zeWilbur

Was asked to but I let track & field pay for school. Hammer throwing is fun. 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I've been wondering this.  I'm not a weight lifter and I haven't even played one on TV.  Didn't stay at Holiday Inn Express either.

 

But....this kid is just finishing up his Junior year in HS. So, I have to assume he's around 17 years old.

 

Is there a fear of his body not holding up long term lifting this much weight this early then expecting to go through college and possibly pros too?

It is possible but since he is already 6'5" and almost 300 lbs the bulk of his frame development is likely already done. Being that big means normal rules don't necessarily apply. I would be more concerned over a 200 lb kid doing similar things. Regardless, I believe the bigger risk is injury from lack of skill, overdoing it, etc.,  and have that injury become chronic. You can hear his dad correct his form after the first rep in the deadlift video (partly why the second rep looked so much easier) which is nice to see. Despite the best of intentions far too many high school coaches don't know what they are doing and the kids suffer for it.

From an anecdotal state I lifted from 14 to 29. Was never his size but was lifting a bit more than him from the videos around that age "Insert naturally strong family joke here" and never had a lifting or repetitive use injury. Years later and still no wear & tear stuff. Maybe I just got lucky. Have a few friends that still have nagging injuries they got from sports/lifting when they were younger. Maybe it's all a crapshoot but they were the type that would do a ridiculous amount of reps on their own and broke down over time. Hence my slant on the question.

Secret cave behind the waterfall

20 minutes ago, Calvin said:

Is it a thing now to be barefoot in the gym?  I've never seen that before, and I'd think you'd want at least something on your feet to protect them.  

Barefoot squatting is fine as has been around forever. Being barefoot on hardwood (the middle section of the lifting platform is finished like hardwood in nice setups) is pretty stupid. If any sweat drips onto the floor it can become a slip-n-slide without shoes on. 

1 minute ago, Undone said:

Mark Rippetoe describes the angle of the barbell needing to bisect the exact middle of the foot in both low bar backsquats and front squats. I have to disagree with the "ball of the foot" thing with regards to any squat lift; if you're centering the barbell over the front of the foot, in my own humble opinion you're doing it wrong. Bar should basically be bisecting your shoe laces.

One thing that has been abandoned over the years in football strength training is the standing overhead press. The bench press has replaced it in importance which to me is one really disappointing factor. Think about a lineman's body position as he's gaining leverage and leaning forward; if only the bench press is done in the weight room, the shoulders/triceps are neglected in favor of more biceps-centric training. I wonder if Duvall does the overhead press with the guys, I'm interested in that.

This is just gym nerd theory stuff though. I'm not taking it all that seriously one way or the other.   

No worries. 

I think this is just a miscommunication as I never mentioned where the bar sits over your feet. Or certainly didn't intend to imply a change there at least. At no point am I suggesting people squat on the balls of their feet. Just used an example that if you are pushing something forward (not squatting) look at what your body is physically doing to determine the muscle groups involved in doing it. Firing out of a 3-point stance is more horizontal effort where you stay on the balls of your feet going forward. So you do that by activating your quads and driving forward. That is a front chain heavy effort. Front squatting uses more front chain than back squatting. A side effect of engaging your quads is that you also engage your shins and more stabilizers in the foot. That changes the feel of a front squat to a front/mid-foot feeling vs heel feeling. Though too far towards the front of the foot means you are falling forward and life is about to go very badly! Fun exercise, if your kinesthetic awareness is decent, is to flex your butt and see where you feel it in your feet. Then do the same with your quads. That's where if get the front/mid vs rear comparison. Maybe just using 'mid' instead of 'front/mid' would be less confusing.

Also, I have seen video of the team doing incline press and some overhead with dumbbells so they are doing something functional in the regard. 

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

That still seems backwards to me.  Granted, I've never done front squats.  But that's going back to body positioning.  If the weight is on the front, your body has to be relatively leaned back, so that would be more weight on the heel.  If the weight is on your back, your body has to lean forward so that would be more weight on the toe.  Of course, you can always adjust your body positioning but that seems like it would be somewhat challenging to be lifting a maximum amount while trying to keep balanced in a counter-intuitive way.  

I get how that part might be seem backward. And maybe the only way it will click is to just do a couple and feel how your body reacts different;y to each. Regardless, if you are in a 3-point stance doing a back squat is standing straight up. Doing a front squat in that position will lunge you forward.

11 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I guess I'm not really seeing that correlation.  Yes, the resistance is encountered in the front.  But you are also leaning forward such that your center of mass is in front of your feet.  In that aspect, back squats would more closely approximate the body positioning of facing resistance from the front.  When you do front squats, your shoulders would be farther back, leaning relatively away from resistance from the front which is the opposite of what you'd want to do.  

