Cost of Attendance and Football Success

[huskerfan92]

Obviously we dont have a stellar pool of in state talent like most places. Unfortunate yes. But building our walk on program back up could give us that identity or attitude we have lacked for a long time. In state kids sick of hearing how great the SEC is, sick of seeing their old mans favorite team get embarrassed by Wisconsin, hungry to compete, hungry to give more effort than the 4 star from Cali who doesnt really care.

You take your scrappy kids, I'll take my 4 star kids who may or may not care from California. We'd win 85-10.

Having said that though,the model of Nebraska kids getting huge in the S&C program, plus other,with sprinkled in talent from the coasts in skill positions is always a winner provided the coaching and S&C is.

 

[WhatDoIKnow]

I think people need to understand that the walk-on program will never be what it once was. Sure, every-so-often you will get the success story, but it's a different time.

 

[Blackshirt_Revival]

I think people do realize this, WhatDoIKnow, and I am not personally advocating a return to 90s levels. I did want to bring up an issue that I do feel gets little discussion. While we are all aware of reduced roster sizes, what else has gone into the diminishing of walk-on programs at schools like Nebraska which used to thrive on them? I realize it's not as sexy as many of our 'Fire Bo' threads (which I enjoy as much as the next guy), but I thought it would provide a good topic to discuss at this time a bit outside that realm.

An example would be if in the 90s, with everything else being the same (same 90s roster sizes), TO's teams had to contend with today's cost of attendance (on a relative scale, with every other college having to contend with this as well). Those teams likely would not have been as successful doing things the way he did to build that team. While TO probably still would have gotten plenty of kids to walk-on to Nebraska, the task of maintaining them and developing them would have been far more difficult.

Now, I'm sure TO still would have found a way to be successful, but he would have had to substantially alter a vital component of his approach. This would have had a much bigger effect on a team like Nebraska than it would have had on a Miami, a Florida, an Alabama, or a Florida State.

 

[dvdcrr]

The cost of attendance will never go down. Only up.

 

[Blackshirt_Revival]

The cost of attendance will never go down. Only up.

Yeah, I think we all get that. But as a result, Nebraska's walk-on program is likely to continue its deterioration (as well as walk-on programs at other schools) , and we will inevitably have to become more cognizant of this likelihood and find ways to adapt if it the trend continues (which seems inevitable), being a school who has traditionally leaned harder on this than others.

Some believe having a program that puts more emphasis on highly rated national recruits is the answer. Others believe more of a local recruiting and player development focus is the answer. I think most would like to see striking the proper balance of both. Nobody is necessarily right or wrong. Just a topic to consider and discuss which I feel doesn't get the attention it should.

 

[SWAMI]

This is something I have been thinking a lot about lately that has gotten little discussion. While watching one of K State's games, the commentators were discussing one of K State's defensive lineman who joined the team as a walk-on. The commentators retold a conversation with the player, about how his parents had enough to pay for him to attend the school for one year as a walk-on, and that he had one year to earn a scholarship, otherwise, he would have to find a way to pay himself or seek another school where he could earn a scholarship to play.

I am still strongly of the opinion that having as many contributors from your state/region on your football team is a key to success at Nebraska. With reduced scholarships and roster positions, this has become much harder to accomplish than it has been in the past, as we all know. However, I believe what really compounds this problem even further is that it is simply out of reach for most kids and their families to consider paying out of pocket to attend school as a walk-on, especially if there is an opportunity to play elsewhere under scholarship. I realize cost of attendance is something every student must grapple with, regardless of their participation in sports (unless they are under a scholarship of some kind), but if a kid is talented enough to contribute at Nebraska but not offered a scholarship, I think most kids are going to look elsewhere to play and go to college. They simply cannot afford to bed developed. Basically, I'm saying the pool of potential contributors is diminished even further by financial impracticality.

Now, obviously there are still schools that have high tuition rates that are still fielding very successful football programs. With that being said, I am personally a firm believer that lowering the cost of attendance and making our public education institutions what they truly were created to be would do wonders for our football program and for our state in general. I think trying to be too much like other schools in many ways is what has led to Nebraska becoming mediocre. One of the things that made Nebraska so great for so long was that we thought outside of the box, and did things differently than other schools did. I don't mean to turn this into a political discussion, and you do not have to agree with me, I'm just curious to see what the members of Huskerboard think about this, or if anyone has given this any thought. I do realize the high unlikelihood of scenario coming to fruition any time soon.

In my opinion the reduced scholarships and roster limitations should help teams turn programs around much quicker. Plenty of good athletes to recruit which were stockpiled in the past. I think that's why you see so many real good programs in lower tier divisions.

