ADVERTISEMENT

Regarding recruiting rankings/national titles

Status
Not open for further replies.
I tend to agree with you however the only reason Muschamp has this job is he sold tanner that he could get blue chip guys regardless . I love the energy and the drive he has, but no one on this board truly believes Champ was the 1st, 2nd or maybe even third choice for this job . If Tanner was really that sold on him he would have outbid Auburn and brought him on as D Coordinator and "coach in waiting " instead of letting SOS bring in Jon Joke ( sorry I mean Hoke). Not to say he still will not do a good job . I have tons of Clemson friends that were PISSED when Dabo got the job because they felt like the AD settled . Worked out pretty well for them I'd say . However , Muschamp didn't get this job for his brillant game day coaching or his track record of success ... he got the job because he sold tanner on his ability to bring in top 10 classes . This class was very important because it was the best crop of instate talent to come along in years and to this point Dabo is still getting the cream of the crop . In Muschamps defense it's hard to recruit head to head against an instate rival that absolutely demolished you on national Tv . By the first quarter I knew any chance we had with XT was gone . This team overachieved last year , if we get off to a great start who knows what could happen . However, If we get our butts handed to us at NC State opening night things could go down hill pretty quickly .


Think about the spot Tanner was in..wow. Recruiting has a lot to do with perception and the direction a program is headed....up or down. When we lost to the Citadel any chance we had of bringing in a coach on the upswing was done. A young up and coming coach's career is like an egg......easily destroyed by a wrong step. We had two choices...another retread who...like we have experienced...often comes in for other reasons other than what they claim they are coming for....or a Cord...which almost always fail.

I was against Muschamp myself when his name was bandied about. I wanted the name coach that could minimize the damage done with his own inertia. Tanner tried for that...but that was not to be. What we got is a coach that has a ton of potential...but had a career setback by things largely out of his control. In that respect Muschamp is a lot like our program....we are in the same boat it seems.

This may sound like a whistling past the graveyard type statement....but I like the idea that we are in this together. It is win or die for both parties. I am comfortable that he will do everything in his power to survive....I think we need that now...because we damn sure have not had that in a long...long time.
 
I want to know if what Nebraska did under Osbourne did at Nebraska did could be repeated. For a long stretch they would not lose. Look what they did to Florida without all the stars. They mentioned scheme but was it the lines? I think Auburn was saved by Cam Newton and maybe a RB
 
I want to know if what Nebraska did under Osbourne did at Nebraska did could be repeated. For a long stretch they would not lose. Look what they did to Florida without all the stars. They mentioned scheme but was it the lines? I think Auburn was saved by Cam Newton and maybe a RB


Nebraska's success in those days was largely attributable to their off season strength and conditioning programs that were state of the art and light years ahead of what most of the competition was doing. Now most programs have adopted what they were doing 30 years ago and it is standard.
 
I tend to agree with you however the only reason Muschamp has this job is he sold tanner that he could get blue chip guys regardless . I love the energy and the drive he has, but no one on this board truly believes Champ was the 1st, 2nd or maybe even third choice for this job . If Tanner was really that sold on him he would have outbid Auburn and brought him on as D Coordinator and "coach in waiting " instead of letting SOS bring in Jon Joke ( sorry I mean Hoke). Not to say he still will not do a good job . I have tons of Clemson friends that were PISSED when Dabo got the job because they felt like the AD settled . Worked out pretty well for them I'd say . However , Muschamp didn't get this job for his brillant game day coaching or his track record of success ... he got the job because he sold tanner on his ability to bring in top 10 classes . This class was very important because it was the best crop of instate talent to come along in years and to this point Dabo is still getting the cream of the crop . In Muschamps defense it's hard to recruit head to head against an instate rival that absolutely demolished you on national Tv . By the first quarter I knew any chance we had with XT was gone . This team overachieved last year , if we get off to a great start who knows what could happen . However, If we get our butts handed to us at NC State opening night things could go down hill pretty quickly .
The silver lining with your statement tells me if Dabo can only recruit and Muschamp can only recruit we may be in better shape long term than we thought.
 
It seems to have been said a few times but just to put it out there in one place:

One off evaluations and people freaking out over a guy's star ranking and the minuscule difference between him being a 3 or 4 star guy is fn stupid and happens every damn day around here!