307Husker is absolutely right about the vectors. It might be easier to think about it in a different way though. Here's a way I can get my kids to wrap their heads around it (so it is clearly oversimplified).Front squats have more force generated through front/mid foot, back squats through the heel. When pushing on object are you pushing off the ball of your foot or your heels? 

16 minutes ago, Lonestar_Husker said:

I don't need a court to tell me what is or what isn't an assault.

 

That is a significant issue. Men (all people really) do need a court to draw a line in the sand. Without it the entire argument is arbitrary and you cannot effectively enforce any law based on intangible feelings of victimization.

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ok ....serious question. 

 

They dont wear out, do they????

 

why would we need all new ones?

They do wear out. All bumper plates (so rubber, not metal) have a little metal ring in the center hole that the bar slides into. Every time that weight hits the floor the rubber around the metal ring compresses a very small amount. Eventually the material breaks down enough that the ring can become loose and the plate will break. Usually it breaks off with the ring and some rubber still on the bar and makes the plate look like a big donut. But it does take a lot of reps. Buying quality stuff means it takes even more reps. Likely tens of thousands before actual failure. You could just replace as needed but then you run into the problem of uneven wear so they tend to get replaced in groups.

3 hours ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

He will have had 3 years to complete 60ish credit hours....level 100 and 200 courses only.....

I get the convenience of the lazy/partier implication. Especially as we are not privy to the level of information to warrant an informed decision. Though it bothers me when people/posts are dismissive of a kid by oversimplifying the situation. He has made his own bed but there might be a little more to it than that.

To clear the NCAA 40-60-80 rule he would need 60% of a degree completed by the end of his third year. At 120 credit hours for NU graduation that would be 72 hours. Not a giant hurdle but that is the actual number with which he is dealing.

1. All of those have to be applicable to the same major to hit the 60% mark. This can be very tricky if he ever changed majors or started very gen ed and now wants to go a major with a heavy emphasis. Something writing intensive would likely cause just as much problem as something math intensive.

2. All have to be at a grade high enough to be accepted by the transferring institution.

3. All of the courses must actually be transferable to NU. JUCOs are really good at creating "unique" courses that might not fit into the transferring schools curriculum. e.g. A California JUCO might have a 'History of the Southwest' course that Nebraska would not accept because they did not have anything that specific in the current course catalog(personal experience on this one). Usually this is mitigated by local JUCOs tailoring for local 4-year schools. There are large discrepancies from Kansas schools to NU let alone from Arizona schools to NU. I'm sure he would have registered for the semester with some heavy input from NU Admissions folks to try and alleviate this.

So if he took 12 hours a semester for three years he would be at 72 credits. If even one course did not transfer he would not be eligible even if he had a 4.0 GPA. I'm not claiming this is his exact situation but hopefully demonstrating that lack of guidance early in the process or a change of direction can screw a student athlete more than anything else. Even when they are doing everything they are asked.

5 minutes ago, krc1995 said:

Don’t really do the Twitter thing, but why the @at Georgia thing? 

Pretty sure he is from Watkinsville, GA. @recruitgeorgia is for a local(GA) recruiting site, nothing to do with the University of Georgia.

34 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

I can't see the tweet at work, what spots are we light at?

QB - 2

DT - 2

ILB - 4 (all upper classman)

CB - 6 (3 seniors)

If i recall correctly preferred walk-ons were guaranteed a spot in the 105 for fall camp their first year

1 minute ago, RedSavage said:

I've never heard of that before.  Is there a max number of transfers to be bowl eligible?

Only relevant for 5 win teams. Transfers out still count against you negatively for APR. Downside of turning over the roster.

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

@zeWilbur really interesting numbers.  +1

 

However, I'm going to assume that they won't be factoring the difference in the cost of tuition into the calculation.  My guess is it will be tuition, room, board - which will vary by school but be considered "equal" in the formula - and then some stipend calculation that would be the same across whatever scope is being considered.  I would hope it would be the same across all Division 1 schools - or at least all Power 5 schools.  That is what would be best for keeping the playing field as level as possible and thus be best for the game at large (and other sports as well).  If it gets to where it's only the same within each conference - or worse, that every school gets to set it - it will be a complete arms race cluster.

 

The NFL is the most competitive league because they have a hard salary cap that keeps the talent fairly spread out.  MLB is the least competitive league because teams can basically spend whatever they want so a few teams are pretty good most years and a few teams have little chance because they can't spend what the big boys can.  I'd much rather have a system similar to the NFL than MLB for the good of the sport.

