AR Husker Fan

Just a follow-up. Each week, Sports Illustrated features a state and it's athletic traditions. Names the greatest athletes produced by the state, best sports spots, etc. Nebraska is featured this week. Oh, and the enemy of the state? Steve Pederson, with 26% of the vote...

Report: College Used Sex, Drugs To Lure Recruits http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5183717

Without having researced it, I can't say what facts exist. But if I were doing it I would research the Strength of Schedule (what were the rankings of the teams Nebraska defeated at the time they were defeated), the opponents' Stength of Schedule, average margin of victory, and such. I don't know where that information is kept - I would think the NCAA would have it somewhere. The trouble with that is you have to do the same for the other so-called "greatest teams of all time" - which means identifying which those are. You might want to start, therefore, with an Internet search of lists of the top 10 teams of all time. Take those 10, and apply the same criteria as you do to Nebraska, and then compare them. If, by some quirk, Nebraska comes up short in a statistical measure, don't let that dissuade you. If a team "ranks" higher in some category, see if there aren't factors that off-set that. For example, teams from older eras played fewer games - which made their chances of being undefeated better, and therefore their "ranking" on this would not be as high as Nebraska's in the "modern" era. Just some thoughts.

Good question, and one for the life of me that I - and the attorneys representing the U of A - can't figure out. Richardson is suing on the basis of discrimination after being terminated - which occurred after he blew up at a press conference and stated that the University could have the job if it would pay his contract out. The University - feeling that such statements were detrimental to the program - obliged him...at least to the firing part. He was offered a settlement of his contract - and a pretty generous one, as well. Now, how this has anything to do with Nutt and Nebraska - I don't know. If Richardson had been fired for considering taking an offer from another school, then yes, it would apply - it would be proof that a black coach was treated in a different manner than a white coach. But that's not the case. The attorneys for the Department have moved to block the depositions from being introduced on the grounds that the information is irrelevant. The judge has decided to wait on his ruling, to see whether there is any relevancy in the information come trial - assuming it comes to that.

You may recall that, as part of a lawsuit against the University of Arkansas, the attorneys for former basketball coach Nolan Richardson deposed both Steve Pederson and Huston Nutt. The state-wide newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, obtain copies of the depositions and today had an article with some quotes from each. Below is the entire article.

Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh - that's cold. I love it!!!!!

I'm assuming that the "Inside College Football" section of Sports Illustrated is the same for all regions of the country. If so, pick up the latest issue - virtually all of it (slightly less than a single page, though) concerns NU and the changes that have been made (or will be made) to various aspects of the program - the walk on program, the offense, etc. While it really doesn't provide new information, it's still a pretty good read.

While this hurts in the short term, it could be a real boon in the long term. Given a new system, this means that those projected starters have a chance to grow into the system, so to speak. I'm certainly not writing off the up-coming season, but I also understand that the youth and the new system will mean a lot of growing pains. It will be a couple of years before we can judge the condition of the program.

After the last two years, in particular, who can blame him? Pretty funny!

Good point. I wish I could remember the year - had to be during the '90s, I think - but there was an article in Sport or Sports Illustrated about the Husker weight facilities. What always stuck with me was a quote, which I'm paraphrasing, in which someone at NU stated that NU routinely allowed others to come and see how NU developed its then-leading system. I always thought that odd - why reveal an advantage? It quote went on to state that NU did that with the goal of pushing itself - if NU knew that other teams were familiar with the NU system, and would emulate it, NU would have to continue to push the edge of the envelope. While that makes some sense, it didn't seem to make enough to rationalize doing it.

Everyone gets wrapped up in numbers - the reason being that they form an "objective" basis for comparison. But, as noted, the objectivity is lost when the numbers are fudged. Seems to me that the best teams look for kids who actually produce. I seem to recall at one time Jimmy Johnson staying that the Cowboys would ultimately make determinations on college athletes who made plays. While they wouldn't draft 4'9" guys who ran a 7.5 40, they still looked primarily at what they did - live or on film. Look at the old Pittsburg Steelers - they built their dynasty on players that almost no one deemed "good enough".

