Lack of Class Signees in Recent years, KILLING US. Look...

[HuskerBond31]

(Shout to TwinsRRUs for the numbers)

Position - 2015, 2016, 2017 = Total (Current position and still on roster)
QB - 0, 1, 1 = 2
IB - 1, 1, 1 = 3
FB/HB - 0, 0, 1 = 1
WR - 1, 1, 3 = 5
TE - 1, 2, 2 = 5
OL - 3, 4, 4 = 11
Offense: 6, 9, 12 = 27

DT - 2, 0, 3 = 5
DE - 2, 1, 1 = 4
LB - 3, 5, 3 = 11
DB - 4, 4, 1 = 9
Defense: 9, 10, 8 = 29

But Let's look at the BIGGER number of the Totals:
Offense-27. Defense 29. That's 56.

Most EVERY top 10 school is signing 25+ EVERY YEAR.

So we should be at 75. Yes, attrition, yes. But that's why you need to hit around 25 every class, so when 2-4 kids leave, you just don't have SOO many glaring holes.

Michigan had 30 SIGNEES!! 21, 4-stars. MORE 4 stars then our whole class top to bottom.

And with our seven 4-stars (Elite players on paper for now), what if we miss on 3. So 4 impact players? If Michigan misses out on half, then they still have 11 impact players.

It's a HUGE numbers game, and we aren't playing it. You may say back well we don't want just warm bodies. Fine, we'll scout the hell out of the low-end 3 and 2 stars and find those diamonds so when you miss out on the Lewis', Calvin's, Greg Johnsons, you AT LEAST are giving yourself a shot to find the next Ameer Abdullah.

 

[otismotis08]

Pretty insightful for your second post.

 

[Hoosker Du]

(Shout to TwinsRRUs for the numbers)

Position - 2015, 2016, 2017 = Total (Current position and still on roster)
QB - 0, 1, 1 = 2
IB - 1, 1, 1 = 3
FB/HB - 0, 0, 1 = 1
WR - 1, 1, 3 = 5
TE - 1, 2, 2 = 5
OL - 3, 4, 4 = 11
Offense: 6, 9, 12 = 27

DT - 2, 0, 3 = 5
DE - 2, 1, 1 = 4
LB - 3, 5, 3 = 11
DB - 4, 4, 1 = 9
Defense: 9, 10, 8 = 29

But Let's look at the BIGGER number of the Totals:
Offense-27. Defense 29. That's 56.

Most EVERY top 10 school is signing 25+ EVERY YEAR.

So we should be at 75. Yes, attrition, yes. But that's why you need to hit around 25 every class, so when 2-4 kids leave, you just don't have SOO many glaring holes.

Michigan had 30 SIGNEES!! 21, 4-stars. MORE 4 stars then our whole class top to bottom.

And with our seven 4-stars (Elite players on paper for now), what if we miss on 3. So 4 impact players? If Michigan misses out on half, then they still have 11 impact players.

It's a HUGE numbers game, and we aren't playing it. You may say back well we don't want just warm bodies. Fine, we'll scout the hell out of the low-end 3 and 2 stars and find those diamonds so when you miss out on the Lewis', Calvin's, Greg Johnsons, you AT LEAST are giving yourself a shot to find the next Ameer Abdullah.

Relax. In the last 5 classes, Michigan has 116 commits and we have 112. Are we really going to make a big stink over not having 22 commits this year, when we brought in 20 strong recruits, and didn't sign a couple 2-star recruits that were reaches?

I think the coaches did a great job this year, despite not getting a few guys that we wanted. When you are going after kids in the talent rich states that are 1,000+ miles away, you're going to lose some recruiting battles to schools closer to their home. Despite that, we were still in the Top 3 for many highly-rated recruits, and have built great relationships with coaches and kids for future years.

 

[tstaup]

I'd be interested to see how these other schools use their walk on program. My guess is that they don't and Riley sees it an opportunity for a unique competitive advantage at DONU.

Using your numbers game theory as the framework, think about this scenario...