That is where I keep getting stuck. Every direction seems to lead to an arms race cluster. A single NCAA football tv contract would make redistribution MUCH simpler and more stable. Inherently evil, but simpler.

Wouldn't additional scholarship restriction do more to mirror the NFL distributed talent model than trying to keep yet another school from building an indoor waterfall that doesn't guarantee a kid will go there instead of the waterfall-free facility?

45 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

I agree with @Mavric that if you're going to go to a paid model, then it needs to be equal across the board: each scholarship is worth the same amount of $$$, regardless of sport, gender or conference. You can take steps to ensure equality among the P5 and G5 schools by having the conference and the school split the stipend cost, whatever that might be. 

Stipend cost would be the tip of the iceberg.

While I agree with you I have concerns about each scholarship being worth 'the same amount of $$$', here is a little info to dig deeper that line of thinking...

Just looking at out of state tuition & fees. No stipends, housing, etc.

UNL had 451 athletes on some form of athletic scholarship in 2016. This number might not be maintainable if they were all on full rides but I will assume so to resemble the model you are recommending.  

Looking across the conference the highest tuition rate is Northwestern at $54,120 per year. The lowest is Nebraska at $25,571. Average is $35,100.

So for every athlete on scholarship UNL would need spend another $28,549 to make it an "equal value" from just a tuition perspective. With 451 athletes it would cost UNL an extra $12.875 million per year without any additional return. UNL could technically afford it but that is around 10% of the current AD budget. It would cost the average B1G team $8.58M if every school carried the same number of athletes.

Recalling that scholarships need to be equal value across all conferences we will use Northwestern as the benchmark for G5 teams as well. Using the B1G conference average and assuming 12 teams/conference, it would be ~$103M  per conference. ~$515M total. I'm not even getting into the 350+ D1 basketball schools that would all need to be included in some way. That would add an additional $6-8M burden to each P5 school on top of the initial $8.58M burden. 

Figuring in food, housing, and stipend would only make these numbers worse. Doing this would put more money into the hands of the athletes but would almost certainly kill off most non-revenue sports.

7 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I wonder what goes into the list of exclusions?

Every opponent through the 2021 schedule.

32 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

There aren't a lot of good blocking angles; maybe a PA screen out to the flat? 

With the safety(23) creeping up it basically put 8 guys in the box leaving 3 guys 1-on-1 on the outside. If my understanding of this offense is correct it should not have been a running play at all.

Say hello to the 2021 #1 tackle

14 hours ago, HS_Coach_C said:

Completely agree. I know they take time to analyze the results to determine if certain questions were worded poorly and missed by a majority of test takers. They will sometimes throw those out then, but it still shouldn't take more than a day or two.

The ACT has an essay portion that is manually graded by two graders. Combine that with the sheer amount of kids that take it at once and it will take some time to get it done. Even if that is only a day or two for a given kid,  I think they are trying to get everyone their results at the same time so they don't have to deal with a constant barrage of questions from people wondering if theirs had been done yet.

8 hours ago, BIG ERN said:

1) There are probably 25,000 more non-athletes at Nebraska alone, I would hope that it would be close or higher. Most are rarely full ride scholarships 

2) I mean if a fan says hey I'll give you $20 to sign this football, that player should be able to do that 

3) I think universities already are compensating athletes fairly

I generally agree with you. Mostly I was confused by why you took things in the direction of how much non-athletes pay in tuition and subsequent potential student loan debt. Does that usually happen when this topic comes up? 

Sorry for putting this back on topic. I'm not cool enough to have any musical references to contribute.

3 quick thoughts.

1) The Training Table at NU is open to any student with a meal plan. Academic counseling is freely available to any student. Non-athletic scholarships actually outnumber athletic ones. The gap might not be as wide as you think. 

2) "If you come to my school I will pay X monthly for your autograph". I don't see how you can let them have any similar option without opening the whole can of worms, for better or worse. The stipend was meant to address this.

3) I'm not sure if your point is that you think Universities should be compensating athletes better for their services or that Universities should be using their athletic funds to reduce tuition overall.

You think Nebraska is the only school to slow play in state talent? 

How exactly does someone hang clean from the ground?

3 hours ago, Wordek said:

Did you guys just convince me shot put distance should be a new recruiting metric?

Technique can play a huge part but ultimately it's two yards to do something as violently as possible. Sound familiar? There really isn't a weight room number that involves maximum effort while traveling. The shot put does that nicely. That's why I am a fan.