Unpopular roster opinion

[knapplc]

Just now, desertshox said:

you just cant have a policy where if you arent contributing on the field then you're gone.

 

Unless you're Nick Saban.  And most coaches are not Nick Saban (I checked).

[desertshox]

2 minutes ago, N is for nowledge said:

 

Maybe.  My point is extending beyond this transition period.  If you have a kid on roster for 3-4 seasons and they aren’t contributing I think you help move them along.  

 

i am saying the transition period contributed to him sticking around. it's an entirely different situation without it.

[N is for nowledge]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Unless you're Nick Saban.  And most coaches are not Nick Saban (I checked).

Again, why is that controversial.  I get some support with intangibles and that’s fine, is someone really going to make the argument that all of them do.

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, N is for nowledge said:

I mentioned them earlier.  It’s larger than one player.  Jeffersen, Avery Andersen, daishin neal.  These are examples but there are more.  It’s more hypothetical, as there arekids like this every yr, should we be helping these kids on to another school.  I say yes, imo.  Don’t see why it’s controversial at all.

 

Best answer to "why is it controversial" is that recruiting is built on trust at a school like Nebraska. You recruit me, I have to trust that you intend to keep me through my education. That's what the scholarship is for.

 

You start essentially cutting guys who don't pan out, that's a bad look for other potential recruits. Makes it harder to convince a guy that you're going to stand by him if he struggles.

 

We have to show that we're committed. We're not Alabama - we don't have five-star players falling out of our back pockets. Maybe in five years if we have a huge run of success and every kid in America has us on their radar we can do what you're suggesting, but not now.

 

[MyBloodIsRed16]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Unless you're Nick Saban.  And most coaches are not Nick Saban (I checked).

I was literally having a conversation with someone who played under the Bob father and he told me Bob would call guys into his office at the end of each year and ask where they wanted to go to school next year (meaning they wouldn't be playing at Nebraska).  Apparently was curtious enough to call schools and say i got a guy for you

[N is for nowledge]

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Best answer to "why is it controversial" is that recruiting is built on trust at a school like Nebraska. You recruit me, I have to trust that you intend to keep me through my education. That's what the scholarship is for.

 

You start essentially cutting guys who don't pan out, that's a bad look for other potential recruits. Makes it harder to convince a guy that you're going to stand by him if he struggles.

 

We have to show that we're committed. We're not Alabama - we don't have five-star players falling out of our back pockets. Maybe in five years if we have a huge run of success and every kid in America has us on their radar we can do what you're suggesting, but not now.

 

See the response below this one about Bob Devany.  I’m not saying give them the boot.  I’m saying help them land a scholarship elsewhere.  This shouldn’t result in hard feelings....again not controversial.

[N is for nowledge]

And before anyone re treads the “can’t let every “non contributor” go....I’m saying 1-2/cycle not a mass exodus.  Over the course of 4-5 yrs that’s up to 10 NEW guys you infuse in your program that you wouldn’t have had room for otherwise.  Frankly, I’d rather given the scholarship to stalbird, a younger kid who saw the field and made an impact as a WO

[knapplc]

8 minutes ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

I was literally having a conversation with someone who played under the Bob father and he told me Bob would call guys into his office at the end of each year and ask where they wanted to go to school next year (meaning they wouldn't be playing at Nebraska).  Apparently was curtious enough to call schools and say i got a guy for you

 

One or two things have changed since 1971.

[knapplc]

Just now, N is for nowledge said:

And before anyone re treads the “can’t let every “non contributor” go....I’m saying 1-2/cycle not a mass exodus.  Over the course of 4-5 yrs that’s up to 10 NEW guys you infuse in your program that you wouldn’t have had room for otherwise.  Frankly, I’d rather given the scholarship to stalbird, a younger kid who saw the field and made an impact as a WO

 

I'm not so much in disagreement with you on all this. Just wanted clarification and to have some fun. And even though that wasn't a real mic drop moment it was fun to bust one out. First time this year, maybe.

 

Very much agree on Stalbird. Would rather have him stay than, say, Neal.

[Nebfanatic]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Best answer to "why is it controversial" is that recruiting is built on trust at a school like Nebraska. You recruit me, I have to trust that you intend to keep me through my education. That's what the scholarship is for.

Aren't we talking specifically about players who have earned degrees though?

[84HuskerLaw]

14 minutes ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

I was literally having a conversation with someone who played under the Bob father and he told me Bob would call guys into his office at the end of each year and ask where they wanted to go to school next year (meaning they wouldn't be playing at Nebraska).  Apparently was curtious enough to call schools and say i got a guy for you

I believe that Big Ten scholarships in football are for 4 year rides as long as the student athlete remains in good stead with the school and follows team rules, etc.   I don't think it is possible to siimply cut them off if they fail to become 'contributors' on the stat sheet.   Fair or not to the school and or the player, this is the general principle.   I am not sure the scholarships should be locked in for the full time, but that is the Big Ten way.  Now, I would think it is not unreasonable to say that the college will pay for 4 years as a full time student and then it ends unless they redshirt with consent of the Coach (in other words - we pay for 4 years of full time credit hours equivalent only).  If the student graduates in three years, the college ought to cover 1 year of grad courses IF he remains on the team at the coach's discretion.  If the kid quits or fails to show up for practices, meetings,  classes, etc and or violates other team rules, he can face consequences of being dismissed from the team.  If he is just a slacker or puts forth a half effort, I am not sure what the coach can do besides run him around the field and up the stadium stairs, etc.  within the limits of team rules.  A coach can NOT be allowed to drive a player away because he is not happy with his performance or wants the scholarship for someone else.

[N is for nowledge]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

Aren't we talking specifically about players who have earned degrees though?

I think it’s a no brainer if that’s the case.  I not necessarily against it even if they don’t, assuming we help them land somewhere else.  They still get a scholarship and possibly even some playing time.  

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, N is for nowledge said:

I think it’s a no brainer if that’s the case.  I not necessarily against it even if they don’t, assuming we help them land somewhere else.  They still get a scholarship and possibly even some playing time.  

I feel you even on the second point but yea I really don't see the controversy of encouraging a player who has graduated to move on if they aren't going to be a contributor. We have fulfilled our obligation to provide them an education. Every scenario is unique and we aren't going to be doing this to every player in this situation, but as has been stated, there are a few every year and there would be even if you didn't ask them to leave. That is why you over sign.

[LumberJackSker]

Hasn't frost already done this? Before last season didn't some upperclassmen transfer to fcs schools? 

I guarantee frost has already done this. I'm sure the coaches have sat down non contributing players and said you dont have what it takes to get on the field and that they have the choice to ride the pine and get their degree or they'll help them find a new home.

[funhusker]

39 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Best answer to "why is it controversial" is that recruiting is built on trust at a school like Nebraska. You recruit me, I have to trust that you intend to keep me through my education. That's what the scholarship is for.

 

You start essentially cutting guys who don't pan out, that's a bad look for other potential recruits. Makes it harder to convince a guy that you're going to stand by him if he struggles.

 

We have to show that we're committed. We're not Alabama - we don't have five-star players falling out of our back pockets. Maybe in five years if we have a huge run of success and every kid in America has us on their radar we can do what you're suggesting, but not now.

 

That mic must have accidentally fallen because the OP clearly states players that graduated...