This very long note is a response to another poster. I apologized that I do not know how to bold or italicize so that this is easier to read on the board. I hope some may find it an interesting discussion about two points of view on recruiting and what direction we should go regarding roster management. This originated on TOS but since it has a large content from me as a poster here I did not think I would be breaking any rules.
HuskerPete13

Taykohl,
First I want to express my appreciation for the thoughtful manner in which you presented your view on the subject of recruiting/roster management. It was done is a way that allows for healthy debate without the extreme statements we so often see on the board. Thank you for taking the time to frame your opinion so well. However, I will attempt to present my alternative view. I apologize if this becomes difficult to read.

YOUR POST is in bold and my response follows each section

I won't comment on the rest of the post, but I do find the idea that a program should be saddled with non-contributors for years because coaches projected development for them that never happened is about as self-defeating as you can get.

I agree that it is a challenge that makes it more difficult to assemble the best football team possible. However, I believe you are missing a fundamental point which is that these are STUDENT-athletes. Not just athletes. The whole point of having sports teams associated with the University is that it is an extension of the educational experience. This is true for the student-athletes, the general student, and the fan or alumni. This is what separates college sports from the professional sports.

I understand the appeal of this position. Nebraska football fans like to think we are different, exceptional and unique - not just on the field, but in a moral sense. In many ways, we're right. However, the current reality is that doing the "honorable" thing by swallowing your mistakes for half a decade simply won't cut it in the world of modern football. Think about it from a sheerly mathematical standpoint.

In every class there are probably 3-5 guys who, by the end of their freshman year, are maxed out. Coaches can tell whether or not they have the tools and mindset to be a BCS caliber player.

In a four year span, that leaves you with 12-20 guys just eating scholarships with no chance of ever hitting the field in a meaningful way. From a recruiting standpoint, that means we are living with a self-imposed set of crippling sanctions. And in a place where you already have to recruit harder, smarter and more efficiently than other places, that's a damn-near insurmountable disadvantage to overcome.

Generally, I agree that it makes the job of collecting the most talent possible more difficult. However, the point is, the University recruited them to come to UNL and play for their team. I believe they did not guarantee them a starting position or even playing time. They guaranteed them an opportunity to pursue the starting position. They also committed to that student and his family that the University would provide assistance to that student and help him pursue his education. The university promised a financial scholarship in exchange for his commitment. They promised to give him good teachers, good facilities, good medical and training staff, and that academic help would be available should he need it.

In fact, they outline expectations as well. They outlined the expectations of what the student must do to keep his scholarship. Go to class, attend study sessions, and attend practices, meetings, and fitness sessions. These were all outlined as minimum expectations for effort and commitment to team. They also outline behavior expectations and what the consequences might be if they did not follow these expectations. However, They DID NOT outline a sports performance expectation. They DID NOT tell the parents we will give your child all this but if he does not improve his 40 speed or his tackling technique, or his ball security then he will not have his scholarship renewed.

One of my favorite series of NCAA commercials are the ones that involve displaying numerous athletes in their respective sports and then making the point that the vast majority will be going PRO is something other than the sport. It captures the essence of my point above. College sports are not just about the sport. They are about using the sport to provide opportunities for students to gain an education and a chance for a better life.

Do I believe we need to do a better job of identifying talent who CAN contribute? Yes. Do I believe we need to do a better job of developing talent. Yes.

Yes, Me too

But do I believe that a football scholarship should be any different than an academic scholarship (where non-performance results in a scholarship being rescinded)? No, absolutely not. As much as we like to coddle them, these are young adults. In the same way academic scholarships have clear expectations where failure to meet them results in a scholarship being re-assessed, so should football scholarships.

This is the FLAW in your entire argument. You are comparing apples and oranges. We provide an academic scholarship to someone who we believe has exceptional talent in some academic arena. We place expectations on them to produce a certain level of academic work. We expect them to provide support to the faculty in some cases, and they must maintain a certain GPA to keep their scholarship. We place no requirement on them to win science competitions or literary competitions. We hope they might, but we do not take away their scholarship if they do not achieve competitive success.