It is reasonable however to look at the average ratings of a whole class or couple of classes to get an approximate evaluation of the talent a team has!

The nit picking lunacy some fans take on individual player evaluations is disgusting and needs to stop. Recruiting is a game of numbers and probabilities... we have recruited pretty well of late, not great. We need our team to perform above their expectations to attract better players that maybe able to contend in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cocky4
It seems to have been said a few times but just to put it out there in one place:

One off evaluations and people freaking out over a guy's star ranking and the minuscule difference between him being a 3 or 4 star guy is fn stupid and happens every damn day around here!

It is reasonable however to look at the average ratings of a whole class or couple of classes to get an approximate evaluation of the talent a team has!

The nit picking lunacy some fans take on individual player evaluations is disgusting and needs to stop. Recruiting is a game of numbers and probabilities... we have recruited pretty well of late, not great. We need our team to perform above their expectations to attract better players that maybe able to contend in the future.


Recruiting has become a spectator sport in and of itself. I am not saying that all people that bring up concerns think that way...but many do.
 
Nebraska's success in those days was largely attributable to their off season strength and conditioning programs that were state of the art and light years ahead of what most of the competition was doing. Now most programs have adopted what they were doing 30 years ago and it is standard.
It's been 39 years already? Dang, that makes me feel old
 
  • Like
Reactions: cocky4
Think about the spot Tanner was in..wow. Recruiting has a lot to do with perception and the direction a program is headed....up or down. When we lost to the Citadel any chance we had of bringing in a coach on the upswing was done. A young up and coming coach's career is like an egg......easily destroyed by a wrong step. We had two choices...another retread who...like we have experienced...often comes in for other reasons other than what they claim they are coming for....or a Cord...which almost always fail.

I was against Muschamp myself when his name was bandied about. I wanted the name coach that could minimize the damage done with his own inertia. Tanner tried for that...but that was not to be. What we got is a coach that has a ton of potential...but had a career setback by things largely out of his control. In that respect Muschamp is a lot like our program....we are in the same boat it seems.

This may sound like a whistling past the graveyard type statement....but I like the idea that we are in this together. It is win or die for both parties. I am comfortable that he will do everything in his power to survive....I think we need that now...because we damn sure have not had that in a long...long time.

Great points !!! I do like that fact that this is do or die for Muschamp as a HC . If he flames out here then his days as a division 1 HC are finished . I like that . He will not hesitate to fire bad coaches or make tough personal decision because this is it for him . I think he kinda toned down the usual persona last year because he knew the talent wasn't there and no amount of butt chewing and tirades is gonna make a difference . I think that changes this year . I think we may see the old Boom make a few appearances because he expects to compete this year . If he does it will be entertaining and if he doesn't it might be even more entertaining so I can't wait !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cocky4
I agree but would you not agree that losing those players is more to do with the mess that the previous staff created. No school gets 5 star kids coming off 6, 3 and 6 win seasons. Then you add in players like Mike Williams that was all but ours but Jr....well you know. Hard to turn all that mess around overnight man.

Clempson signed 3 or 4 5-star players coming off of a 6-7 season.
 
Nebraska's success in those days was largely attributable to their off season strength and conditioning programs that were state of the art and light years ahead of what most of the competition was doing. Now most programs have adopted what they were doing 30 years ago and it is standard.
At the College Football Hall of Fame they had a display about Boyd Epleys implementation of strength training for the Cornhuskers. Their phrase was combine stretching running and lifting if you dare to be great
 
At the College Football Hall of Fame they had a display about Boyd Epleys implementation of strength training for the Cornhuskers. Their phrase was combine stretching running and lifting if you dare to be great

Nebraska didn't start winning national championships until they expanded their recruiting base to places like Florida and California. They got drilled every year they went to the orange bowl by Miami or Fsu throughout the 80's and early 90's.
 
Nebraska didn't start winning national championships until they expanded their recruiting base to places like Florida and California. They got drilled every year they went to the orange bowl by Miami or Fsu throughout the 80's and early 90's.
They cut corners too. Not just with guys like Christian Peter and Lawrence Phillips but there were rampant steroid rumors there.
 
