as nebulous as saying Nebraska is "back"

 

Anyway, are we talking about sheer # of walk-ons? 

The effectiveness of those who do walk on? 

 

A sentiment held by many here saying that the walk on program "Will never be what it once was" so....what would be a reasonable improvement in your eyes? 

 

Personally I would like to see just an enormous roster and the almost mythical stories of what practices under TO used to be like come about again, but even at 105 that's 20 walk-ons, the article I read said Riley mentioned 135...whether or not it ever hit that I don't know. 

 

The only thing I DON'T want to see (and I doubt I will anytime soon) is seeing guys get cut who were walk-on's like when Callahan took over. I was still on Cally kool-aid at that point, but even then as the news interviewed guys leaving the stadium it made me pause. 

Edited by RunMickeyRun02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing to consider is the toll head injuries are taking on the sport and the amount of kids that are choosing to walk away from football. That wasn't the case back int he 90s, every kid wanted to play football in college. I think there are more and more kids saying I didn't get a big time scholarship maybe it's time to hang up the cleats instead of walking on. I know several guys who went and played NAIA and FCS levels. Almost all of them regretted it because they had next to no chance to move on, it took up almost all their time, they had opportunities for non-athletic scholarships they turned down and it took a big toll on their bodies. I think there may be more top athletes who also excel in the classroom walking away from football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

LJS

I'm having a hard time understanding what the Title IV issue is.  I thought that was basically just number of scholarships that affects that.  So, if 10 kids walk-on to the football program, that shouldn't affect Title IV.

 

What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm having a hard time understanding what the Title IV issue is.  I thought that was basically just number of scholarships that affects that.  So, if 10 kids walk-on to the football program, that shouldn't affect Title IV.

 

What am I missing?

 

I'm a bit confused by that as well.  I also thought it was mainly number of scholarships.  But apparently there also must be some consideration to all the other expenses that go into the program.  I hadn't heard that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I'm a bit confused by that as well.  I also thought it was mainly number of scholarships.  But apparently there also must be some consideration to all the other expenses that go into the program.  I hadn't heard that before.

I think its an indirect impact.  Before, it was much easier to walk on with the hope of earning a scholarship at some-point during the 4 year tenure.  Nowadays with the 85 limit, the majority, if not all of those schollys entering the year are used by high school signees.  Because of the hard cap that prevents big time schools from hoarding D1 level players within the walk on program, players in that situation elect to go to other/lesser schools for more playing time and guaranteed scholarship

Edited by gossamorharpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Title IX implications are the biggest obstacle at the moment.  For every male athlete at the university which includes walk-ons.  There has to be an equivalent female athlete.  So if they add 20 more walk-ons to bring the roster up to 155 from the 135. (which is already 50 walk-ons!!!).  They would need to find room for 20 more female athletes somewhere in the university.

 

 

It isn't just as simple as we'll take 85 walk-ons in addition to the 85 scholarship players and the walk-on program is Fixed!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the 130-140 range is more than enough athletes for a football team.  That goes about 6 deep at each position (assuming all positions are equal, which they are not, but you get the point)

 

4 deep of scholarship players, and 2 walkons at each position.

 

Edited by soup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Q. How is Title IX applied to athletics? 

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics: 

  1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                          
  2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                          
  3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

NCAA FAQ

 

It does only require equal scholarships, not necessarily equal number of players. However, if you look at the "Other Benefits" section you have to have equal access to "recruitment of student-athletes." Obviously walk-ons are recruited and this is open to interpretation so I imagine that is where the concern comes in. They have to make sure the walk-on program is applied equally across the board in resources spent on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard AD BM on the radio Wednesday night where he actually mention this, IRCC he used the term "squad list", I would say "roster spot".  I think Title IX is worded something like " athletic opportunities" so roster spots would count no matter whether financial aid is involved.  I do recall that roster spots do not have to be equal but must match the male/female ratio in the general student population.  Which actually is creating a problem because  because more and more women are going to college and the ratio is constantly changing in favor of the women. I am going to actually count the number of people on the roster of the various teams and see what we have.  For example there are more than 50 women listed on the track and field team.