Instead of reaching at the end of the class for 2 and 3 star players simply to fill your scholly numbers, what if you could bring in 10 preferred walk-ons every single year (50 total on the team) with the promise of open schollies to earn? So instead of two to five reaches every year, you grant those schollies based on performance in the program, and theoretically decrease your chances of wasting one.

To add, you're able to re-instill the heart of the walk on program with the thought that these kids are going to lead by example and push the rest of the roster to give 2% extra everyday.... Something that many of our past All-Americans have said was an underpinning of success in our heyday.

Administratively, you'd need someone to manage the walk on program very closely to make sure it's set up for success. But, as long as you're confident in the man leading the program, does this idea present a favorable scenario for DONU to create a competitive advangtage at the bottom of it's roster, while still taking advantage of the numbers game everyone seems to be talking about recently?

 

[RealTucoSalamanca]

If you redshirt 75% of every class, those players are on the books for 5 years not 4. It is mathematically impossible to recruit 25 players, every class, redshirt 18 of them and still be under the 85 scholarship limit.

So in an average 5 year cycle a school that doesn't redshirt at all, can recruit 25 for 5 years and get 125 kids while a school that does redshirt a majority of the class will only get 20 per year or 100 in the same 5 year cycle.

Schools that don't redshirt large portions of each class, cycle players out more frequently and also get more players through the program.

 

[Foosball is the devil]

Riley said in his pressor we are in position to get a couple kids this spring that we want, something we couldn't do last year. They have their eyes on a few that will contribute numbers and need.

 

[inWV]

Riley et al seem to have a plan and they are working it. I suspect we will see an uptick in landing a greater share of top prospects when the team has better success on the field.

 

[z28craz]

I've got a buddy who is a Michigan fan and he said the reason they signed 30 is because they had 42 graduating seniors. So that is an outlier and really isn't a good comparison.

That said, I do think it's important to fill out a class, and given the upgrades in coaches I expect that will happen in the coming years. D. Williams and Diaco probably had minimal impact this year, but given full recruiting cycles I think we'll see a far greater impact. IMO, this 2017 class seems high quality, not only in talent, but in terms of kids who seem like high quality off the field as well. That means a greater probability that they will actually make it to campus and have the impact we expect. So many times in the past 10 years we've had high quality classes only to have significant attrition from those impact players. On paper I think we can expect this class to have a greater positive impact on the program than any other class in the last 10 years, and that's a huge improvement. Our recruiting suffered for the better part of the last 8-10 years. It's going to take 4-5 recruiting cycles to rebuild the recruiting pipeline. As long as we're getting better and moving in the right direction it's hard for me to find a reason to complain.

 

[TwinsRRUs_rivals79748]

Yesterday Dana Holgerson was on the radio and talked about their walk-on program a little bit.

I think more schools use a walk-on program than we realize (maybe even all of them), although maybe not to the extent that we do here.

One thing that is hard to argue is the fact that not all players will pan out. Like I asked in another thread, which OL players will not pan out in the last 3 classes, because no matter what, there is going to be at least one.

 

[Headcard]

Speaking of walk-on's, I love this walk-on class. We landed a 3-star JUCO QB, as a walk-on, plus guys like Miller and Paup turned down full rides to come here. Not to mention Reynolds, who might be the best of the group.

 

[TwinsRRUs_rivals79748]

Maybe one big difference is the type of attrition we have verse the good programs out there.

We seems to lose our good players.

The players that don't pan out? Well, they seem to stay here on scholarship until they graduate (sans QBs generally).

I do not disagree with NU keeping them on scholarship, but am pointing out that this happens here quite a lot and IMO, doesn't happen much at the likes of Alabama and other great teams that are not as player friendly in these situations.

 

[DudznSudz]

I'd be interested to see how these other schools use their walk on program. My guess is that they don't and Riley sees it an opportunity for a unique competitive advantage at DONU.

Using your numbers game theory as the framework, think about this scenario...

Instead of reaching at the end of the class for 2 and 3 star players simply to fill your scholly numbers, what if you could bring in 10 preferred walk-ons every single year (50 total on the team) with the promise of open schollies to earn? So instead of two to five reaches every year, you grant those schollies based on performance in the program, and theoretically decrease your chances of wasting one.