People who stick their heads in the sand and say recruiting rankings don't matter are delusional . It is THE single most important factor . Sure there are 2 stars that play like 5 stars and 5 stars that play like no stars . However I'll take a class full of 5 stars !! Those who don't agree can look and see that the only sustained success we ever had was with guys like Clowney (5star) , Marcus (5star) , Alshon(4star), Gilmore(4 star) , Hollomon (4 star) , Mike Davis (4 star) etc.. Sure we had big time overachievers like Shaw , Ingram, Swearinger also but stars Always matter .

Melvin Ingram was a 4 star coming out of high school.
 
Yes they did. We can't even get them out of our own state. Have to reverse things.

Clempson pulled theirs from out of state after a 6-7 season after a bowl loss to South FL. Should have raised eyebrows at the NCAA, but they just looked the other way.
 
I really think his downfall was not being able to find a QB . Driskell was the number one rated QB coming out of HS and he couldn't play . Also if I remember correctly he had 3 different OC's during his tenure . Can't win with that kind of turmoil . I will say that I heard from a lot of my Gator buddy's that he stepped into a pretty rough situation at UF . Urban knew the team was on the decline so he jumped ship when he saw the writing on the wall . They were still a very talented team but nowhere near the Tebow / Percy Harvin level . Also they tell me Urban had totally lost control of the team and discipline and academic issues were running rampant so the situation Muschamp inherited was not as ideal as it appeared on the surface for what it's worth . But i agree with you that the jury is out on if he can be a Division 1 HC . We will learn a lot this year !!

I think the mismanagement of the oc position, bad roster management on offensive side (especially o line), and micromanaging the offensive side doomed him at uf. Mcilwaine didn't have enough o linemen for spring practice when he took the job. Brisett went on to be effective after leaving and driskel did well at la tech. My hope is that he lets roper and Bentley run the o without any interference. If anything that lesson should have been learned.
 
Most reasonable people know that it is better to have higher rated players generally over less rated ones. However...that is not the question that most often comes under debate. What we are talking about is every time we get a recruit...there is someone that criticizes it because it is not rated as highly as everyone would love to see. The day might come when we are able to fill every spot with a 4 or 5 star recruit...but we are not there and at any given time only a few programs are.

A program can still be very good..even great with more 3 stars than 4...look to programs like TCU, Mizzou and Louisville. We have to build before we run like the best of the best. I wonder if a large portion of those fan bases bitch every time they land a 3 star recruit? Now we are actually better suited than all those programs to become a powerhouse but we still have to build before we can excel to our to our potential. Yes it is recruiting that is what puts you over the top but before you get to that point....it is coaching up and blue collar recruits.

Believe it or not Nick Saban did not start out at Alabama with a fist full of 5 stars. He built it on great evaluations and good hard coaching of a bunch...hold your breath...the same type and level of recruits we are getting now.



"Believe it or not Nick Saban did not start out at Alabama with a fist full of 5 stars. He built it on great evaluations and good hard coaching of a bunch...hold your breath...the same type and level of recruits we are getting now."

Not true. Saban's first class (2007) was ranked #11 by rivals and #14 by 247Sports. It included elite first round talents like Rolando McClain, Kareem Jackson, Marquis Maze, Darius Hanks and Josh Chapman. Every single class after 2007's first class was ranked number one by at least one rating agency. Saban didn't build his program on three star talent....check your facts before you type.
 


"Believe it or not Nick Saban did not start out at Alabama with a fist full of 5 stars. He built it on great evaluations and good hard coaching of a bunch...hold your breath...the same type and level of recruits we are getting now."

Not true. Saban's first class (2007) was ranked #11 by rivals and #14 by 247Sports. It included elite first round talents like Rolando McClain, Kareem Jackson, Marquis Maze, Darius Hanks and Josh Chapman. Every single class after 2007's first class was ranked number one by at least one rating agency. Saban didn't build his program on three star talent....check your facts before you type.


What was our last class ranked by rivals? Also lets keep in mind that while Saban did not come in the best of circumstances...he did not walk into the dumpster fire that Muschamp was left by Spurrier. If you think that Muschamp has not done a hell of a job recruiting thus far...afraid it is you that has a lack of understanding and maybe should read and study rather than talk.

BTW I said start out....which factually is true....I will leave it up to you to decide for yourself when a coach is supposed to start landing 5 start talent here considering what he was left to deal with.
 
