Scholies vs. Walkons - The real story

[GBRedneck]

I saw a lot of references to the 24 of 79 players on the Husker travel roster being walkons. ("Oh the horror!!!")

 

I asked several times for the same stats from other teams, because as a standalone number, 24/79 is pretty meaningless. Anyway, I got tired of waiting so I went to compile some numbers on my own.

 

I looked at Wisconsin. Since I couldn't find any travel rosters, I figured I would find a blowout game where a lot of players saw the field and maybe the game participation report would have a similar number of players to the Husker travel roster. The Sept 12 game against Miami(OH) was a 58-0 blowout, and sure enough, they had 64 players that saw the field. I cross referenced that list with their recruiting classes from 2011 - 2015 to include 5th year seniors through true freshman.

 

The results were very similar to the Huskers. Out of 64 who saw the field, 18 were walkons. 18/64 = 28% walkons. Remember, that is the guys that actually played. Our numbers for Miami were 24/79 = 30% walkons, but that is just those who traveled, not necessarily played.

 

So I also checked the Huskers participation report against Miami. The Huskers played 51 total, 10 were walkons. 10/51 = 19.6%

 

So either Wisconsin is in big trouble talent wise, or Riley has a bunch of supporters who are experts in "How to Lie with Statistics".

 

Here are the Wisconsin players marked with either W for walkon, or the year of their recruiting class.

 

Biegel, Hayden 13
Biegel, Vince 12
Brookins, K. 13
Caputo, Michael 11
Cichy, Jack W
Connelly, Ryan W
Connors, Brett W
Deal, Taiwan 14
Deiter, Michael 14
Dixon, D'Cota 14
Dooley, Garret 13
Edwards, TJ 14
Endicott, Andre W
Erickson, Alex W
Farrar, A. 15
Ferguson, Joe W
Figaro, Lubern 14
Fredrick, J. 11
Gaglianone, R. 14
Goldberg, A. 12
Hayes, Jesse 11
Hillary, Darius 11
Hirschfeld, B. 14
Houston, Bart 12
Jacobs, Leon 13
Jamerson, N. 14
James, Alec 13
Jones, Kellen W
Jordan, AJ 11
Kapoi, Micah 14
Keefer, Jake 11
Kinlaw, Caleb 14
Love, Reggie 12
Marz, Tyler 11
Maxwell, Jacob 14
McEvoy, Tanner 13
Meyer, Drew W
Musso, Leo 12
Neuville, Z. W
Obasih, Chikwe 13
Ogunbowale, D. W
Orr, Chris 15
Panos, George 14
Peavy, Jazz 13
Rosowski, PJ W
Rushing, George 14
Russell, Jack W
Saari, Mark W
Sagapolu, Olive 15
Schmidt, Logan W
Schobert, Joe W
Sheehy, Conor 14
Shelton, S. 13
Stave, Joel W
Steffes, Eric 11
Straus, Derek W
Tindal, Derrick 14
Traylor, Austin 11
Udelhoven, C. W
Voltz, Dan 12
Watt, Derek 11
Watt, TJ 13
Wheelwright, R. 13
Williams, W. 12

[Atbone95]

You're also lying with statistics, but...

 

"Let's take the number of walk-ons Wisconsin played when they were up by 58 points and compare that to the number of walk-ons Nebraska brought to their biggest non-con away game where they were an underdog. See, they're equal. "

[StPaulHusker]

Stupid posts are stupid

[NUance]

So either Wisconsin is in big trouble talent wise, or Riley has a bunch of supporters who are experts in "How to Lie with Statistics".

 

Both might be true. I know the second one is true.

 

==================================================

 

btw, I think Wisconsin and Nebraska have two of the better walk-on programs in the nation.

[GBRedneck]

You're also lying with statistics, but...

 

"Let's take the number of walk-ons Wisconsin played when they were up by 58 points and compare that to the number of walk-ons Nebraska brought to their biggest non-con away game where they were an underdog. See, they're equal. "

So you're saying that Wisconsin will play walkons ahead of scholarship athletes? That sounds like a good strategy for recruiting. smh

 

They played a total of 46 scholarship players and 18 former walkons in a blowout home game.

 

The Huskers played 41 scholarship players and 10 former walkons in a close away game.

 

What is your takeaway from this? They look awfully similar to me. Way too similar to justify all the chicken little posts about 24/79 yesterday.

 

Go ahead and do some of your own analaysis on a close Wisconsin road game. Or just whine about numbers that don't fit your agenda.

[GBRedneck]

Stupid posts are stupid

Now that is a fact.

[Atbone95]

 

You're also lying with statistics, but...

 

"Let's take the number of walk-ons Wisconsin played when they were up by 58 points and compare that to the number of walk-ons Nebraska brought to their biggest non-con away game where they were an underdog. See, they're equal. "

So you're saying that Wisconsin will play walkons ahead of scholarship athletes? That sounds like a good strategy for recruiting. smh

 

They played a total of 46 scholarship players and 18 former walkons in a blowout home game.

 

The Huskers played 41 scholarship players and 10 former walkons in a close away game.