This is good to see - not that the experiment is a guaranteed sucess, but the fact that I thought the offensive line was the weak spot the last year or two and needs some "creative thinking". And with a change in the offense, it is imperative that NU has a line that can afford whomever will be at quarterback some time to read the defense. The quarterback will be inexperienced, and will need all the protection he can get - he needs to be able to concentrate on his reads, and not running for his life.

Wow, I never realized NU has never done this - it's such an intregal part of most schools' efforts to get the high school coaches on their side. That brings up an interesting point. One thing Arkansas - and a number of other schools - is doing is "Junior Day". This is a day in which select current high school juniors are invited to the school to view the facilities, meet and greet, etc. Apparently, all as sanctioned by the NCAA. The juniors are not necessarily from in-state. Gives a school a big leg-up in making favorable contact. Does Nebraska do this - or any of the Big 12 schools?

Good point, but that could also work in NU's favor. For example, if you have assistants who are wanting to be considered for head coaching postitions, they know that their best chance is to create a winner - that's their best chance to shine. While I prefer the stability that long-term assistants bring, there can also be some upside.

Thanks, folks. Great to be here. I want to be sure to allay any fears though - despite my years, I'm still as dashing as ever, as evidenced by my picture, below:

Oddly enough, while I detest instant replay in the pros, I think that it's better suited to the college game. Now, I'm not saying I'd like to have it in the college game - I wouldn't. The controversy of close calls is one of the joys of the game - arguing about a call after the games is just, to me, a part of the pagentry, if you will. My reasons for thinking it's better in the college game goes to the level of abilities of the refs. I'm actually amazed at how often the pro refs get those hair-trigger, split-second, eye-blink calls right. Despite the protestations of pro coaches, it seems to me that instant replay has proven that the pro refs do a pretty good job. The funny thing is that this also demonstrates the fact that the pros don't really need instant replay - not often, anyway. But the refs in the college game...that's a different story. While I think the majority are professional and do the best job they can, I think they lack the training that the pro refs have - and hence the need for it more in the college game than the pro game. But I'd rather not have it at all...

Excellent points, Eric. I can't find any reason that those that think that they are good enough to play can be prevented from giving it a try. It is a free country. Now, are high school football players ready for the NFL? I have a difficult time picturing any player, even Vick, being able to do that. The primary reason is that kids at 18 are not yet done growing - or at least filling out. Seems that most kids develop between that freshman and sophmore year - they fill out and actually begin to look like men rather than pumped up boys. My main concern is that this will lead to even more rampant use of steroids in high school, as kids begin to dream of those millions. Most won't even be drafted; the few that do will be more suseptible to injury than a college player coming out. Unlike basketball, the physicial development of football is too great. In basketball you need height and quickness - in football you need that protective layer of muscle. It just ain't there with high school kids. But you can bet that if it's an option, a huge number of kids will make that mistake...

The trouble is, this kind of activity actually contributes to the opposite. His inability to control himself off the field spills over to his on-field behavior. His antics on the field cost the Huskers a time or two, and most of what he did on the field was never caught by officials. In short, his behavior is hurting the team. Everyone wants aggressive players; players that go all out on every play. But when that player's aggressiveness violates the rules, it hurts the team. An unsportsmanlike conduct penalty can be a drive killer. He has to learn to control and channel his aggression. If the coaches permit this kind of off-field behavior, it becomes more and more difficult to prevent similar on-field behavior. Play like hell...but play within the rules. Otherwise, you're a liability.

Such a bright future, and he seems intent on pissing it all away. I hope, not only for NU's sake but for his, that Callahan can reach this kid.

Good question. I think, ultimately, it comes down to whether there is a quarterback that can pick up on the nuances of the West Coast Offense, make quick, correct decisions, and execute. The second most important factor is whether we now have the receivers to run the West Coast offense. I don't see the line as a problem - I don't see the folks we have, and especially the ones just recruited, as being limited to just being able to run block. Between spring and two-a-days, I think they will pick up the techniques - and they appear to have the physical ability. While there will be breakdowns and sacks, that happens to any offense. Will the play calling be more diverse and unpredictable? Of course - it can't be anything but, given the nature of the West Coast offense verses the option. But can it be executed? That's the question - and paramount to answering it will be the ability of whomever is the starting quarterback. I'm not even talking so much about physical abilities as I am the ability to quickly read a defense, know where the open man will be, and deliver the ball quickly.

