Nebraska vs Parity

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

 

 

 

Polo. You have convinced me. We need to fire Pelini ASAP.

 

Finish the season first.

I was being sarcastic. Firing Pelini in my opinion would set us back another 10 years...

I believe it would be a conference title within 3 years.

Of which you have no proof.

Where's your proof?

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

I got 80 proof gents! It's really all the proof you need.

[Count 'Bility]

I got 80 proof gents! It's really all the proof you need.

Never enough.

 

Always too much.

[Stumpy1]

parity applies more to the fact that a mid-level can knock off a powerhouse - which was not even thinkable 20 years ago. the power house schools are still going to win 9+ most years and finish in the top 25...but the bottom feeders are paying 1million+ to coaches and pouring money into the programs at a similar pace as the mid-level and almost keeping pace with the top level schools. The gap between Baylor and Oklahoma isn't what it once was, the gap between Kansas and Nebraska isn't where it once was. There is money for everyone now.

This right here plus the fact that some teams catch lightning in a bottle for a year or 2.

[True2tRA]

I think this whole parity thing is misunderstood. Yes, there is parity. There are more athletes and there is more money, but that only means that the teams that had no money now have money. The teams that had money, have even more. The teams that had no athletes, now have athletes. The teams that always had athletes, now have more athletes.

 

Athleticism as a whole has increased due to the advances of sports training, medicine, and supplementation. If people are using parity as some sort of excuse to be mediocre, well that's just not right. If there are more athletes and better athletes to recruit, then that simply means Nebraska should be a program that gets to be a bit more picky in who we recruit. We should not be limited.

[TheSker]

The teams that had no athletes, now have athletes. The teams that always had athletes, now have more athletes.

 

Actually some teams are down to 85 athletes now....which is less. Oh say Nebraska for example.

[True2tRA]

 

 

The teams that had no athletes, now have athletes. The teams that always had athletes, now have more athletes.

 

Actually some teams are down to 85 athletes now....which is less. Oh say Nebraska for example.

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I needed to be....

 

I meant " athletes" as in the overall talent on the team, not necessarily just the number of players. To be more clear maybe I put it this way. Team A may have 100 players while Team B has 85. Team B could still have more athletes, or be more athletic.

[NUpolo8]

 

The teams that had no athletes, now have athletes. The teams that always had athletes, now have more athletes.

 

Actually some teams are down to 85 athletes now....which is less. Oh say Nebraska for example.

Actually Nebraska is voluntarily down to 76 or so

[Stumpy1]

 

 

The teams that had no athletes, now have athletes. The teams that always had athletes, now have more athletes.

Actually some teams are down to 85 athletes now....which is less. Oh say Nebraska for example.

Actually Nebraska is voluntarily down to 76 or so

 

So are a bunch of other teams in the B1G.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

 

The teams that had no athletes, now have athletes. The teams that always had athletes, now have more athletes.

 

Actually some teams are down to 85 athletes now....which is less. Oh say Nebraska for example.

Actually Nebraska is voluntarily down to 76 or so

So are a bunch of other teams in the B1G.

Which explains a lot.

[Mavric]

 

 

The teams that had no athletes, now have athletes. The teams that always had athletes, now have more athletes.

Actually some teams are down to 85 athletes now....which is less. Oh say Nebraska for example.

Actually Nebraska is voluntarily down to 76 or so

 

 

Factually inaccurate.

[NUpolo8]

Fine, 78, taking away walk ons awarded and the late long snapper addition.

[Landlord]

I think this whole parity thing is misunderstood. Yes, there is parity. There are more athletes and there is more money, but that only means that the teams that had no money now have money. The teams that had money, have even more. The teams that had no athletes, now have athletes. The teams that always had athletes, now have more athletes.

 

Athleticism as a whole has increased due to the advances of sports training, medicine, and supplementation. If people are using parity as some sort of excuse to be mediocre, well that's just not right. If there are more athletes and better athletes to recruit, then that simply means Nebraska should be a program that gets to be a bit more picky in who we recruit. We should not be limited.

 

 

We only shouldn't be limited if parity is the only factor weighing against us. But it's not.

 

Scholarship reductions, rules against partial qualifiers, expanded tv coverage and networks and a prolonged valley of talent in Nebraska high schools have all limited us disproportionately more than they have limited other schools over the last 15-20 years.

[Mavric]

Fine, 78, taking away walk ons awarded and the late long snapper addition.

 

Still no.

[NUpolo8]

Yes, actually.

 

http://dataomaha.com/documents/husker-scholarship-distribution