Walk-On Scholly's - your opinion

[kchusker_chris]

This might (will) be unpopular but hear me out. I'm kind of on the fence w/ what looks to be another big year for walk-on scholly's. I don't remember how many TO used to give out. Anyone know the numbers? And i'm not really sure on Bo's numbers either...but it seems like 3-4 a year maybe?

 

What do you think about that number? To me that is 2-3 recruits we're passing up each year. Don't get me wrong they are certainly deserving of the scholly, it's the right thing to do, etc etc etc...but that is 8-10 scholly's over the course of a career. You could almost say we are operating at 75-80 instead of 85 scholarships.

 

The thing w/ a walk-on is they come to campus with the assumption they will be paying for 4 years of college. They aren't going anywhere regardless of whether they have a scholarship in 4 years. That's part of being a walk-on. So every time we give one away, we take one away from a CA/LA/FL/OH recruit. If it goes to a senior because we swung for the fences (Peat) and missed...that's one thing...but it seems like right now we are going to be going into the season at 81-82 schollys.

 

Has nothing to do w/ skill level, or being deserving...just about the numbers. We're just making it that much harder on ourselves. Maybe that's why not many other programs have the program we do - it's too costly in the grand scheme of things.

 

....let the 'horsesh!t' comments commence

[AndyDufresne]

Actually, walk-on attrition is much greater than that of scholarship players. Lots of them go to Nebraska for a couple of years and see how they compete, and if it is clear that they will never see the field they head to a lower division school to finish up their eligibility. There is nothing wrong with that and I believe the coaches even encourage it.

 

There is a pride associated with earning that scholarship, and that dangling carrot is also an incentive for those that walk on to forego a South Dakota State or service academy in hopes that if they can compete at the highest level, they will be rewarded accordingly. A scholarship to a walk-on not only recognizes that particular player, but also shows appreciation to the entire walk-on program.

 

Sure, we could not offer Spencer Long (2nd team All Big Ten) a scholarship and instead give it to a commit that only hopes to achieve his kind of success, or we can reward a player that has earned it and is a proven commodity; the publicity of which will only bolster other great athletes to walk-on at Nebraska in the future.

 

There are certainly things that Pelini could do to infuse more talent into the program such as limit or eliminate walk-on scholarships and pull ships from recruits that have underperformed, but I for one am glad he does not.

[knapplc]

That is total horsesh!t, Chris.

 

 

 

Now that we've gotten that out of the way I think you're right - we give out too few scholarships due to recruiting "misses." This staff is still figuring things out on the recruiting front. Bo's rap was that he "wasn't a recruiter." He's shown that he can recruit, but he hasn't shown that he can do it consistently. There are a few guys we've missed out on (Peat, Owa) that we shouldn't have, and that's keeping us from getting over the recruiting hump.

 

As far as walk-ons, we all love them. But they're the least-molded clay available. They are great guys to develop the ethos of the team, but we cannot rely on finding diamonds among all that rough, and that's what we're settling for too often.

 

However, just listened to Sean Callahan on 93.7 an hour or so ago and he was pretty high on this class, including the walk-ons. We'll likely survive on this class, and as Sean mentioned, last year's class was outstanding, so over the next couple of years we'll be OK. But things need to get better. Work still has to get done.

[hskrpwr13]

I think you present a fair premise. I'd add this question: Do we get an exhorbitant amount of walk-ons (compared nationally) because there is a believe that if a scholly is earned on the field, the coaches will appropriately reward that walk-on.

 

I'd prefer NU reward the walk-on that's competing at the "high" level, than keep said walk-on "down" in hopes that the schollarship lands an equal or better recruit. Ultimately, I don't think doing it the way you propose would net the recruits you're hoping it will.

 

I'd like to see NU keep their walk-on program tops in the country, by rewarding those that deserve it since you already know what you're getting out of that scholly, instead of hoping with a new recruit. I also think that keeps team unity in tact (dont want to piss-off a player performing at a 5* level because a player performing at a lesser level is getting a free ride).

[RedDenver]

I think the OP is looking at this all wrong. Scholarships are only given to walk-ons who are already starters or significant contributors. That means 100% of them pan out because they're already panning out. Since schollies given to recruits usually only result in 30-40% (someone can check that number) panning out, you're getting less than half the number of useful players you'd be getting using them on walk-ons.

 

Also keep in mind that the schollies you'd be reserving for recruiting players would be among the last of the recruits offered, so it's not like those are the guys at the top of coaches' board.

[kchusker_chris]

Good points. And it certainly is a reason behind our solid walk-on class. I don't think we would get nearly as many if we never gave scholarships to walk-ons. Just keep in mind, that tradition was bourne in a day when we weren't limited to 85 scholarships. Is it something that is being forced out of college football because of those limits? Because of the cost of college? You'd have to think so. You'd also have to assume that due to the rising costs the only way we are going to be able to maintain the walk-on program at its current level is to award more scholarships, dangle more carrots, etc. That comes at a cost. Sure, that scholarship we give to the Texas kid might be wasted when he doesn't pan out...but that walk-on wasn't going anywhere so what did we lose?

