[Husker] Summarizing

[Steve Stone]

Bob Beach wrote:

>Duane Feldman wrote:
>>
>>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?

Sometimes, Bob, you seem to be the one who isn't really listening. TO 
has said numerous times that the walk-on program was worth five or 
six scholarships per year and that it was a crucial part of the 
program.

>>  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.

Again, Bob, you seem not to want to listen: SIX of the 1995 Fiesta 
Bowl starters were walk-ons on possibly the greatest college football 
team of all time.

>>  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.

Was there ever a time when was the lure of a free education ever NOT 
attractive?

This paragraph doesn't parse.

>>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.

Tom Osborn has frequently stated that the program NEEDS the walk-on program.

Do you have a problem accepting TO as an authority on the subject?

>     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.

While never ever proof of anything, an analogy should at least be 
illustrative, but this one isn't.

Steve Stone