I'm not sure how much development there really is going on at the college level. Freshman naturally need to mature and look different than Juniors and Seniors.
So this is just a time element and also influenced by how hard a kid works in the gym.
Most development has to come from the kid himself. How serious does he take his work on the practice field and how hard does he work to get better daily. I think of Ameer Abdullah as an example of a kid who worked his way to success. These examples exist, but are more rare to be honest.
Most other successful athletes probably worked an average amount, but had above average talent and ability.
Nebraska lately is at a big talent deficiency, way lower than even Pelini's recruits.
So is the way out more development work or talent or both?
You have to define what is development. What is traditionally thought of as development is not the answer.
My big criticism of most coaching staffs, (including to some extent Pelini) is they aren't really developmental staffs at all.
They all try to get the best athletes they can, and then do the best they can during practice.. That is all fine and dandy, but that isn't the kind of development work that needs to be done.
There is an element here of turning boys into men and being the kind of staff that leans in, when a kid has problems.
Most staffs do not do this.
Once a kid becomes a problem, it is human nature to think of him as becoming a headache and the kid ends up getting some sort of punishment, dog house treatment, and eventually processed out.
One of the reasons Tom was so successful is the actual development of kids in this regard. Rarely did you see Tom process kids out. They got extra time, extra attention, extra development, even though Tom himself got extra scrutiny from the press.
So to me, I have to define development as something more than just what happens on the practice field. A successful developmental staff, is one who leans in to these things, even though they are an administrative headache. That is one of the secrets or signs of actually being a good developer of boys into men.
Pelini had some of this, but often times he tired of dealing with player issues, to the point of him becoming a bit of a tyrant.
However most staffs, don't put much or any effort into this sort of thing, and if you're not on board, you're out the door.
I thought Mickey Joseph had a chance to be a good developer in this regard as well. Shame how that turned out.
When I think of someone like Urban Meyer, in regards to player development, I think he also leaned in and this had a big impact on his success as well.
We don't know how the new staff will turn out.
Do they have a better practice and day to day standard? maybe
Can they get better talent here? maybe
Do they lean in or just process 'problems'?
That to me, is where the 'development' really needs to be.. I want to see us keep really talented players, even if they are a headache and require more 'development'. This is what coaches are being paid obscene amounts of money for.
If you're going to build a program of choir boys or think you can create a team of Ameer Abdullahs, then I would ask for example of this approach actually being successful on a consistent basis.