 

What is your takeaway from this? They look awfully similar to me. Way too similar to justify all the chicken little posts about 24/79 yesterday.

 

Go ahead and do some of your own analaysis on a close Wisconsin road game. Or just whine about numebrs that don't fit your agenda.

 

No.... I'm saying Wisconsin will play walkons ahead of scholarship athletes when they're up by 58 points. I'd bet every dollar I earn for the rest of my life that's true, no matter what statistic you throw at it. My takeaway is that you're comparing a blowout home win to an OT away loss... Literally apple to oranges.

 

If we want to do some analysis, I'd love to see a number of the players we start (scholarship or not) from Nebraska. There maybe 2-3 that are deserved starters here, and I would argue that there 6-7 who have no business being on that field.

[knapplc]

I saw a lot of references to the 24 of 79 players on the Husker travel roster being walkons. ("Oh the horror!!!")

 

I asked several times for the same stats from other teams, because as a standalone number, 24/79 is pretty meaningless. Anyway, I got tired of waiting so I went to compile some numbers on my own.

Two things.

 

First: This is a misrepresentation of the conversation Mavric, saunders and myself, among others, were having. I was the one who originally brought this up in a twitter conversation with Sam McKewon. In that conversation and in the conversation here, several times I said, "I honestly have no idea if this is a norm. Seems like an abundance of walkons, though." As the person most questioning the number of walk-ons, at no time did I imply it was 'horrible.' Everyone who read that conversation took it that way, too.

 

Second: You act like someone should have gotten numbers for you. If you wanted the numbers, go out and do your own legwork. Nobody here has to supply you with stats for anything. Good on you for getting them. Get used to that, do it more often, and you'll have a better time.

[JJ Husker]

A) Nebraska has 24 of 79

B) Wisconsin does something, blah blah blah

C)So either Wisconsin is in big trouble talent wise, or Riley has a bunch of supporters who are experts in "How to Lie with Statistics".

 

 

[GBRedneck]

No.... I'm saying Wisconsin will play walkons ahead of scholarship athletes when they're up by 58 points. I'd bet every dollar I earn for the rest of my life that's true, no matter what statistic you throw at it.

 

So if you're a scholarship athlete AND a starter, you get to play. But if you're not a starter, the walkons play first???

 

Dude, that doesn't even make sense.

[GBRedneck]

 

First: This is a misrepresentation of the conversation Mavric, saunders and myself, among others, were having. I was the one who originally brought this up in a twitter conversation with Sam McKewon. In that conversation and in the conversation here, several times I said, "I honestly have no idea if this is a norm. Seems like an abundance of walkons, though." As the person most questioning the number of walk-ons, at no time did I imply it was 'horrible.' Everyone who read that conversation took it that way, too.

 

 

 

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that this was the thought pattern of whoever initially provided that 24/79 stat. As I said, "I saw a lot of references to the 24 of 79 players on the Husker travel roster being walkons. ("Oh the horror!!!")"

 

I saw a ton of references to that stat and a ton of replies to references about that stat, on other boards, also. The prevailing reaction was disgust and disbelief, hence "Oh, the horror!!!"

 

Again, sorry if I implied that it was you making any "Oh the horror" responses.

[Atbone95]

 

No.... I'm saying Wisconsin will play walkons ahead of scholarship athletes when they're up by 58 points. I'd bet every dollar I earn for the rest of my life that's true, no matter what statistic you throw at it.

 

So if you're a scholarship athlete AND a starter, you get to play. But if you're not a starter, the walkons play first???

 

Dude, that doesn't even make sense.

 

You're misinterpreting my post. I'm saying that when a team is up by 58 points, they're going to send in the walk-ons. When a team is in OT, they're not (or shouldn't, but hey).

[DrunkOffPunch]

 

 

No.... I'm saying Wisconsin will play walkons ahead of scholarship athletes when they're up by 58 points. I'd bet every dollar I earn for the rest of my life that's true, no matter what statistic you throw at it.

 

So if you're a scholarship athlete AND a starter, you get to play. But if you're not a starter, the walkons play first???

 

Dude, that doesn't even make sense.

The point he's making is you don't jeopardize an injury to a second string OT when you're up by 4+ scores. That's the time where you put in the walk ons.

[GBRedneck]

I also just compared starters from the two games.

 

Wisconsin started 3 former walkons on offense and 1 on defense.

 

Nebraska started 3 former walkons on offense and none on defense.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

No.... I'm saying Wisconsin will play walkons ahead of scholarship athletes when they're up by 58 points. I'd bet every dollar I earn for the rest of my life that's true, no matter what statistic you throw at it.

 

So if you're a scholarship athlete AND a starter, you get to play. But if you're not a starter, the walkons play first???

 

Dude, that doesn't even make sense.

 

You're misinterpreting my post. I'm saying that when a team is up by 58 points, they're going to send in the walk-ons. When a team is in OT, they're not (or shouldn't, but hey).

 

But it has nothing to do with walkons. When a game is close, you play the 1s and 2s. When it starts getting out of hand, you start playing the 3s and 4s. Even in the blowout with 64 players seeing the field, Wisconsin didn't play many 4s.

 

You made it sound like they would play backup walkons before backup scholies.