 

Personally, I think 45-50 walk-on's would be ideal.  They would mainly be practice fodder, but it would allow the players on the three deep, the ones who would play on Saturday, to get live reps against people while running their offense/defense.   During the fall your time is spent getting ready for your next opponent.  Breaking down the numbers, 85 scholarships, four deep offense and defense.  The 4's are the practice squad. They provide the opponent's plays and defensive looks for the 1's.  Without more walk-on's the 3's have to play the opponent's for the 2's therefore the 3's get no reps of our plays and sets or if the switch roles they get half of the 2's reps.  With 20 more walk-on's the 2's have their own practice squad and the 3's stand around therefore, 45-50 walk-on's would be ideal.  When I say live reps I don't mean "tackle to the ground" just cases where you need opponents that run and react to what you are doing.

 

Husker56 beat me to the post.  Some good info there.

Edited by Old Nebraska Guy
update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

LJS

My thinking is add 20 walk-ons and another dance team ........ Boom   Win Win. Or perhaps set up some more walk-on bowling opportunities (hey great coach it may work).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Old Nebraska Guy said:

I heard AD BM on the radio Wednesday night where he actually mention this, IRCC he used the term "squad list", I would say "roster spot".  I think Title IX is worded something like " athletic opportunities" so roster spots would count no matter whether financial aid is involved.  I do recall that roster spots do not have to be equal but must match the male/female ratio in the general student population.  Which actually is creating a problem because  because more and more women are going to college and the ratio is constantly changing in favor of the women. I am going to actually count the number of people on the roster of the various teams and see what we have.  For example there are more than 50 women listed on the track and field team.

 

Personally, I think 45-50 walk-on's would be ideal.  They would mainly be practice fodder, but it would allow the players on the three deep, the ones who would play on Saturday, to get live reps against people while running their offense/defense.   During the fall your time is spent getting ready for your next opponent.  Breaking down the numbers, 85 scholarships, four deep offense and defense.  The 4's are the practice squad. They provide the opponent's plays and defensive looks for the 1's.  Without more walk-on's the 3's have to play the opponent's for the 2's therefore the 3's get no reps of our plays and sets or if the switch roles they get half of the 2's reps.  With 20 more walk-on's the 2's have their own practice squad and the 3's stand around therefore, 45-50 walk-on's would be ideal.  When I say live reps I don't mean "tackle to the ground" just cases where you need opponents that run and react to what you are doing.

 

Husker56 beat me to the post.  Some good info there.

FYI - the walk on program for the last ten years has had around 50 walkons on the roster.  Riley just this season had 135 total athletes on the team, and not all 85 scholarships were filled, so that is 50 plus walkons this year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...reading the comments, it seems many folks are missing the mark on why and how the past walk on program worked for Osborne..

 

..many have posted comments along the lines and premise of  “harder to get players that could get scholarships somewhere else”..

 

..that’s exactly the area Osborne and McBride excelled in..spotting talent, and specifically un recruitments talent..example, Jared Tomich, he was not recruited out of HS, however Osborne amd McBride and theor insane level of intuition got him in as a walk on...amd if your 40 or older you know how Jared Tomich developed..and where he ended up..NFL..

 

there were about 31 NFL players that went un recruited out of HS and went Huskers via walk on program..

 

..that’s the key, Frost and company has to have the calibrated eyeball to spot young men that are not recruited...Time will tell if he can do. I’m persuaded that skill in its entirety can’t be taught..

 

..also, I observe folks have a way of propagating ideas and things they heard someone else say, without their own cerebral thought put to what they propagating..and what I hear often is many say “how much college football has changed.”...premise...really..? I know all about the scholarship changes by the NCAA and other minutia...however the game has NOT changed my friends..then field is same length and width, still block tackle, run and catch..

