Where Is It OK to Start Walk-Ons?

BIG ERN said:
I think it only matters when that walk-on doesn't seem to be performing and we are wondering why the scholly player is riding pine... Like when Dylan Utter kept getting worked 
Click to expand...
This. If a guy is performing, people will be excited about a walk on starting. If he is struggling out there, people will start asking questions.

 
Like said above, the best player at any given position should play regardless if they're a scholarship athlete or walk on.

 
There are 2 ways of thinking about this.

The no-brainer way - you start the walk-on if he's better.

But maybe the question was more wondering, if a walk on is starting, does that mean our recruiting sucks? And at what positions must the recruiting suck if we have walk ons starting there?

That's what's been debated here quite a bit.

 
I think it's less about position, and more about quantity. One or two walk-ons starting isn't a concern, 3-4 and maybe you should worry about your player assessment in recruiting. 

 
bugeater17 said:
I mean technically Baker Mayfield was a walk-on initially (after he transferred to OU). 
Click to expand...
Mayfield actually walked-on at Texas Tech after getting some non-Power 5 scholarship offers.  He did start at one of the top high school teams in Texas, and wasn't a "typical walk-on" guy.  I can't remember if he won the Texas Tech job outright as a true freshman or ended up starting due to injury, but he did start as a true frosh.  When he wasn't guaranteed the starting job the following season, that's when he decided to transfer to OU.

 
default_28 said:
One or two walk-ons starting isn't a concern, 3-4 and maybe you should worry about your player assessment in recruiting. 
Click to expand...
This is sort of where my mind is at.

To be clear, I believe you play the best player. Period. It doesn't matter if they're a walk-on or a highly touted recruit from Florida. But, I also believe it's fair to evaluate the player assessment and recruiting if it's warranted. Year one under Frost is going to receive some leniences and those are deserved. However, if you're routinely 'missing' on guys you need to hit on and supplementing with a walk-on, that may require some soul searching. It's just very case dependent.

It's not one over the other in all cases. There were definitely some times in recent Husker history where I felt a former walk-on was largely starting because of a lack of depth and reliable competition at that spot.

In some of the above examples, I think people will view quarterback differently just on the inherent nature of the position. Fair or not, some people won't want to hear that a walk-on is starting at the most important position on the field.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
There are 2 ways of thinking about this.

The no-brainer way - you start the walk-on if he's better.

But maybe the question was more wondering, if a walk on is starting, does that mean our recruiting sucks? And at what positions must the recruiting suck if we have walk ons starting there?

That's what's been debated here quite a bit.
Click to expand...


I won't deny that's how it's commonly framed, though I would take some exception to it.

Walk-ones are merely players who have yet to get a scholarship. They're not worse players. They weren't even necessarily unrecruited players. They simply, for one reason or another, do not yet have a football scholarship. Many eventually do get one. Do they suddenly become better when that happens?

Coach DeWitt said it best. He doesn't necessarily know who is a scholarship player and who isn't, and he doesn't necessarily care.

 
I'm with BRB.  This is dumb.  Best man for the job, regardless of the job is the starter.  If we limit walkons to certain positions we lose walk ons.  And we potentially lose games.

 
I think it's okay to start a walk-on at any position they are the best player. Period.

Sure that may at times indicate some failure of recruiting but there are never any guarantees and it is what it is. Best player plays. Don't care if it's a 5 star ESPN top 50 player or a walk-on from Podunk Nebraska.

 
Scheme change and injuries are two factors to consider before evaluating recruiting. Since we rarely recruit the ready to play 5 stars, development could be an issue. If higher rated recruits aren’t willing to put in the work then better screening of recruits’ character is needed. Frost is facing all these issues so if a walkon starts I won’t be surprised.

 
brophog said:
I won't deny that's how it's commonly framed, though I would take some exception to it.

Walk-ones are merely players who have yet to get a scholarship. They're not worse players. They weren't even necessarily unrecruited players. They simply, for one reason or another, do not yet have a football scholarship. Many eventually do get one. Do they suddenly become better when that happens?

Coach DeWitt said it best. He doesn't necessarily know who is a scholarship player and who isn't, and he doesn't necessarily care.
Click to expand...




Walk ons are walk ons for a reason. They either aren't as good as the scholarship players or were underestimated by coaches. That can change in a season or even less time.

There are those from both categories who have potential that wasn't noticed by the coaches and turn into great players. 4-5 years is a long time - players can improve a lot in that time.

Long story short, I disagree that walk ons aren't worse (when they join the program). Most are worse - that's why they're walk ons. That said, a walk on starting doesn't mean the scholarship players are bad. It can also mean the walk on turned into a great player.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top