Jo Jo Domann
- Thread starter ru4nu2win
- Start date
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Ok. By your definition you reading any post here is stalking. Run back home now.
What does "hph" stand for by the way? Is that an acronym for this board or some other message board?
You have his name in your handle. Let it go indeed.Was there someone who came anywhere near bringing up the guy who coached the team 2 years ago in this thread?
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Says the "new" poster since July. Something tells me you know how easy it is to change usernames, or just make up new ones over and over.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Your act has reached it's end. Only so much faking you can do. Sad, just sad.
4.6.3 if I have ever said anything even close to supporting Bo and his staff please enlighten me and post it. I simply made a statement on Domann and somehow you twist it into support for Pelini? assclownitis!!
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Did you separate redshirt walk ons from your totals? Since we are talking scholarship numbers I would think that would be an important criteria.
Agreed that would change the numbers, and I didn't take the time to do that.
I think more importantly, you should clarify why you said that most true freshmen wouldn't play anyways, but then said we should redshirt less players. The statement doesn't make sense, since when true freshmen do not play, then, by definition, they redshirt. Seems especially odd given the examples you cited, Hannon and Johnson.
Johnson and Hannon were reaches from the onset. You don't have to play them, you just don't redshirt them. If you hadn't redshirted them, they would be leaving after this year. That is 2 available scholarships you could use on offensive linemen that may contribute. But instead, you could have 2 guys that used scholarships for 5 years and never played an offensive down in a game. That doesn't even take into account guys like Adam Taylor or Charles Jackson that aren't even used on special teams anymore.
Just because they don't redshirt doesn't mean you have to put them on the field. They would simply be doing the same thing they are doing now, with the huge exception that it would be for 4 years and not 5.
For 6 or 7 years now, Nebraska has started a season with less than 82 scholarship players. They then reward a few walk ons with a scholarship for a year, sometimes two. Under Pelini the plan was to just fill the classes and "coach them up". Then every year, through attrition, grades or transfer, they would be in the same boat, behind in numbers and at the end of the cycle, offering dudes that can simply fog a mirror.
Nebraska has to get to the point where they are recruiting quality and not simply quantity. I would rather they be at 82 scholarships than offer players that are not ever going to contribute and then keep them on the books for an additional year.
In this day and age, top players are looking for a place that will play kids early. Most won't play but in order to get those players you have to give them the opportunity to compete.
Schools like OSU and Alabama get players because they know they will get that chance. Wisconsin rarely gets those players.
In my perfect world, no decision to redshirt is made until the midway point of the season. Instead of using redshirts on the scout team use the 3rd and 4th string players and let the true freshman get reps with the 1s and 2s. At that point, you can see who has potential, who doesn't and who would benefit from a redshirt year.
Players that can play should play, even if on special teams. Players who just don't get it should not be redshirted. They don't have to play but you don't have to give them a 5th year either. Then players that have the ability but are a little light or need to get stronger, those players that are gamers that need the year to develop you redshirt them. But that number will be in the 5-7 range and not the 16-20 range.
I agree with almost everything you're saying. The only items I'm not sure about is that I believe that if a true freshman doesn't play, then he automatically redshirts - is that not correct? That's why in a previous reply, I was making the distinction of roster management versus just redshirt vs not redshirt. I think the bigger problem than determining which players to redshirt or not redshirt is the issue of having players who are basically dead weight hanging around and taking up scholarships. Seems like we're basically saying the same thing, with slightly different terminology.
The school doesn't have to award a fifth year just because a player didn't play. The redshirting is completely up to the school. As a reference, Notre Dame did not redshirt any players until around 1989. Whether you played as a freshman or not you only got the four years.
But why not go ahead and RS them if they aren't ready to contribute? Nothing wrong with cutting a RS Jr, who is not going to contribute loose. They have had four years on scholly to earn their degree. Some positions also lend themselves to Red Shirting. OL and DL recruits often need to add size and strength to play at the D1 level, while WR's, RB's and DB's are more likely to be physically ready to play as true freshmen.
The "Nebraska way" has never been to cut a 5th year player. I cant remember the last time a Nebraska staff told a 5th year senior to take a hike.