 

..I’m so sick of hearing the i formation and/or Osborne type offense wouldn’t work in today’s “sophisticated “ CFB world..it blows my mind someone could throw out such a definitive statement based on absolutely nothing but ambiguity ideas...

 

..I’m persuaded now is the perfect time to run that type offensive plan..that’s a different topic

 

i got sidetracked..it boils down to what no staff has done well at since Osborne left, and that’s develop athletes, that  will decided how much and to what extent the walk on programs helps.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of the scholarship issue, I think the biggest problem is this: quality.

 

I feel this gets lost in the weeds far too often. T.O. and his staff were so talented and managed their system so well that they could take a not-so-talented Nebraska kid and turn him into an All-American. I feel confident saying many of the kids they took were not diamonds in the rough with incredible potential. There's a reason a lot of those kids were ignored by bigger programs.

 

T.O. had the system, the know-how and the years of depth building to make it all possible. It also didn't hurt that high school programs around the state were running variations of T.O.'s offense.

 

Being a winner also helps. If Frost can turn the program around and reshape the Monday through Friday system (which I think will be one of the most significant changes he implements as a coach) then I feel confident saying the walk-on program could be primed to have a bigger role than recent decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Depressed Husker said:

...reading the comments, it seems many folks are missing the mark on why and how the past walk on program worked for Osborne..

 

..many have posted comments along the lines and premise of  “harder to get players that could get scholarships somewhere else”..

 

..that’s exactly the area Osborne and McBride excelled in..spotting talent, and specifically un recruitments talent..example, Jared Tomich, he was not recruited out of HS, however Osborne amd McBride and theor insane level of intuition got him in as a walk on...amd if your 40 or older you know how Jared Tomich developed..and where he ended up..NFL..

 

there were about 31 NFL players that went un recruited out of HS and went Huskers via walk on program..

 

..that’s the key, Frost and company has to have the calibrated eyeball to spot young men that are not recruited...Time will tell if he can do. I’m persuaded that skill in its entirety can’t be taught..

 

..also, I observe folks have a way of propagating ideas and things they heard someone else say, without their own cerebral thought put to what they propagating..and what I hear often is many say “how much college football has changed.”...premise...really..? I know all about the scholarship changes by the NCAA and other minutia...however the game has NOT changed my friends..then field is same length and width, still block tackle, run and catch..

 

..I’m so sick of hearing the i formation and/or Osborne type offense wouldn’t work in today’s “sophisticated “ CFB world..it blows my mind someone could throw out such a definitive statement based on absolutely nothing but ambiguity ideas...

 

..I’m persuaded now is the perfect time to run that type offensive plan..that’s a different topic

 

i got sidetracked..it boils down to what no staff has done well at since Osborne left, and that’s develop athletes, that  will decided how much and to what extent the walk on programs helps.

 

 

 

Tomich maybe isn't the best example to use.  He was a walk-on only because he was a Prop 48 which largely killed any recruiting interest he had coming out of HS.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Enhance said:

Outside of the scholarship issue, I think the biggest problem is this: quality.

 

I feel this gets lost in the weeds far too often. T.O. and his staff were so talented and managed their system so well that they could take a not-so-talented Nebraska kid and turn him into an All-American. I feel confident saying many of the kids they took were not diamonds in the rough with incredible potential. There's a reason a lot of those kids were ignored by bigger programs.

 

T.O. had the system, the know-how and the years of depth building to make it all possible. It also didn't hurt that high school programs around the state were running variations of T.O.'s offense.

 

Being a winner also helps. If Frost can turn the program around and reshape the Monday through Friday system (which I think will be one of the most significant changes he implements as a coach) then I feel confident saying the walk-on program could be primed to have a bigger role than recent decades.