To add, you're able to re-instill the heart of the walk on program with the thought that these kids are going to lead by example and push the rest of the roster to give 2% extra everyday.... Something that many of our past All-Americans have said was an underpinning of success in our heyday.

Administratively, you'd need someone to manage the walk on program very closely to make sure it's set up for success. But, as long as you're confident in the man leading the program, does this idea present a favorable scenario for DONU to create a competitive advangtage at the bottom of it's roster, while still taking advantage of the numbers game everyone seems to be talking about recently?

I 100% agree with what you're saying here about the value of the walk-on program. About a year ago, I posted some thoughts on this really funny article (funny-good) about "The Last Team To Own The SEC And What We Can Learn From Them: Nebraska," discussing what some of the huge strengths of the old, successful Nebraska program were. So, a number of things are pointed out (coaching continuity, 2 coaches in 30 years basically, unique style of offense that few defenses spent a ton of time trying to learn to stop, etc), but one of those key reasons was what the author of the article called "Cannon Fodder," or, the highly successful walk-on program. He basically argues that when you have a ton of local kids who DREAM of playing for "the program," the one thing that the entire resources of the state are focused on, you create a system where your All-American players who come here for the success get to do two things: 1.) Practice with a ton of walk-ons who don't mind getting beat up on just to play for NU, and 2.) They get to be pushed by a bunch of guys who are foaming at the mouth to play, but who may not be All-Americans themselves. That pressure-cooker of development is what made everyone, from the elite players down to the farm boys, better players, and they did it without a roster bloated with 5 star players, like Alabama.

I think this is fairly accurate, and completely in line with your post and why a great walk-on program is crucial to success here. I would say Wisconsin, thanks to Alvarez, has a very similar philosophy to what Nebraska's once was. Just as an example.

 

[73 Red I]

Maybe one big difference is the type of attrition we have verse the good programs out there.

We seems to lose our good players.

The players that don't pan out? Well, they seem to stay here on scholarship until they graduate (sans QBs generally).

I do not disagree with NU keeping them on scholarship, but am pointing out that this happens here quite a lot and IMO, doesn't happen much at the likes of Alabama and other great teams that are not as player friendly in these situations.[/QUOTE
I believe the BIG requires that the scholarship be four years. So if you do get a scholarship player and you can see after a couple years that the player will not contribute for what ever reason, BIG conference members must honor the four years. Huskers have had a few 4**** players that have not contributed and hung on to finish the education. I don't know if any were encouraged to leave, but Nebraska can't force them to leave. With a walk on, if they do eventually get a scholarship it is because the coaches feel they are contributing.

 

[inWV]

The question is how many spots in a recruiting class is your walkon program worth. This year we started at some point three present/former walkons on the Oline (albeit not at the level of talent we want), and one at WR who played at the level of our schollie guys. The walkon DE that started was as tough as nails. Chances are that Weber will start next year and Conrad will either start or contribute. Guys like Reimers and Rahn are providing depth while we build the WR group. It seems that Riley has a good group of walkons in this class.

 

[huskernorm]

Ideally you want to take the max number you can in the recruiting class but it's better to leave a few spots open then fill those spots with non-contributors who will simply take up a schollie for 5 years. You also need to hold on to the recruits who can contribute.

Somehow, Bo Pelini didn't fill the scholarships, filled the back end of his classes with non-contributors, and had a bunch of top end recruits leave the program. That is what has really hurt the program over the last several years IMO.

 

[inWV]

Ideally you want to take the max number you can in the recruiting class but it's better to leave a few spots open then fill those spots with non-contributors who will simply take up a schollie for 5 years. You also need to hold on to the recruits who can contribute.

Somehow, Bo Pelini didn't fill the scholarships, filled the back end of his classes with non-contributors, and had a bunch of top end recruits leave the program. That is what has really hurt the program over the last several years IMO.

This.
So far, the Riley/Pelini hybrid class is down 3 (Stevenson, Talan and Alston), and the 2016 is missing Grim. Pelini's last solo class is missing 8 by my count.
It would seem that under Riley, the program has a plan and is better organized. Conceivably, they could have had some late adds lined up to fill 2 or 3 spots (word was they would have taken up to 24 had things broke the right way). They chose not to do this.