 

[Blackshirt_Revival]

This is something I have been thinking a lot about lately that has gotten little discussion. While watching one of K State's games, the commentators were discussing one of K State's defensive lineman who joined the team as a walk-on. The commentators retold a conversation with the player, about how his parents had enough to pay for him to attend the school for one year as a walk-on, and that he had one year to earn a scholarship, otherwise, he would have to find a way to pay himself or seek another school where he could earn a scholarship to play.

I am still strongly of the opinion that having as many contributors from your state/region on your football team is a key to success at Nebraska. With reduced scholarships and roster positions, this has become much harder to accomplish than it has been in the past, as we all know. However, I believe what really compounds this problem even further is that it is simply out of reach for most kids and their families to consider paying out of pocket to attend school as a walk-on, especially if there is an opportunity to play elsewhere under scholarship. I realize cost of attendance is something every student must grapple with, regardless of their participation in sports (unless they are under a scholarship of some kind), but if a kid is talented enough to contribute at Nebraska but not offered a scholarship, I think most kids are going to look elsewhere to play and go to college. They simply cannot afford to bed developed. Basically, I'm saying the pool of potential contributors is diminished even further by financial impracticality.

Now, obviously there are still schools that have high tuition rates that are still fielding very successful football programs. With that being said, I am personally a firm believer that lowering the cost of attendance and making our public education institutions what they truly were created to be would do wonders for our football program and for our state in general. I think trying to be too much like other schools in many ways is what has led to Nebraska becoming mediocre. One of the things that made Nebraska so great for so long was that we thought outside of the box, and did things differently than other schools did. I don't mean to turn this into a political discussion, and you do not have to agree with me, I'm just curious to see what the members of Huskerboard think about this, or if anyone has given this any thought. I do realize the high unlikelihood of scenario coming to fruition any time soon.

In my opinion the reduced scholarships and roster limitations should help teams turn programs around much quicker. Plenty of good athletes to recruit which were stockpiled in the past. I think that's why you see so many real good programs in lower tier divisions.

I think that depends on which schools we're talking about. I believe it helps larger schools who already have a deep local pool to recruit from, as it keeps larger schools who do not have a deep local pool (ie: Nebraska) from stockpiling said talent. As a result, this helps the lower tier divisions build their real good teams because they are now getting the talent that would have otherwise been stockpiled by schools like Nebraska in the 90s.

 

[tschu]

Obviously we dont have a stellar pool of in state talent like most places. Unfortunate yes. But building our walk on program back up could give us that identity or attitude we have lacked for a long time. In state kids sick of hearing how great the SEC is, sick of seeing their old mans favorite team get embarrassed by Wisconsin, hungry to compete, hungry to give more effort than the 4 star from Cali who doesnt really care.

You take your scrappy kids, I'll take my 4 star kids who may or may not care from California. We'd win 85-10.

Having said that though,the model of Nebraska kids getting huge in the S&C program, plus other,with sprinkled in talent from the coasts in skill positions is always a winner provided the coaching and S&C is.

Yup.

The walk-on program is great and gives you feel-good stories and all that, but let's not pretend that revitalizing the walk-on program will return Nebraska to prominence. It will probably do the opposite. How about we do something more reasonable and expand our recruiting efforts and resources towards more skilled players.

 

[Mavric]

Spending power among the five biggest conferences — the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific-12, and Southeastern — varies greatly.


Three of the top four programs are from the Southeastern Conference: Tennessee ($5,666), Auburn University ($5,586), and Mississippi State ($5,126). A total of seven SEC programs are among the top 20, according to the analysis, which included a review of institutions’ financial-aid websites and cost-of-attendance figures that the colleges report to the federal government.

The University of Louisville, from the Atlantic Coast Conference, has the third-highest number ($5,202).

The Big 12 Conference also has seven programs in the top 20, led by Texas Tech ($5,100), Texas Christian University ($4,700), and the University of Oklahoma ($4,614).

Beginning in August, Tennessee can start providing players with about $630 more a month than it does now, according to its cost-of-attendance figures. The extra money is designed to help cover athletes’ out-of-pocket expenses, including travel and cellphone bills. (The numbers are based on a nine-month academic calendar. Players who stay for summer school could receive three more months of payments.)

Not everyone has as much to give. Three private colleges have the lowest cost-of-attendance numbers among the 65: Boston College ($1,400), the University of Southern California ($1,580), and Syracuse University ($1,632).

Link

There is a chart in the link with the numbers for all Power Five schools.