Boyd Epley's role with Husker football team expanding
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
The Dude
Heisman Trophy Winner
If you go back to the original discussion when those comments were published, Epley's comment were taken out of context by posters in an effort to show that NU lacked talent. Recall, this all came up about 2 weeks after the finish of a 5-7 seasons.
Personally, I think there's a lot of evidence, besides a single index test administered at the end of a season, to demonstrate that this roster had plenty of talent to finish with 10+ wins and be in contention for a conference championship.
Most people around here, including several in this thread, seem to disbelieve that.
If I'm misunderstanding people's belief, then please chime in and correct me.
Personally, I think there's a lot of evidence, besides a single index test administered at the end of a season, to demonstrate that this roster had plenty of talent to finish with 10+ wins and be in contention for a conference championship.
Most people around here, including several in this thread, seem to disbelieve that.
If I'm misunderstanding people's belief, then please chime in and correct me.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Dude
Heisman Trophy Winner
Now I'm kind of bummed I missed this before. It's even cooler when you see the specifics.
The bolded is not only frightening, but a pretty good indication why we haven't been nationally relevant in football the last 15 years.
http://m.omaha.com/huskers/boyd-epley-brings-back-performance-index-weighs-in-on-husker/article_1a7c4940-a387-11e5-9643-0bc10d4a2c5d.html?mode=jqm
The bolded is not only frightening, but a pretty good indication why we haven't been nationally relevant in football the last 15 years.
Last edited by a moderator:
This. It can be blamed on recruiting misses, lack of talent, development whatever, but the bottom line is the godfather of S&C has a metric for measuring the potential talent of a team based on tangible metrics. NU football, on the first testing did not do very well.
The last testing we had 13. An almost 500% increase (if my math is off, forgive me). Not bad for 15 months with Phillips....
Here is a good article on Bama's S&C coach. Hope we have something similar in Phillips (from players comments we do and that's a great thing)
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/page/scontheroadncf12302015/alabama-crimson-tide-strength-coach-scott-cochran-nick-saban-secret-weapon
What people seem to be missing is that NU
Things your analysis misses on:
1. All three of the girls above 1,800 are seniors, which makes sense. We don't know for sure which FB players were above 1,800, but I would bet most were seniors. This all begs the question, what % of players on a roster need to be above 1,800 to be considered "nationally competitive"? At what point do they need to be above 1,800?
2. If FB has increased to 13 above 1,800 since December, that would indicate either (a) miraculous gains, or (b) the original test results weren't all that accurate (most likely because of the wear and tear put on football players over the course of a season). I suspect the latter (assuming no doping), which means the football team wasn't nearly as unathletic as their december testing might indicate but rather they just had bad timing for the test. For the record, volleyball apparently tested before their season
3. If you look back at the original Epley stats, football had a ton of guys in the 1700s, as I recall. Also, as I recall, he said under his system, he would expect to see a 500 point increase during a player's time at NU. If he assumes that kind of increase, then it follows logically that most freshman are coming in around 1,400. So if a bunch of guys are already in the 1,600 and 1,700s as freshmen, they could very well be into the high 1,800s as seniors.
Side note: article from the past indicates Epley's revamped his scoring: http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=1543 In 2001, guys were going into the 2,600 range. http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=1543
As I recall, he basically said we needed to bring in more guys with a higher floor (i.e., more guys who were above 1,500 as freshmen. I'm curious why he wouldn't release that breakdown. He just said that a "significant amount" were above 1,500 and only 20 were in the "walk on" range. That makes sense intuitively and doesn't paint the dire picture some are crying about. Would be interested to see the index scores from the 1998 team.
Also, basketball just released their scores; 1542 was the high. http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/jacobson-records-top-performance-index-score/article_5b8cb4ee-f83f-11e5-9630-cbec170d501c.html
Things your analysis misses on:
1. All three of the girls above 1,800 are seniors, which makes sense. We don't know for sure which FB players were above 1,800, but I would bet most were seniors. This all begs the question, what % of players on a roster need to be above 1,800 to be considered "nationally competitive"? At what point do they need to be above 1,800?
2. If FB has increased to 13 above 1,800 since December, that would indicate either (a) miraculous gains, or (b) the original test results weren't all that accurate (most likely because of the wear and tear put on football players over the course of a season). I suspect the latter (assuming no doping), which means the football team wasn't nearly as unathletic as their december testing might indicate but rather they just had bad timing for the test. For the record, volleyball apparently tested before their season
3. If you look back at the original Epley stats, football had a ton of guys in the 1700s, as I recall. Also, as I recall, he said under his system, he would expect to see a 500 point increase during a player's time at NU. If he assumes that kind of increase, then it follows logically that most freshman are coming in around 1,400. So if a bunch of guys are already in the 1,600 and 1,700s as freshmen, they could very well be into the high 1,800s as seniors.
Side note: article from the past indicates Epley's revamped his scoring: http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=1543 In 2001, guys were going into the 2,600 range. http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=1543
As I recall, he basically said we needed to bring in more guys with a higher floor (i.e., more guys who were above 1,500 as freshmen. I'm curious why he wouldn't release that breakdown. He just said that a "significant amount" were above 1,500 and only 20 were in the "walk on" range. That makes sense intuitively and doesn't paint the dire picture some are crying about. Would be interested to see the index scores from the 1998 team.
Also, basketball just released their scores; 1542 was the high. http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/jacobson-records-top-performance-index-score/article_5b8cb4ee-f83f-11e5-9630-cbec170d501c.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Where are people getting that number? THe first test was in December of '15 as far as I can tell.
My bad. We had 13 score at least 1500. Unsure how many were in the 1500's as the original article mentioned "numerous". I am ASSuming we had more this time as those guys were specifically listed. Trying to find the scores in the initial testing with little luck.
We still have a ways to go, but I feel like we are moving forward in the strength plan with a definitive system and markers in place to accurately how we "should" perform on the field.
Info on the most recent testing:
http://hailvarsity.com/news/hot-reads-the-return-of-husker-power/2016/03/
My understanding from when this was discussed a few months ago was that this was based tests in December.
It would be very odd if Epley waited until two weeks after the 5-7 season to discuss concerns about talent that could have been raised last march. But I'd have to go back and research the original articles to confirm the testing date.
The most recent testing was done in March. I linked the article above. After reading the original and the most recent, it does not paint a clear picture as the initial said "numerous" scored in the 1500 range, but the most recent listed the 13 guys.
I still believe that we are going on the right direction with the S&C.
I also didn't take any of the initial comments as a dig at Bo. More like a comment on the state of football as a whole.
My understanding is that the list of 13/14 guys on twitter are those that scored at least 500 in EACH of the tests (think they are down to three now for the index itself). Think those would then be adjusted for a combined score of some sort. Weirdly, based on twitter, none of the guys on the team tested above 1,800 this March.
But I'm thinking that doesn't tell the whole story.
I guess we'll see if S&C improves measurably... I don't like the move toward full olympic lifts, but the coaches need to do what they think works best with the allotted time.