 

[jeans15]

Difference is. Other schools move along players that don't contribute.

 

[WestCoastCornhusker2]

Relax. In the last 5 classes, Michigan has 116 commits and we have 112. Are we really going to make a big stink over not having 22 commits this year, when we brought in 20 strong recruits, and didn't sign a couple 2-star recruits that were reaches?

I think the coaches did a great job this year, despite not getting a few guys that we wanted. When you are going after kids in the talent rich states that are 1,000+ miles away, you're going to lose some recruiting battles to schools closer to their home. Despite that, we were still in the Top 3 for many highly-rated recruits, and have built great relationships with coaches and kids for future years.

Thanks, this makes more sense than 3 but the last 4 classes is the most accurate. I also don't mind saving a couple for walk-ons. Of the 7 or 8 we get each year 1 or 2 will earn a scholly.

 

[inWV]

Thanks, this makes more sense than 3 but the last 4 classes is the most accurate. I also don't mind saving a couple for walk-ons. Of the 7 or 8 we get each year 1 or 2 will earn a scholly.

Some would say don't worry about the walkons, you can stiff them even if their play is worthy of fiscal support. But then you won't get the kids who are being offered by lower level schools. If some of those kids come, bust *** and develop, then take a spot on the two-deep, the reward has to be a possibility.
Had we snagged and additional one or two of the CA kids, we would not be having these discussions.

 

[WestCoastCornhusker2]

Some would say don't worry about the walkons, you can stiff them even if their play is worthy of fiscal support. But then you won't get the kids who are being offered by lower level schools. If some of those kids come, bust *** and develop, then take a spot on the two-deep, the reward has to be a possibility.
Had we snagged and additional one or two of the CA kids, we would not be having these discussions.

It use to be we would get a lot all americans that came as walk ons thru motivation and busting of ***.

 

[inWV]

It use to be we would get a lot all americans that came as walk ons thru motivation and busting of ***.

Option 1: Max out the class (take all signee spots allowed) and run off the non-contributors (we are not doing and probably won't)
Option 2: Don't brim the the class and reward walkon contributors with spots available due to attrition (ideal, IMO)
Option 3: Fail to fill all available spots but don't take a flyer on a couple of kids (this year)
Option 4: Fail to fill all available spots but take a flyer on some kids (standard issue Pelini)
If the program is not going to do Option 1 (and I don't think we will), it's better to deploy Options 2 and 3, depending on the number of slots you have in any given year. You can always reward walkons that are producing on he field with any slots that are open and you can also more easily balance your classes and roster spots.

 

[mgbreeze]

Define "a lot". I looked at the list of Nebraska All-Americans and I came up with 7 first teamers who were originally walk-ons, a couple were kickers. Jared Tomich is the one that blew me away, I had no idea he came as a walk on.

 

[OO Snipes_rivals]

Class size is not the problem. Wether they stick and contribute is the issue. I think a big majority of this class contributes.. A few right away. Not all classes will be short. I think they were willing to oversign for the right guys, but also realized 2018 would be that much smaller. Now 2018 class will also probably be around 20 instead of 16-18, and senior walk on gets a ship for the year. Not that bad of a scenario

 

[Foosball is the devil]

Define "a lot". I looked at the list of Nebraska All-Americans and I came up with 7 first teamers who were originally walk-ons, a couple were kickers. Jared Tomich is the one that blew me away, I had no idea he came as a walk on.

Tomich was a prop 48 partial qualifier if I recall and recruited.

 

[SeaOfRed75]

CAN we run off players just because we want to now with the Big Ten 4 year schollie rule? Honest question.

As to Tomich if memory serves he was technically a walk-on because he was prop 48 wasnt he? Or am I remembering wrong and he was just overlooked.

 

[Toms Wife]

The National Champion took 14 this year. I don't see Dabo running a bunch of guys off.

 

[NikkiSixx_rivals269993]

CAN we run off players just because we want to now with the Big Ten 4 year schollie rule? Honest question.