Similar to athletic scholarships we recruit some of these academic scholars and we offer them opportunities not guarantees and we place expectations of performance on them that are defined upfront. These expectations are defined in effort, behavior, and academic standards. They are not defined in levels of competitive performance or improvement that must be met based on some perceived potential they possess.

The academic opportunity (athletic financial scholarship) is the reward for the effort and commitment to the team that you are expected to provide. The student athlete did not define his potential. The coach who recruited him and offered him the scholarship is the one who is identifying his potential. If the coach’s assessment is wrong; then, that is not the student athletes fault. The athlete should not be punished for this lack of realized potential unless he is not meeting the effort and behavioral standards that were established up front.

That doesn't mean we need to grind up good kids on a yearly basis. It means we need to get smart about urging non-contributors to seek opportunities elsewhere or focus on their studies at Nebraska. That doesn't make us a bad program. It means we aren't living in some weird, moralistic utopia.

What does this mean? I can assure you that Bo and the staff have meetings with every player during the offseason. The coaches provide the realistic expectation for that player and where he might be on the depth chart. They may even give players a clear view that they are not likely to see the field. They present them with options like go elsewhere so you have a chance to see the field, or graduate and move on rather than use a 5th year.

Here is the fundamental difference. Many schools do more than present the options. They coerce, strongly encourage, and even make up excuses to move player out of the program. Examples include forcing kids to take a choice between a “medical hardship scholarship” which forces them to concede their remaining eligibility, or tell them to play at a lesser school. Some choice! Guiding them to another local school with promises of playing time or a future graduate assistance position down the road is also common. The worst is the made up team rules violation; where others were guilty and were allowed to remain but a less prominent player is removed. More recently, last minute use of delayed entry or “greyshirting” has been abused to help achieve this “roster management” objective.

The NCAA rules are supposed to protect the student athlete from this kind of abuse. However, programs like the medical hardship are now being abused. This arrangement was intended to protect a legitimately injured player so that he could keep his scholarship and not hurt the team by taking one of the 85 limit. Now teams (Nick Saban, SEC) have used this in excess to escort recruiting mistakes or slightly injured player out of the program to make way for another 4 or 5 star kid.

I want no part of this for Nebraska. It is wrong and completely contradicts the purpose of college athletics.

I will concede it is standard procedure for many schools and even entire conferences. I will also concede that being able to “roster manage” is a significant advantage vs. teams that do not follow that path. Where we differ is in how the University of Nebraska, and other institution who share our view, should move forward. I advocate for changing the rules and closing the loopholes so that Nick Satan and his merry men cannot continue to abuse the system and effectively gain an additional recruiting class over a 4 year period of time.

This particular position is one that I think says a lot about the current state of our program and our fanbase. There's an undercurrent of defeatism here that will be vehemently denied, but exists nonetheless. The thought seems to go, "If we can't win the games outright at an elite level, let's maintain the moral high ground." Moral victories in the most literal sense. The reality is we don't need to sacrifice the capacity of our program to compete for national championships in order to be more "righteous" than other schools. We can be very open and honest with the kids we do have that aren't going to contribute, search for solutions, keep some and coach some out.

Again, I believe your perception is wrong. It is not a defeatist attitude or pursuit of “Moral Victories” It is far more fundamental; It’s about right and wrong!! It about the essence of college sports and what separates it from the world of professional sports. I will concede that men’s college basketball has diminished in my view because I believe the use of street agents and the emergence of AAU coaches as the key influence peddlers for the athletes has led to that sport becoming a glorified minor league for the NBA.

For me, I'd much rather acknowledge the current realities of college football, do our best to honor the commitment these kids made to us and make hard decisions when the time comes than have the opportunity to moralize about the loss of "perspective" in college football and rave about the views from so high up on the cross.

I agree 100% with the first part, acknowledge the reality and honor the commitment. However, I am unwilling to take the “If you can’t beat them , join em” approach. I advocate for pursuing proper change through the NCAA to protect the student athlete and the integrity of the college sports experience.

Taykohl, we are not as far apart in our view as it might appear. We both recognize the problem. We just have two different views of how to solve it.