Excellent points. And it highlights the difference between NU and the "football factories". The NU staff supported the concept of student-athlete in spirit as well as in intent.

While it may have some short term effects, I have to agree with the right to state it. Tom made a very significant point - the break with continuity. If Nebraska means anything, or meant anything, it was an unbroken line of sorts. What has occurred has been a seachange of monumental proportions. I'm not saying that it won't work out over time...nor am I saying that fans should abandon the program. What I am trying to say - albeit not very well - is that NU, unlike other schools, had a tradition that was more than winning seasons. It had a kind of feel of family. That's what it symbolized for me. There was a sense of sucession throughout. Tom was a significant part of the creation and the maintenance of that feel. I'm sure he has always viewed NU in that light - once a Husker, always a Husker, and to be a Husker meant more than just winning. He wanted to support that, and I have no doubt he feels betrayed.

That's very interesting. Hadn't realized that. So, that brings me to another point. Does NU recruits routinely make it academically? Do they not sign kids who are a risk to not make it to campus? The reason I ask is that for many schools, it is not uncommon to sign more than the limit (whatever the school's limit is for that year). And, then, to have a few not make it to campus (for whatever reason). Could this, in past years, be a result of the walk-on program? NU holds back a couple of scholarships each year to award to walk-ons who distinguish themselves? Inquiring minds want to know.

I must confess that my knowledge of recruiting rules in general is woeful. So I would like to appeal to the members of the Board for some insight. How many scholarships did NU have to give this recruiting season? Most schools seem to "over-recruit", always expecting one to three of the recruits to not make it to campus...usually due to academics. From reading some of the posts, it appears the Big Twelve has some kind of higher admission standard. Is that correct? Any details? If there is higher standard, does it prohibit going after partial qualifiers, or offering to kids that haven't yet qualified? While I have to say that Callahan's folks did better than I would have expected, I'm curious as to why the class is relatively small. Was it due to being unable to get the kinds of kids they wanted? Was it due to a limitation on the number of scholarships? Just curious. Thanks.

I wouldn’t bet on the deposition seeing the light of day. Here’s why… Richardson’s claim is one of discrimination on the basis of race; i.e., that he was treated differently than white coaches. Trouble is, the events concerning Nutt and NU occurred over a year after Richardson’s firing. In addition, Richardson was terminated as the result of statements he made at a news conference in which he went ballistic over a question, then went on a rant about how he wasn’t being given the amount of “respect” he deserved - both by fans and the University - and that if the University wanted to buy out his contract he’d walk away. Nutt, meanwhile, did not engage in actions at all similar to Richardson’s. In short, Nutt is not “similarly situated”, which will be required to initially prove discrimination. Put another way…even assuming the claims that Broyles manipulated the press or others to get Nutt more pay or other benefits, how does that prove that the University discriminated against Richardson? Richardson’s attorneys would have an argument if they could show that Nutt had engaged in substantially the same behavior as Richardson, but was not then terminated. This would be evidence of disparate treatment on the basis of race. As the trial judge noted, he’s very liberal regarding discovery. If you want to use money and resources to go and gather information, fine. But before he will allow it to be introduced into evidence, U of A attorneys will request, and the judge will demand, some proof that the evidence can be used to support the claim of disparate treatment. And there isn’t any. I’m guessing that even if Richardson’s attorneys can get SP’s deposition: It won’t be allowed into evidence for the reasons above; and, It will be sealed - both during and after the trial. Of course, it could always be leaked…but given that only three entities would have the deposition - the court and court reporter, the attorneys for the parties, and the parties themselves - any leak could be fairly easily traced, and the entity leaking the material could be in a world of hurt. So, while it would be fun to read, I have a feeling we won’t see it. Pity…