As to Tomich if memory serves he was technically a walk-on because he was prop 48 wasnt he? Or am I remembering wrong and he was just overlooked.

good question.. the spirit of the rule is suppose to benefit players..

I think they should all pay to play.. no more schollies at all. you want to be here, you pay up.. the guy who pays the most, gets the most snaps.

/end alternate reality rant

 

[mgbreeze]

I miscounted, there are only 6 (accidentally included Kenny Walker). What about Jimmy Williams, was he a "true" walk on or a Prop 48? I realize this is irrelevant, I'm just curious. I know there have been "a lot" of good Nebraska walk-ons who weren't All-Americans.

 

[LBremser_rivals78367]

CAN we run off players just because we want to now with the Big Ten 4 year schollie rule? Honest question.

If we follow the letter of the rule, the answer is no. My view is that riding pine for 2-3 years is a breach of good standing with the community, so we're good to go.:Cool:

"The Big Ten became the first major college conference to guarantee scholarships across all sports through the duration of an athlete’s enrollment at a university.

In a statement released Wednesday, the Big Ten said scholarships won’t be reduced or cancelled as long as an athlete "remains a member in good standing with the community, the university and the athletics department."

 

[jflores]

If we follow the letter of the rule, the answer is no. My view is that riding pine for 2-3 years is a breach of good standing with the community, so we're good to go.:Cool:

"The Big Ten became the first major college conference to guarantee scholarships across all sports through the duration of an athlete’s enrollment at a university.

In a statement released Wednesday, the Big Ten said scholarships won’t be reduced or cancelled as long as an athlete "remains a member in good standing with the community, the university and the athletics department."

Nice try. Formed to exclude "performance" as an overt reason.

Community is basically "doesn't have run ins with The Fuzz".

 

[Nate004]

If we follow the letter of the rule, the answer is no. My view is that riding pine for 2-3 years is a breach of good standing with the community, so we're good to go.:Cool:

"The Big Ten became the first major college conference to guarantee scholarships across all sports through the duration of an athlete’s enrollment at a university.

In a statement released Wednesday, the Big Ten said scholarships won’t be reduced or cancelled as long as an athlete "remains a member in good standing with the community, the university and the athletics department."

It makes me wonder how long it will take for a coach in the conference to try to set up ways for a poor performing athlete to get in trouble so they can get that scholly back.

 

[LBremser_rivals78367]

Nice try. Formed to exclude "performance" as an overt reason.

Community is basically "doesn't have run ins with The Fuzz".

Buzzkill

 

[big red23]

The question is how many spots in a recruiting class is your walkon program worth. This year we started at some point three present/former walkons on the Oline (albeit not at the level of talent we want), and one at WR who played at the level of our schollie guys. The walkon DE that started was as tough as nails. Chances are that Weber will start next year and Conrad will either start or contribute. Guys like Reimers and Rahn are providing depth while we build the WR group. It seems that Riley has a good group of walkons in this class.

You know what, I get that these players are solid, but "Solid" isn't going to get us to the playoffs. Alabama's second team would probably be 75% of our starting line up. That is where I find the walk on program is only going to get us so far.

"Ross Dzuris started for us and was our best player on the D-Line"

"Brandon Reilly was a great receiver"

They also aren't going to get drafted and the fact that they were our best players, scares the living **** out of me!

I'm not going to say that Walk-Ons can't be difference makers, because they can. You are going to have to dig real deep to find "Stars" from the Walk-On program anytime past 1998

The reason being... SItes like rivals are now here and those Walk-Ons we used to get like Parella, Tomich, Mackovicka are going to take an offers from FCS schools instead. These sites are what changed college football, and the Walk-Ons of old are long gone.

You are going to find a bunch of Kickers and a Stewart Bradley or Ross Dzuris here and there. Sorry, but that isn't going win national championships!

Here is the list... You tell me the % that did anything of relevance

https://sites.google.com/site/nebraskafootballhistory/walk-ons

Just look at the "Amount" of talent teams like Ohio State and Alabama are getting! Like I said, I think the 20 players we signed are definitely very good football players, but we need about 4-5 more players of their caliber!