 

They have the roster updated online. Just went through it - based on my knowledge...it looks like we have 82 scholarship players. (i didn't count williams/cooper). I just feel we should always be at 85 at this point, because we always lose 1-2 in the spring. Those are the scholarships that I would like to see go to a walk-on (perferably a senior). It's why I was hoping this class would be at 20.

[kchusker_chris]

I think the OP is looking at this all wrong. Scholarships are only given to walk-ons who are already starters or significant contributors. That means 100% of them pan out because they're already panning out. Since schollies given to recruits usually only result in 30-40% (someone can check that number) panning out, you're getting less than half the number of useful players you'd be getting using them on walk-ons.

 

Also keep in mind that the schollies you'd be reserving for recruiting players would be among the last of the recruits offered, so it's not like those are the guys at the top of coaches' board.

If we didnt' give that scholly to the walk-on contributer...would he leave the program? I don't think he would. So while only 50% of recruits pan out...that's 50% more than we would have gotten if we'd give the scholly away to a walk-on already enrolled.

 

EDIT: It's like paying for something you already own. (not a lot of compasion in that statement sorry)

[default_28]

This might (will) be unpopular but hear me out. I'm kind of on the fence w/ what looks to be another big year for walk-on scholly's. I don't remember how many TO used to give out. Anyone know the numbers? And i'm not really sure on Bo's numbers either...but it seems like 3-4 a year maybe?

 

What do you think about that number? To me that is 2-3 recruits we're passing up each year. Don't get me wrong they are certainly deserving of the scholly, it's the right thing to do, etc etc etc...but that is 8-10 scholly's over the course of a career. You could almost say we are operating at 75-80 instead of 85 scholarships.

 

The thing w/ a walk-on is they come to campus with the assumption they will be paying for 4 years of college. They aren't going anywhere regardless of whether they have a scholarship in 4 years. That's part of being a walk-on. So every time we give one away, we take one away from a CA/LA/FL/OH recruit. If it goes to a senior because we swung for the fences (Peat) and missed...that's one thing...but it seems like right now we are going to be going into the season at 81-82 schollys.

 

Has nothing to do w/ skill level, or being deserving...just about the numbers. We're just making it that much harder on ourselves. Maybe that's why not many other programs have the program we do - it's too costly in the grand scheme of things.

 

....let the 'horsesh!t' comments commence

How many non seniors has Bo given scholarships to? Spencer Long this year maybe. Was Mangieri given one last year? I'm just curious how often two years get tied up with a walk on. Also, now that we are going to multi year scholarships does that effect when walk-on's can be given one?

[hskrpwr13]

I think the OP is looking at this all wrong. Scholarships are only given to walk-ons who are already starters or significant contributors. That means 100% of them pan out because they're already panning out. Since schollies given to recruits usually only result in 30-40% (someone can check that number) panning out, you're getting less than half the number of useful players you'd be getting using them on walk-ons.

 

Also keep in mind that the schollies you'd be reserving for recruiting players would be among the last of the recruits offered, so it's not like those are the guys at the top of coaches' board.

If we didnt' give that scholly to the walk-on contributer...would he leave the program? I don't think he would. So while only 50% of recruits pan out...that's 50% more than we would have gotten if we'd give the scholly away.

and your quote... ...but that walk-on wasn't going anywhere so what did we lose?

 

Chris, heres where the argument lies...If NU's walk-on program wasn't what it is, would we ever get these walk-ons that end up panning out if there's virtually no chance of achieving the scholly reward if earned?

 

If a guy thinks he was good enough to get a scholly, but was overlooked, and wants to walk on to prove differently, why go to NU? Why not walk on at USC, OSU, etc?

[RedDenver]

I think the OP is looking at this all wrong. Scholarships are only given to walk-ons who are already starters or significant contributors. That means 100% of them pan out because they're already panning out. Since schollies given to recruits usually only result in 30-40% (someone can check that number) panning out, you're getting less than half the number of useful players you'd be getting using them on walk-ons.

 

Also keep in mind that the schollies you'd be reserving for recruiting players would be among the last of the recruits offered, so it's not like those are the guys at the top of coaches' board.

If we didnt' give that scholly to the walk-on contributer...would he leave the program? I don't think he would. So while only 50% of recruits pan out...that's 50% more than we would have gotten if we'd give the scholly away.

And then the number of walk-ons would go down. Especially the ones who turn down offers from other programs. This is simply classic "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

 

Also keep in mind we're only talking about walk-ons who are already contributing. If there's only one, then only one schollie is used. And very few are given to underclassmen, so most of those schollies are only tied up for a year or less. There are so many benefits that IMO giving them to deserving walk-ons is FAR more beneficial than a few schollie players.