Last edited:
What was our last class ranked by rivals? Also lets keep in mind that while Saban did not come in the best of circumstances...he did not walk into the dumpster fire that Muschamp was left by Spurrier. If you think that Muschamp has not done a hell of a job recruiting thus far...afraid it is you that has a lack of understanding and maybe should read and study rather than talk.

BTW I said start out....which factually is true....I will leave it up to you to decide for yourself when a coach is supposed to start landing 5 start talent here considering what he was left to deal with.

Dude, I never discussed the SC situation. I was pointing out that you were wrong about Saban's early recruiting at Bama. Read your own damn post again. Oh, and tell me where I ever said a thing about our situation at SC.


Here is your "quote" which I showed was not true:
"Believe it or not Nick Saban did not start out at Alabama with a fist full of 5 stars. He built it on great evaluations and good hard coaching of a bunch...hold your breath...the same type and level of recruits we are getting now."
 
good read https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/top-ten-signing-classes-are-necessary-for-national-titles-020515/

Since 1998 every team that has won a national title except for Oklahoma in 2000 has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before a title. So while signing a top ten recruiting class doesn’t guarantee that you’re going to win a national title — indeed, there are plenty of teams that don’t — for most of the past generation, you can’t win a title without at least two top ten recruiting classes. More interestingly, every champion from the past nine years with the exception of Auburn in 2010 has had at least three top ten recruiting classes in the four years before it won a title.

I used Rivals recruiting rankings because the class rankings database is available going back to 2002. Then I tried to Google search to find class rankings for the teams before the database existed. (For instance, I was able to find that 1998 champion Tennessee’s 1994 class ranked second overall, that its 1996 class ranked third and that its 1997 class ranked fifth.) I stopped at 1998 because the data was hard to come by and because my assumption — which I couldn’t verify through online research — was that Nebraska’s title teams didn’t rank that highly when it came to recruiting. That’s because Nebraska under Tom Osborne ran a unique attack that wasn’t reliant upon the same kind of players that the rest of the top teams were recruiting. If anyone has access to old recruiting class rankings, I’d love to be more specific with my data from before 2002.

I went back and did this research because of all the Tweets about how “stars don’t matter,” and random Twitter examples of two and three star athletes who have become stars in the NFL. Sure, stars may not matter for individual players — that is, being a five star doesn’t guarantee that a specific player will be a high draft pick — but the teams that sign the most four and five stars are typically the best in the country. That’s because recruiting is essentially a game of probability. the more top players you get into your program the more chances you have to develop elite first round talent. Nearly half of all five stars will be drafted. Around one percent of all two stars will be drafted. All things being equal, the more four and five stars your team signs, the better they’ll be.

While much was made of the fact that no five stars played in this year’s Super Bowl, there were 15 five stars playing in college football’s title game. Put simply, stars matter. And with all the recruiting competition and the focus being brought to bear on top players, arguably recruiting analysis is becoming even better. Each of the last four champions, Alabama twice, Florida State, and Ohio State have had four consecutive top ten classes (Ohio State’s 2009 class was a composite top ten) in the year before they won a national title.

So how have the title teams recruited in the BCS era. Here’s the best data I could cobble together. If you have additional information on the older classes, I’d love to see it:

(UPDATE: One of our readers, Larry Smith, has stored Rivals recruiting rankings going all the way back to 1993, the first year they ever existed. It turns out, even Nebraska recruited well.)

1995 Nebraska (#15 in 1993,#5 in 1995)

1996 Florida (#6 in 1993, #2 in 1995)

1997 Nebraska/Michigan (Nebraska #5 in 1995 and number #9 in 1996 Michigan: #4 in 1994, #7 in 1995, #8 in 1996, #4 in 1997)

1998 Tennessee (#7 in 1998, #5 in 1997, #3 in 1996)

1999 Florida State (#5 in 1998, #1 in 1997, #5 in 1996)

2000 Oklahoma (#13 in 2000, and #25 in both 1997 and 1998 Rivals) *OU is the only program without a top ten class to win the title in Rivals history. But it did have 3 top 25 classes

2001 Miami (#2 in 2001, #9 in 2000, #8 in 1999)

2002 Ohio State (#7 in 2002, #4 in 2000, #2 in 1999)

2003 LSU/USC (LSU #1 class in 2003, #4 in 2001 USC #3 in 2003, #14 in 2000, #21 in 2001)

2004 USC (#3 class in 2003, #1 class in 2004)

2005 Texas (#1 class in 2002, #15 class in 2003 with only 18 recruits, which averaged highest star rating in country, #18 class in 2004 — only signed 15) If Texas had signed 20 players in either of these classes, they would have ranked in the top five. The #1 class in 2002 was simply too large, with over 30 players).