 

I think you really hit the nail on the head Enhance in regards to the offensive system.  I graduated HS in the late 90s and it seemed like half the teams we played against ran some kind of option or veer scheme, my team personally did a mix of wishbone and I formation.  If the high schools can somewhat align in terms of running a similar offensive system of what Frost does (which I know is significantly easier said than done) than we might start to see Nebraska have a resurgence in local O-linemen as they've already been coached on some of the concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Xmas32 said:

 

I think you really hit the nail on the head Enhance in regards to the offensive system.  I graduated HS in the late 90s and it seemed like half the teams we played against ran some kind of option or veer scheme, my team personally did a mix of wishbone and I formation.  If the high schools can somewhat align in terms of running a similar offensive system of what Frost does (which I know is significantly easier said than done) than we might start to see Nebraska have a resurgence in local O-linemen as they've already been coached on some of the concepts.

 

I would think that Frost's system (simplified) would work well in Nebraska HS football.  There are big linemen in Nebraska, just not every team has a full line of them.  So, I would think that a more spread out offense would work with teams that have good athletes, just not a big over powering line.  It would benefit the good athletes that teams have.

 

I'm told that it's a relatively simple system also.  It's not like a bunch of rout trees and rout options that you have to be next to an NFL QB to understand.  So, the limited practice time HSs have could make this work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I would think that Frost's system (simplified) would work well in Nebraska HS football.  There are big linemen in Nebraska, just not every team has a full line of them.  So, I would think that a more spread out offense would work with teams that have good athletes, just not a big over powering line.  It would benefit the good athletes that teams have.

 

I'm told that it's a relatively simple system also.  It's not like a bunch of rout trees and rout options that you have to be next to an NFL QB to understand.  So, the limited practice time HSs have could make this work.

Bellevue West runs a basic version of the Frost offense, and they have been one of the best NE high school teams in the past few years.  Matt Turman's dad, who coaches at Wahoo-Neumann basically said that he think's Frost's offense is great, and would probably switch to it, but he's too old to do it (ha!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2017 at 10:35 PM, HerbieHancock said:

I was listening to the Ringer's GM Street this past week, and they brought up SF at Nebraska. Mike Lombardi started talking about the walk on program back when TO was HC, and basically said their walk on's had financial funding for college through sponsorships from different entities (not being the university) in the state. Any knowledge about this or is Lombardi just blowing smoke ?

Just BS.   Just like the legendary "county scholarships' that NU once upon a time was noted for that said that every one of Nebraska's 93 counties sent their best football player to NU on a scholarship to represent the county.   Never happened but it was about as widely believed as Trump Russia collusion.  LOL

 

The walk on program is going to have to be limited or it will return to what it was under Frank as opposed to what it was in the 60 and 70s and 80s.   College at UNL was not nearly as expensive back then relative to wages etc.  People's living standards the past decade have just plummeted and living paycheck to paycheck (plus a credit card balance still climbing)  has to change if you are going to find 90 good football players to walk on to NU when there are many good colleges that will provide scholarship aid.  Solich kept up the numbers but he had to let guys walk on who had absolutely no chance of ever being a D1 level football player.  There is no sense in having that many if they are not capable of contributing.  Wasting their time and the time of other players and coaches too - and they cost money to outfit, medicate, etc.  Not to mention the TITLE 9 discrimination issues.   

The solution is to allow women to be eligible to play football.  Then the numbers will not be a problem.   I don't think the number of women matter but that they are able to participate.  We could form a women's rugby team or mud wrestling would be popular.  (basically water down the rugby field before every game and u got the best of both).  lol 

Edited by 84HuskerLaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

their walk on's had financial funding for college through sponsorships from different entities (not being the university) in the state.

 

You mean like doing autograph signings for money?  :)

 

It seems obvious that cost of education is the real factor undermining a walk on program (and the reason I think we saw the Maverick program disbanded... same with a successful wrestling program).  Are you going to rack up to $80k or more in debt, for just a CHANCE to earn a scholarship?  Or go to another non power 5 school, with a full scholarship... so you can be guaranteed to be prepared for and go on to your lucrative non-football career later on, debt free.