[kchusker_chris]

I think the OP is looking at this all wrong. Scholarships are only given to walk-ons who are already starters or significant contributors. That means 100% of them pan out because they're already panning out. Since schollies given to recruits usually only result in 30-40% (someone can check that number) panning out, you're getting less than half the number of useful players you'd be getting using them on walk-ons.

 

Also keep in mind that the schollies you'd be reserving for recruiting players would be among the last of the recruits offered, so it's not like those are the guys at the top of coaches' board.

If we didnt' give that scholly to the walk-on contributer...would he leave the program? I don't think he would. So while only 50% of recruits pan out...that's 50% more than we would have gotten if we'd give the scholly away.

and your quote... ...but that walk-on wasn't going anywhere so what did we lose?

 

Chris, heres where the argument lies...If NU's walk-on program wasn't what it is, would we ever get these walk-ons that end up panning out if there's virtually no chance of achieving the scholly reward if earned?

 

If a guy thinks he was good enough to get a scholly, but was overlooked, and wants to walk on to prove differently, why go to NU? Why not walk on at USC, OSU, etc?

I don't believe too many walk-ons come to Nebraska banking on getting a scholarhip. They are there because they are Nebraska kids who love the university. I still feel like we'd have classes similar to where we are now. It's not that they'd NEVER get a scholly...just less frequently. Again, I'm just starting a non-QB discussion so no worries...was just thinking about the numbers.

 

Personally I feel that every university should be allow 2-3 OVER the 85 limit, specifically given to walk-ons with the condition that they have been in the program for 3 years (so a redshirt Junior). I think it would help align a university more with their region. The Nebraska football team is 50% Texas. (might be a little exageration). I'd like to see more Nebraska kids on there...but I'd like to see it not at the expense of a Texas 3*, etc.

[hskrpwr13]

I think the OP is looking at this all wrong. Scholarships are only given to walk-ons who are already starters or significant contributors. That means 100% of them pan out because they're already panning out. Since schollies given to recruits usually only result in 30-40% (someone can check that number) panning out, you're getting less than half the number of useful players you'd be getting using them on walk-ons.

 

Also keep in mind that the schollies you'd be reserving for recruiting players would be among the last of the recruits offered, so it's not like those are the guys at the top of coaches' board.

If we didnt' give that scholly to the walk-on contributer...would he leave the program? I don't think he would. So while only 50% of recruits pan out...that's 50% more than we would have gotten if we'd give the scholly away.

and your quote... ...but that walk-on wasn't going anywhere so what did we lose?

 

Chris, heres where the argument lies...If NU's walk-on program wasn't what it is, would we ever get these walk-ons that end up panning out if there's virtually no chance of achieving the scholly reward if earned?

 

If a guy thinks he was good enough to get a scholly, but was overlooked, and wants to walk on to prove differently, why go to NU? Why not walk on at USC, OSU, etc?

I don't believe too many walk-ons come to Nebraska banking on getting a scholarhip. They are there because they are Nebraska kids who love the university. I still feel like we'd have classes similar to where we are now. It's not that they'd NEVER get a scholly...just less frequently. Again, I'm just starting a non-QB discussion so no worries...was just thinking about the numbers.

 

Personally I feel that every university should be allow 2-3 OVER the 85 limit, specifically given to walk-ons with the condition that they have been in the program for 3 years (so a redshirt Junior). I think it would help align a university more with their region. The Nebraska football team is 50% Texas. (might be a little exageration). I'd like to see more Nebraska kids on there...but I'd like to see it not at the expense of a Texas 3*, etc.

 

I like that idea. It'll never happen, but its a good thought.

[HuskerFowler]

I agree with RedDenver. Although i understand the OP arguement. 100% of the Walkons that have earned the scholly have panned out. They are starters or significant contributors. Why shouldnt Maher get a scholly, hes better then our kicker who has one. The swings and misses have come on signing day...Owa and Peat. i think people woulb bitch more if we kept a backup on standby in case peat said no to us and then offer him at the last minute. I would rather give it to Maher. And 1 scholly is being saved for Jackson, hopefully he makes it that would be 83 with one going to Maher and one going to Long IMO.

[knapplc]

I think one of the scholarships being held out right now is for Charles Jackson. It's my understanding that we never intended to sign up to 85 in this class, but as has been mentioned in numerous threads we've got three guys in this class for whom grades are a concern.

[bshirt]

I agree with RedDenver. Although i understand the OP arguement. 100% of the Walkons that have earned the scholly have panned out. They are starters or significant contributors. Why shouldnt Maher get a scholly, hes better then our kicker who has one. The swings and misses have come on signing day...Owa and Peat. i think people woulb bitch more if we kept a backup on standby in case peat said no to us and then offer him at the last minute. I would rather give it to Maher. And 1 scholly is being saved for Jackson, hopefully he makes it that would be 83 with one going to Maher and one going to Long IMO.

 

I agree with him too. Since they're starters or at least significant contributers I'd say they fully earned it. End of story.