2006 Florida (#2 in 2003, #10 in 2004, #2 in 2006)

2007 LSU (#1 in 2003, #1 in 2004, #7 in 2006, #4 in 2007)

2008 Florida (#2 in 2006, #1 in 2007, #3 in 2008)

2009 Alabama (#10 in 2007, #1 in 2008, #1 in 2009)

2010 Auburn (#10 in 2006, #7 in 2007, #4 in 2010) Auburn was #20 in 2008 and #19 in 2009

2011 Alabama (#1 in 2008, #1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011)

2012 Alabama (#1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011, #1 in 2012)

2013 Florida State (#7 in 2009, #10 in 2010, #2 in 2011, #6 in 2012, #10 in 2013)

2014 Ohio State (#11 in 2011, #4 in 2012, #2 in 2013, #3 in 2014)

As you can see, football success has followed recruiting success.

Add all this up and the past twenty national champions have averaged 2.8 top ten classes in the four years before they won a title. So now that the 2015 recruiting classes are complete, which teams have two or more top ten recruiting classes in the four years before the start of the 2015 season? Recent history suggests your national champion will be one of these eleven teams:

4 top ten classes: Alabama, Ohio State, Florida State, and Auburn

3 top ten classes: USC, Florida, and LSU

2 top ten classes: Georgia, Tennessee, Michigan and Texas A&M

The next time someone tells you stars don’t matter, just reply: You’re right, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that all but one team that’s won a national title since 1995 has had at least two top ten classes in the four years before its title.

Been pointing to similar data for YEARS. And I'll note that Auburn bought a 5-star Heisman winning QB via transfer which didn't even show up in their recruiting rankings. So, the recruiting ranking truths are even more universal than the data suggests.

Yes, recruiting is an inexact science. Some 2-stars become studs and some 5-stars flop. But for all the people who continue to claim that "stars don't matter" I simply ask this...

Which recruiting class would you rather have each year, Bama's or Vandy's?

I rest my case.
 
Been pointing to similar data for YEARS. And I'll note that Auburn bought a 5-star Heisman winning QB via transfer which didn't even show up in their recruiting rankings. So, the recruiting ranking truths are even more universal than the data suggests.

Yes, recruiting is an inexact science. Some 2-stars become studs and some 5-stars flop. But for all the people who continue to claim that "stars don't matter" I simply ask this...

Which recruiting class would you rather have each year, Bama's or Vandy's?

I rest my case.

Get over it. What is a 5* recruit? What is a 3* recruit. Who is it assigning these stars, and what is their motivation and expertise? If I told you it is going to rain yesterday, and it did rain yesterday, does that make me an expert meteorologist?
 
Get over it. What is a 5* recruit? What is a 3* recruit. Who is it assigning these stars, and what is their motivation and expertise? If I told you it is going to rain yesterday, and it did rain yesterday, does that make me an expert meteorologist?

Rather than be argumentative, I will simply answer the man's question. I would rather have Bama's recruiting class than Vandy's.
 
Rather than be argumentative, I will simply answer the man's question. I would rather have Bama's recruiting class than Vandy's.
I would too. But that is not the point. The point is what came first, the chicken or the egg. Bama's recruiting classes are always ranked at the top. But that is not the result of some independent analysis done by expert talent evaluators. The horse follows the cart here. These internet recruiting sites are not in the business to be expert talent evaluators. They are in the business of making money with advertising and subscriptions from people who don't know any better. Bama doesn't win national championships because they have the top ranked recruiting classes. They have top ranked recruiting classes because they win National Championships. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.
 
I would too. But that is not the point. The point is what came first, the chicken or the egg. Bama's recruiting classes are always ranked at the top. But that is not the result of some independent analysis done by expert talent evaluators. The horse follows the cart here. These internet recruiting sites are not in the business to be expert talent evaluators. They are in the business of making money with advertising and subscriptions from people who don't know any better. Bama doesn't win national championships because they have the top ranked recruiting classes. They have top ranked recruiting classes because they win National Championships. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

When a player is initially evaluated and given an early 5 star rating, and that player has literally dozens of offers nationally, it has nothing to do with Bama. The player in question could sign anywhere. The fact that Bama gets many of these types to eventually go to Tuscaloosa is of course why they are able to compete for championships yearly.
 