 

Best you can hope for is to find a talented kid with a relatively affluent family behind them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

 

The practice issue is so, so, SO important to the development of these kids.  A walk-on isn't going to develop and prove what he can do by watching everyone else practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Crazy sad to think how we've deviated from what worked and squandered one of our resources for so long. I suppose this all started under BC and it will take a coach that played in the old era to get things back to where they should be. Had we hired anyone but SF, this probably would have continued forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone talks about taking a "free education" over a walk on.  My kid got neither option so I sent her to a school that gave her the best opportunity to get a degree that would lead to a long term career that repaid her education.

 

If my second gets a scholarship offer to play at some D-II school, I'm not going to just jump on the offer because it's free.  I'm going to see if they have any degrees with long term prospects.  There's no reason to waste her time on a free education at a smaller school if it provides a worthless degree in the long run.  Just so the University can pad it's Title IX numbers.  I'd rather her chase a worthwhile degree even if that meant passing up scholarship offers or the chance to walk on.  Life is too short to waste time getting a free social justice degree from a D-II school before figuring out you may need to go back and get a STEM degree from a larger University for real life stuff.

 

This is where I think college athletics falls on its face all too often.  Even with scholarship players, who may think it's a stepping stone to an NFL payday or a free education.  Nebraska is better then most universities at focusing on degrees and careers and life goals outside of sports, but they aren't totally immune to the scholarship player getting a degree in underwater basket weaving.

Edited by InOmaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, grandpasknee said:

Can someone explain to me what a "preferred walk-on" is versus a normal walk-on?  Not really sure what it means.  

This is a pretty good breakdown. ;)

 

Sounds like 'preferred' somewhat guarantees a spot on the 105 whereas a 'walk-on' is someone who will have to go through tryouts for a spot.

 

It also sounds like there isn't a solid consensus on what the term actually means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, InOmaha said:

If my second gets a scholarship offer to play at some D-II school, I'm not going to just jump on the offer because it's free.  I'm going to see if they have any degrees with long term prospects.  There's no reason to waste her time on a free education at a smaller school if it provides a worthless degree in the long run.  Just so the University can pad it's Title IX numbers.  I'd rather her chase a worthwhile degree even if that meant passing up scholarship offers or the chance to walk on.  Life is too short to waste time getting a free social justice degree from a D-II school before figuring out you may need to go back and get a STEM degree from a larger University for real life stuff.

 

Good points.  One other thing to factor in your decision is that the prestige of the program doesn't always translate into better, or higher paying jobs.  An engineering degree, for example, is a somewhat standardized program with excellent wage potential basically anywhere in the country.  An engineering degree from an accredited smaller school will still get you most of the same jobs as one from Purdue, Yale, or MIT.  Plus, it probably costs a lot less than those schools.  Most STEM degrees are similar in that way.

 

Careers that are more in the "Liberal Arts" or "humanities" fields are much more worthwhile to find the best schools with regard to reputation and ranking.  Here's a recent article about a study on the subject:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/does-college-matter/400898/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 2:34 PM, Xmas32 said:

 

I think you really hit the nail on the head Enhance in regards to the offensive system.  I graduated HS in the late 90s and it seemed like half the teams we played against ran some kind of option or veer scheme, my team personally did a mix of wishbone and I formation.  If the high schools can somewhat align in terms of running a similar offensive system of what Frost does (which I know is significantly easier said than done) than we might start to see Nebraska have a resurgence in local O-linemen as they've already been coached on some of the concepts.

 

One of the biggest problems with offenses and such today versus the 90's at the high school level stems from a lot of high school programs now playing eight man football.  I'm from SW NE.  There used to be a number of kids from these parts make their way onto the team.  Just about every school in these parts back in the 90's played 11 man football.  I can pretty much count on one hand the amount today that play 11 man football.  No matter how similar they try to make them, they're just different.  It takes different skills to play each.  I knew a few guys from eight man teams who tried to walk-on.  It usually didn't go well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has the best walk-on program right now? What schools are having high success with walk-on program? What's a good comparative program or a program to aspire to be like?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×