1 - DE
1 - RB
1-2 more DB's
1-2 more WR's

Sorry folks, but the times have changed!

 

[mgbreeze]

Did anyone else see Mack Brown's quote from the signing day coverage on espn2 yesterday? He said, "The guys that are following the letter of the law are at a big disadvantage". I thought it was interesting at the time, and it definitely relates to this thread!

 

[DudznSudz]

Did anyone else see Mack Brown's quote from the signing day coverage on espn2 yesterday? He said, "The guys that are following the letter of the law are at a big disadvantage". I thought it was interesting at the time, and it definitely relates to this thread!

Honestly, that's bs, said by a dumb redneck who clearly holds a point of view that is part of the problem. There will be a time where the NCAA grows a pair and starts enforcing its authority over even cash-cow programs like Alabama, and when that happens, everyone here will be glad we don't engage in the worst of the worst in terms of rule-breaking and bribery.

I'm not saying we are perfect; there is FAR too much money involved in college football today for any program to be 100% squeaky clean. I would say we're in the top 25% of programs that more or less follow the rules, though. Does that mean we sometimes miss out on players? Yes. But I would rather build a program that attracts players based on its success on the field and its overall reputation for player well-being and development, rather than abuse a system that is already terrible at exploiting student-athletes.

Instead, we should be talking about allowing students to form unions/engage in collective bargaining, paying the athletes something for the incredible risk they are putting themselves through, or overhauling the entire college athletics universe and creating a sports academy-style system similar to the European with soccer.

 

[LBremser_rivals78367]

Instead, we should be talking about allowing students to form unions/engage in collective bargaining, paying the athletes something for the incredible risk they are putting themselves through, or overhauling the entire college athletics universe and creating a sports academy-style system similar to the European with soccer.

Probably 80% of Athletic Departments currently require university subsidies to balance their budgets. Paying players in a college setting is not an option so long as Title IX exists. I would not be surprised to see a movement to a football "NFL minor league" concept at some point.

 

[DudznSudz]

Probably 80% of Athletic Departments currently require university subsidies to balance their budgets. Paying players in a college setting is not an option so long as Title IX exists. I would not be surprised to see a movement to a football "NFL minor league" concept at some point.

Player pay doesn't necessarily have to come from the universities, but yeah, I see your point about the idea of changing the current set-up. I get that a lot of people really enjoy the ties athletics have to institutions of higher learning and the whole amateur aspect of it, but come on. The idea that getting a scholarship to go to school is a fair trade for the level of risk that many athletes put themselves through, and the sheer amount of money generated off of that risk, is completely out of whack. So, to that degree, I agree with you and hope the system evolves to address some glaring problems in the system as it is.

 

[mgbreeze]

When is the magic date that the NCAA is going to start cracking down on cheaters? I don't see it happening. Too much money, too many influential people, whose lives revolve around the success of "their" football team. I should have included the rest of what Mack said though. Basically it was that there are 3 types, 1. follow the letter of the law, 2. push the limits, and 3. break the rules. I'm all for us pushing the limits.

 

[DudznSudz]

When is the magic date that the NCAA is going to start cracking down on cheaters? I don't see it happening. Too much money, too many influential people, whose lives revolve around the success of "their" football team. I should have included the rest of what Mack said though. Basically it was that there are 3 types, 1. follow the letter of the law, 2. push the limits, and 3. break the rules. I'm all for us pushing the limits.

I see. I'd be more for option 1 with a little bit of option 2 if necessary. Anyway, when will they enforce the rules? When players get arrested en masse, when coaches get caught doing something REALLY bad (drugs, hookers, guns), and/or when some players start dying on the field or in the facilities. All it takes is public outrage and an investigation by journalists interested in finding out how things go on for things to get very, very nasty for some of these programs. We've seen a lot of bad, weird crap go down lately, so I suppose due to the things you just mentioned (basically, corruption), our collective tolerance of this stuff has increased...but it will change. Again, when that happens, and some of these programs have to fire coaches/give up scholarships/get their programs completely banned for X numbers of years, we will all be glad that we're on the lighter end of rule-breaking.