When a player is initially evaluated and given an early 5 star rating, and that player has literally dozens of offers nationally, it has nothing to do with Bama. The player in question could sign anywhere. The fact that Bama gets many of these types to eventually go to Tuscaloosa is of course why they are able to compete for championships yearly.
The point is that the kid is usually given a 5* ranking because schools like Bama are recruiting them, not because these websites are expert evaluators. Bama and all other major schools do their own evaluation of players and make offers based on that. You would be hard pressed to find a single major D-1 coach who says they look at Rivals ratings as part of their recruiting process. Rivals and other sites merely piggy back on what they see from the major schools. These schools are in on these kids when they are freshmen and sophomores in high school in many cases. These recruiting services don't even assign a ranking that early. In some cases even rising seniors don't have a ranking by these sites.
 
The point is that the kid is usually given a 5* ranking because schools like Bama are recruiting them, not because these websites are expert evaluators. Bama and all other major schools do their own evaluation of players and make offers based on that. You would be hard pressed to find a single major D-1 coach who says they look at Rivals ratings as part of their recruiting process. Rivals and other sites merely piggy back on what they see from the major schools. These schools are in on these kids when they are freshmen and sophomores in high school in many cases. These recruiting services don't even assign a ranking that early. In some cases even rising seniors don't have a ranking by these sites.

I think you are overstating the impact here. If you theory is true, then Alabama should be a mediocre team most years. The only reason their guys are highly rated is because they had an offer from Bama, right? Not because they are actually really good football players.

I have no idea how they could win 4 national titles since 2009 given their average, overrated talent. Must just be luck because all those 4 and 5 star ratings are bogus.
 
I think you are overstating the impact here. If you theory is true, then Alabama should be a mediocre team most years. The only reason their guys are highly rated is because they had an offer from Bama, right? Not because they are actually really good football players.

I have no idea how they could win 4 national titles since 2009 given their average, overrated talent. Must just be luck because all those 4 and 5 star ratings are bogus.
How in the hell did you read that from what I posted? Basically, I stated almost the exact opposite of what you driveled here. Bama has a PREMIER program. Saban is the best of the best at evaluating and recruiting talent. Because of this, these pencil neck geeks from these recruiting sites follow his lead. They are not expert evaluators, they are copy cat followers. They make money off of idiots like you who believe they have some insight into recruiting.
 
What it comes down to is this: recruiters are rarely wrong about 5 star guys. They get lots of hype, lots of review, and they USUALLY pan out. Teams that get more than an isolated 5 star guy are going to rank high in recruiting and win big. When you get to 4 and 3 star guys, there are as many misses as hits, not as much time evaluating their ratings, and thus the difference between say the #15 team in recruiting and the #25 team might really only be three or four players, some of whom don't even qualify. Like I've said before, our really good teams and really bad teams had similar rankings.
 
How in the hell did you read that from what I posted? Basically, I stated almost the exact opposite of what you driveled here. Bama has a PREMIER program. Saban is the best of the best at evaluating and recruiting talent. Because of this, these pencil neck geeks from these recruiting sites follow his lead. They are not expert evaluators, they are copy cat followers. They make money off of idiots like you who believe they have some insight into recruiting.

So we want 5 stars, not 3 stars. Case closed.
 
Nebraska's success in those days was largely attributable to their off season strength and conditioning programs that were state of the art and light years ahead of what most of the competition was doing. Now most programs have adopted what they were doing 30 years ago and it is standard.

There was also a very active and robustly funded "walk-on" system in those days with players who were good enough to earn scholarships elsewhere being coaxed into "walking on" for Nebraska. Scholarship limitations and stiffer rules on walk-ons has put Nebraska in a bind in recent years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cocky4
There was also a very active and robustly funded "walk-on" system in those days with players who were good enough to earn scholarships elsewhere being coaxed into "walking on" for Nebraska. Scholarship limitations and stiffer rules on walk-ons has put Nebraska in a bind in recent years.


Absolutely....back then large well funded programs used to take players they never intended to play just to keep them from going to rivals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT