Challenges to a robust walk-on program in 2017

Hans Gruber said:
Each situation is different, but a lot of kids wouldn't turn down a full-ride scholarship for an elite FCS school to spend 80 grand walking on at Nebraska. 
Click to expand...


I love my Huskers as much as anyone and my boys are starting to follow suit. But I can not imagine, in good conscience, encouraging them to take on near $100k in debt so they can walk on at Nebraska if they're offered a scholarship literally anywhere else. I have no idea how you overcome that.

 
Husker NoNo said:
This is precisely why NU missed a golden opportunity to schedule NDSU for an upcoming season.  Instead, we chickened out and scheduled SDSU (which is just as good as NDSU), and UND.  The only way to knock those I-AA schools down a peg(I won't call them FCS) is to slap them around and remind them of who they are.  Until they do, they will keep getting stronger.
Click to expand...


Does this mean Iowa gets Tanner Lee?

 
The idea of getting the roster to huge sizes again with every team captain from small town America on the squad is not the answer. Just get the best in state players and as many as you can to walk on instead of going to NDSU for example and be happy with that. It won’t be what it used to be! NEBRASKA IS 20k a year in state and ALMOST 40k out of state!!!  The Dakota schools and Wyoming while nothing close to Nebraska have some value to them now because of that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope the walk on program is strong again and not to be negative but I just don’t see it being what it was. Back when college wasn’t so expensive Walking on at Nebraska had value that was higher than accepting a scholarship at NDSU.  Now you can’t argue that. If you think of it as the money you’re paying and the value you’re getting than it’s tough for kids to accept a walk on spot at Nebraska.

 
I keep hearing talk about trying to get the walk-on program "back" what would everyone's definition of "back" be? It's almost as nebulous as saying Nebraska is "back"

Anyway, are we talking about sheer # of walk-ons? 

The effectiveness of those who do walk on? 

A sentiment held by many here saying that the walk on program "Will never be what it once was" so....what would be a reasonable improvement in your eyes? 

Personally I would like to see just an enormous roster and the almost mythical stories of what practices under TO used to be like come about again, but even at 105 that's 20 walk-ons, the article I read said Riley mentioned 135...whether or not it ever hit that I don't know. 

The only thing I DON'T want to see (and I doubt I will anytime soon) is seeing guys get cut who were walk-on's like when Callahan took over. I was still on Cally kool-aid at that point, but even then as the news interviewed guys leaving the stadium it made me pause. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other thing to consider is the toll head injuries are taking on the sport and the amount of kids that are choosing to walk away from football. That wasn't the case back int he 90s, every kid wanted to play football in college. I think there are more and more kids saying I didn't get a big time scholarship maybe it's time to hang up the cleats instead of walking on. I know several guys who went and played NAIA and FCS levels. Almost all of them regretted it because they had next to no chance to move on, it took up almost all their time, they had opportunities for non-athletic scholarships they turned down and it took a big toll on their bodies. I think there may be more top athletes who also excel in the classroom walking away from football.

 
Mavric said:
LJS
Click to expand...
I'm having a hard time understanding what the Title IV issue is.  I thought that was basically just number of scholarships that affects that.  So, if 10 kids walk-on to the football program, that shouldn't affect Title IV.

What am I missing?

 
BigRedBuster said:
I'm having a hard time understanding what the Title IV issue is.  I thought that was basically just number of scholarships that affects that.  So, if 10 kids walk-on to the football program, that shouldn't affect Title IV.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...


I'm a bit confused by that as well.  I also thought it was mainly number of scholarships.  But apparently there also must be some consideration to all the other expenses that go into the program.  I hadn't heard that before.

 
Mavric said:
I'm a bit confused by that as well.  I also thought it was mainly number of scholarships.  But apparently there also must be some consideration to all the other expenses that go into the program.  I hadn't heard that before.
Click to expand...
I think its an indirect impact.  Before, it was much easier to walk on with the hope of earning a scholarship at some-point during the 4 year tenure.  Nowadays with the 85 limit, the majority, if not all of those schollys entering the year are used by high school signees.  Because of the hard cap that prevents big time schools from hoarding D1 level players within the walk on program, players in that situation elect to go to other/lesser schools for more playing time and guaranteed scholarship

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Title IX implications are the biggest obstacle at the moment.  For every male athlete at the university which includes walk-ons.  There has to be an equivalent female athlete.  So if they add 20 more walk-ons to bring the roster up to 155 from the 135. (which is already 50 walk-ons!!!).  They would need to find room for 20 more female athletes somewhere in the university.

It isn't just as simple as we'll take 85 walk-ons in addition to the 85 scholarship players and the walk-on program is Fixed!!

 
Personally, I think the 130-140 range is more than enough athletes for a football team.  That goes about 6 deep at each position (assuming all positions are equal, which they are not, but you get the point)

4 deep of scholarship players, and 2 walkons at each position.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Q. How is Title IX applied to athletics? 


Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics: 

  1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                          
  2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                          
  3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.
Click to expand...
NCAA FAQ

It does only require equal scholarships, not necessarily equal number of players. However, if you look at the "Other Benefits" section you have to have equal access to "recruitment of student-athletes." Obviously walk-ons are recruited and this is open to interpretation so I imagine that is where the concern comes in. They have to make sure the walk-on program is applied equally across the board in resources spent on it.

 
I heard AD BM on the radio Wednesday night where he actually mention this, IRCC he used the term "squad list", I would say "roster spot".  I think Title IX is worded something like " athletic opportunities" so roster spots would count no matter whether financial aid is involved.  I do recall that roster spots do not have to be equal but must match the male/female ratio in the general student population.  Which actually is creating a problem because  because more and more women are going to college and the ratio is constantly changing in favor of the women. I am going to actually count the number of people on the roster of the various teams and see what we have.  For example there are more than 50 women listed on the track and field team.

Personally, I think 45-50 walk-on's would be ideal.  They would mainly be practice fodder, but it would allow the players on the three deep, the ones who would play on Saturday, to get live reps against people while running their offense/defense.   During the fall your time is spent getting ready for your next opponent.  Breaking down the numbers, 85 scholarships, four deep offense and defense.  The 4's are the practice squad. They provide the opponent's plays and defensive looks for the 1's.  Without more walk-on's the 3's have to play the opponent's for the 2's therefore the 3's get no reps of our plays and sets or if the switch roles they get half of the 2's reps.  With 20 more walk-on's the 2's have their own practice squad and the 3's stand around therefore, 45-50 walk-on's would be ideal.  When I say live reps I don't mean "tackle to the ground" just cases where you need opponents that run and react to what you are doing.

Husker56 beat me to the post.  Some good info there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top