When you tell a kid as a freshman that they are redshirting, you set the expectation that they are getting that 5th year. If you don't officially redshirt them, then you aren't setting that expectation. Simple as that. If you read my posts, you can see I am not against redshirting, just against redshirting as a rule.
Sort of a philosophy I go with is this-
If a kid is going to be elite, he won't be here for 5 years anyway, so no need to RS. If a kid isn't going to be elite, no need to keep him 5 years when you can free up scholarships in 4 years rather than 5. Then make a determination on the rest and redshirt if you must, but don't do it as a rule.
Guy, Okuyemi and Ashburn are three recent examples. There are others too.
It's likely to happen when the individual has their degree in hand, or will have their degree the following [spring] semester. See Harvey Jackson as a [possible] example of that.
This is why I'm hopeful Dwayne Johnson won't be on the 2017 roster, he graduates in December.
fair enough, but there are as many or more players that have been on scholarship for 5 years that had minimal contributions. Boaz Joseph, AJ Natter, Adam Taylor in the same class as Johnson and Hannon.
You won't get a disagreement from me on attrition with certain guys. I'm all for it, every single year.
Boaz Joseph is a key contributor on special teams. He's someone I can't imagine we'd move away from unless something negative happens off the field. And I don't see that happening. Johnson, Hannon, for sure. All the injuries we've had and they still can't get action.
Heck, I'd put that olinemen from Oklahoma on notice. We watched the game [DVR] the other night and I had to rewind it after a PAT. He has ballooned up, to be nice.
As far as Joseph's contribution on special teams, I would just say Dismuke, Bootle or Butler could do that same job.
The problem with guys like Barnett is that he has a 4 year scholarship. He isn't going anywhere for 3 years, unless he gets into trouble or leaves on his own.
That was my point either earlier in this thread, or in another on a similar topic. With the advent of 4 year deals, coaches don't have the option of dropping players after year 2 or 3.
Agree to disagree.
It's only a guarantee if the player adheres to team rules and guidelines. So far, a case can be made that he hasn't. So the scholarship guarantee can become medical which doesn't count against our 85 allotment. That's if we wanted to guarantee him an education.
To an extent that's correct but there's always a way around it. Chad Hawley said as much two years ago during interviews.
What rule or guideline has he broken? Not being as good as the coaches expected? I didn't realize not being a good enough football player was grounds for being moved to medical.
The associate commissioner can say whatever he wants until someone files a lawsuit because they were removed from the 4 year scholarship. I wouldn't want to be the first school that gets taken to court.
Here is the excerpt for when a scholarship can be revoked or not renewed.
– It will still be possible for universities to cancel, or choose to not renew, a scholarship for the following reasons not related to athletic performance, ability, or contribution to team success. Cancellation or non-renewal will be possible if an athlete:
The associate commissioner can say whatever he wants until someone files a lawsuit because they were removed from the 4 year scholarship. I wouldn't want to be the first school that gets taken to court.
Here is the excerpt for when a scholarship can be revoked or not renewed.
– It will still be possible for universities to cancel, or choose to not renew, a scholarship for the following reasons not related to athletic performance, ability, or contribution to team success. Cancellation or non-renewal will be possible if an athlete:
- Is ruled to be ineligible for competition;
- Provides fraudulent information on an application, letter of intent, or financial aid agreement;
- Engages in serious misconduct that rises to the level of being disciplined by the university’s regular student disciplinary board;
- Voluntarily quits their team; or
- Violates a university policy or rule which is not related to athletic conditions or ability (such as a university policy on class attendance, or an athletic department policy regarding proper conduct on a team trip).
I said a case can be made. He's way overweight, which wasn't a problem prior to him arriving at Nebraska. The rest of your response is cute and all, but doesn't tell the whole story.
You forgot this part:
In a statement released Wednesday, the Big Ten said scholarships won’t be reduced or cancelled as long as an athlete "remains a member in good standing with the community, the university and the athletics department." The Big Ten also said it would guarantee an athlete may return to school at any time on an athletic scholarship if the athlete’s pursuit for an undergraduate degree is "interrupted for a bona fide reason."
Chad Hawley, the Big Ten's associate commissioner for compliance, said Friday the phrases "good standing" and "bona fide reason" were intentionally left vague to give each school flexibility to create their own policies.
Like I said, a case can be made against him.
The part added was the Big Ten's interpretation of the rule. I quoted the rule from the NCAA. The fact remains good standing and bona fide reason can be as vague as they want but the rule clearly states that you cannot cancel or revoke due to athletic performance, ability or contribution to team's success.
Schools can have team rules that say if you are late to meetings or skip class or whatever they want. I won't argue that. But those rules cannot be based on athletic performance, ability or contribution.
Athletic performance is thrown out, he's already playing while he's overweight. You keep going back to that, as if that's why he'd be punted before his four years are up.
Jalin Barnett will be asked to lose a significant amount of weight this off-season. If he doesnt, his time at Nebraska is limited. Bookmark this post if you like and bump it in 2018.
For the last time, there are ways around it.
For the last time, if Nebraska cuts him for being "overweight" they are going to have to have a weight limit for every player and every player will have to be subject to a weight limit rule. You simply cannot say 340 is too much for you but player B it is ok. That is a lawsuit waiting to happen. If I asked Riley why he was cut and he says he can't perform his job as an olineman because he is too fat, I would argue that he was cut due to athletic performance especially if there are other players as big or bigger.
No, they're not. There are ways around it, it's not as cut and dry as you think it is.
You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your mind. You're more than welcome to bump this thread in 2018, if Jalin is still around carrying 30+ pounds of unnecessary weight.
Your unsubstantiated opinion on what might happen is no more valid than mine. Just because you believe it is not as cut and dry as I think it is, doesn't mean it is as liberal as you think it is. You need to research why they went to the 4 year scholarship to begin with. That will tell you all you need to know. Coaches and schools were picking and choosing who to cut and get rid of. Basically singling a kid out and dumping them because that kid wasn't meeting the coach's expectations. Creating a rule for one kid to meet while the others don't is the same thing.
And rest assured, when Jalin is still on the team in 2017 or 2018, I will bump this thread.
And rest assured, when Jalin is still on the team in 2017 or 2018, I will bump this thread.
You seem to enjoy typing out a message just to read what you wrote. I never said my opinion is more valid than yours. I will say, in this very thread, you were already wrong on something; by a country mile.
So excuse me while I don't take your [unsubstantiated] opinion on topics as gospel.
I look forward to your bump in 2018.
So excuse me while I don't take your [unsubstantiated] opinion on topics as gospel.
I look forward to your bump in 2018.
Wrong? I said I don't remember something happening. Not that it didn't happen. I also don't know that those players you mentioned wanted to come back and play and we're told no. Do you have a link that shows Pelini told any of those players, that wanted to come back, that they can't come back for the 5th year? If the player took the degree and left, not sure that fits the criteria
Additionally, you are attempting to connect the vague rules and guidelines comment that the associate Commissioner made as an out for a recruiting mistake.
Not accurate
A program cannot use a team rule or guideline, that ties at all to performance, as a way to cut a player from a 4 year scholarship.
Lastly, when using these team rules to get rid of a player, you have to be careful that other players, that you don't want to get rid of, aren't also in violation of that rule.
Have a nice day.
Additionally, you are attempting to connect the vague rules and guidelines comment that the associate Commissioner made as an out for a recruiting mistake.
Not accurate
A program cannot use a team rule or guideline, that ties at all to performance, as a way to cut a player from a 4 year scholarship.
Lastly, when using these team rules to get rid of a player, you have to be careful that other players, that you don't want to get rid of, aren't also in violation of that rule.
Have a nice day.
@Tuco Salamanca
I forget which thread you had the "Roster Schollies According to me" post, but weren't we at or over perhaps the "ideal" number of safeties.
Lot of talk about Domann and whether he should redshirt, but one thing that stands a little curious to me is bringing on Trajan Cotton as a safety when we seem to be solid there, and we could potentially use that scholly for a RB or DT/DE/OT.
I forget which thread you had the "Roster Schollies According to me" post, but weren't we at or over perhaps the "ideal" number of safeties.
Lot of talk about Domann and whether he should redshirt, but one thing that stands a little curious to me is bringing on Trajan Cotton as a safety when we seem to be solid there, and we could potentially use that scholly for a RB or DT/DE/OT.
As far as safeties go my theory is you need 8. Currently there is 6 going into next year. I think.......
