[Husker] Summarizing

[Bob Beach]

Duane Feldman wrote:
> <!-- DIV {margin:0px;} -->
>
> I have been staying out of this discussion since I felt Bob was so far 
> off base that there was no way to bring him back.
>
       I am not saying you can't disagree with me but I still am not 
sure people are hearing what I am saying.  I have said repeated I am NOT 
against the walk on program.  I have said repeatedly I see value, 
advantage, or whatever word one wants to insert here, in it.  I know 
players can emerge and contribute.  I don't deny that.  What I was 
questioning is would TO have lost a lot more games had he not had walk 
ons or would his record have been about the same?


>  If you make a general observation that only one third of most 
> scholarship recruits ever reach starter status (not exact, but close), 
> then two starters per year equate to six additional scholarships per 
> year.  yes, I know it takes 30 or so walkons to generate those two 
> starters, but so what?  It is like "found money."  And don't forget 
> the added benefits mentioned by many (more and better training reps, 
> attitude, et al).
>

       Is that a documented fact?  Two starters per year from the walk 
on program seems high to me.  I might go for the walk on program 
providing two players that play in games per year but two starters 
doesn't sound right.  I may be wrong.  That is why I wondered if you 
were going off documentation or gut feeling.  Nothing wrong with gut 
feeling.  We all do it at times.



>  The flip side of your comment is also illuminating.  Last 
> year, NU recruited nearly 40 walkons.  ALMOST ALL OF THEM received 
>  scholarship offers from other schools (many D1) and two of them even 
> started at other D1 schools (the OL from KSU and the defensive player 
> from U of Ohio).
>

      Today we might be looking at a little different situation as 
well.  The lure of a free education means a lot to people that couldn't 
afford one otherwise.  Or, even if you can afford it we are looking at 
tens of thousands of dollars for a college education.  While it may be 
prestigious and a life long dream to roll the dice and walk on at dear 
old Nebraska U that free education another school is offering swings a 
lot of weight.



> Nebraska needs walkons because we can't attract the five star talent 
> out of Florida, Texas and California (roughly half the NFL talent 
> base) when competing with UF, FSU, UMiami, UTexas, and USC. The three 
> stars who were bypassed by UTexas et al -- yes, we can get those but 
> not the Adrian Pederson's.
>

      I thought NU recruited a number of good to great backs over the 
years.  Anyway, the debate here isn't whether or not the walk on program 
has benefited NU over the years.  I think we would all agree it has.  
But, does the program NEED walk ons?  Are walk ons absolutely crucial to 
the success of the program?  Over the years would NU not have had as 
many nine plus win seasons or as many conference and national 
championships without the walk on program?  If the NCAA would do away 
with walk ons would NU just be dead in the water without hope in 
football?  We will never know of course.


     To me it is a little like the Chicago Bulls of the Michael Jordan 
era.  They had a guy named Dennis Rodman on their team.  What Rodman 
could do on the court the Bulls certainly benefited, no question.  But, 
I have always maintained the Bulls would have won as many championships 
if they never would have had Rodman.  I kind of have felt that way about 
the walk on program.  It is a good thing but is it an essential thing?  
It is something that really can't be proven one way or the other.


Bob Beach