[Husker] Summarizing (OK, no longer a summary)

[Duane Feldman]

----- Original Message ----
From: Bob Beach baseballguy at neb.rr.com

> Bob:     I am not saying you can't disagree with me but . . .   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?
DF Response:  Tom certainly felt his record would not have been as good and said so in "On Solid Ground" or one of his other books.  Take six starters off the '95 team and you certainly wouldn't have the best team of all time.  I can't personally back it up with data but I think it is logical that any team that loses two starters each year won't be as good as they are with those starters.


>Bob:      Is that a documented fact?  Two starters per year from the walk 
on program seems high to me.  . . .  That is why I wondered if you 
were going off documentation or gut feeling. . . .
DF Response:  I did the paperwork a few years ago (BC:  Before Callahan) and the actually number of starters was higher than two per year, not lower.  And yes, I do mean starters, not frequent subs.  No, I don't have the actual list in front of me right now -- it might be on an old computer, but for those who doubt -- grab the old yearbooks and do the research.  I did.  Mackovicka's (fullbacks in general), Shanle's, Bradley, and many, many more in recent years.



> Bob:        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.
DF Response:  While I get your argument, it flies in the face of the 40 walkons with virtually all turning down scholarships elsewhere.  I'm not sure why you say it in response to the data (provided by the athletic department FWIW).  Yes, it is more difficult today, but we are getting the walkon athletes anyway.




>Bob:    But, does the program NEED walk ons?  . . . .  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.
DF response:  Fortunately, we will never know.  We do have a four year data series that is inconclusive, but supportive of my view.  BC downplayed the walkon program and ended up with two losing seasons out of four and never won more games than Osborne's worst year.  Totally the result of fewer walkons?  Of course not.  Not even I think they have that much effect.


>Bob:   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.

[WARNING:  Soapbox alert]
DF Response: Well, if it hasn't already been proven, then I hope it is never proven.  All programs do pretty much the same thing as other programs.  The difference is in the margins.  What can we do marginally better than our opponents so that we can beat them when we play?  Teams in recruiting hotspots have a marginal advantage in choosing talent -- they are more likely to get the local athletes tnan schools farther away.  (As an alternative, for years ND had first choice of Catholic school athletes.)  If a school isn't a "first choice" among a large population of athletes, then they must find some other way to forge marginal advantages.  Walkons won't by itself make a program into a superpower, but coupled with other marginal advantages (e.g. a weight lifting program, greater athlete dedication, player motivation, more frequent redshirting, et al) a non-democentric program can compete with those with geographical advantages.  The key is
 finding enough marginal advantages.  Walkons are just one, but why give it up?
Bob, I think we are perhaps close on this argument in that walkons are not worth five or so wins a season.  But I believe they are worth one or two wins.  And that alone makes them worthwhile.
Duane Feldman
An aside:  Is the Academic Support Program one of those marginal advantages?  I believe so.  While I don't believe our athletes are substantially smarter than other schools, we virtually never lose an athlete to academic failure. I do know that both Western Michigan and Virginia Tech have lost starters due to academics.  Another marginal advantage for NU.















_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker