I think the team became a paper tiger during the year. The more injuries piled up, the more likely that they would start losing.

It would be one thing if they were beating out scholarship players...but they aren't. We just don't have anyone else because we have a recruiting hole. I count only THREE LB's in the Senior,Junior and Sophomore classes that weren't walk-ons or preferred walk-ons. And not surprisingly, those are your three starters.

And as usual LC, we start to converge on a shared opinion after a few posts. :)

I agree with you in many ways. The walk-on program can fill holes when players split. My main concern is that I feel like sometimes we lean to heavily on it, and we end up with multi-year players (sometimes even starters) that are acceptable MAC players but...are not going to push us to the next level. These are players we can beat most of the MAC with (when you combine them with good/stable coaching from Frank). But they will struggle to compete with Fleck and his more #elite (used ironically) athletes.

But then it becomes more of a philosophical question. If Frank can build a program that wins more than it loses in the MAC and do so without chasing the 3/4 star players (and losing some dignity in the process) then maybe this strikes the right balance.

I think walkon programs are all over the map. Some schools don't have them at all, some schools have them, but walkons are mostly used as practice helpers. Other schools have them like Ohio's, where you have to try out to be allowed to walk on, and they limit the numbers, but if you are allowed to walkon, you get treated the same as all the other players. It's still a difficult journey from walkon to starter, one that few complete.

Nebraska's walkon program back in the 80's and 90's was kind of a special case, one that most likely will never be repeated. Unlike Ohio, where there are many Division I football teams, in Nebraska there is only one. Back then anyone in the state who could play, if they didn't get a scholarship to Nebraska, walked on. Today it is very different because schools like Ohio, Colorado State, Kansas State, NDSU, Liberty, and Wyoming now recruit the state. Twenty years ago players like Leuck, Donahue, Lechner, Davis, Bunner, Dietz, Vick, Bass, Keller, and Schany would not have had an offer from Ohio, and most likely would have walked on at Nebraska. Without a doubt, wome of those would have earned playing time. With all the other schools recruiting the state, the quality of walkons that Nebraska gets is lower these days.

Thanks, Paul, I now understand the differences in our perspectives. I'm more a Solich than a Fleck, who I consider kind of a snake-oil salesman. Solich I think is building a program; whereas, Fleck is building his personal resume. I understand that along the way WMU benefits, but I much prefer someone like Solich that builds from the foundation up rather than building a tent pitched on the ground and ready to move at a moments notice. It's just a difference of perspective. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, we just look at the situation differently. I'm also fairly confident that OHIO will return to its winning ways this fall, and we'll all have a big lovefest here on BA and the great "walkon-debate" will be just a distant memory! ;-)

BTW, L.C., I had a friend who was a walkon at OHIO under Hess. I don't believe that he was on the team more than a year. This guy had a lot of pure athletic talent but more was needed to succeed than just talent under Hess.

Mike, sounds like a similar story. My friend is now deceased and he was a very good man who had a heart of gold and would always help out those less fortunate than he. However, I always wished that I had had one-tenth of the innate athletic talent that he had. He just kind of took his athletic ability for granted. I remember as kids he could throw a ball from deep centerfield across the center of home plate with one or no hops. When I told him most major leaguers didn't have that kind of accuracy he would just shrug.

I agree, and it is certainly true that we've had 3 star players not work out. And of course this is clearly not an exact science as you've pointed out.

One thing often not pointed out though...the players "missed by the recruiting process" happens at all levels. We sometimes get lucky and end up with players (Carrie, Brazill, Keller, Jordan Thompson, Mitchell, etc...) that belonged at a higher level. They all had one or two offers at MAC level schools, but clearly could have played/started at BCS level programs.

I would argue that those outliers are the key to winning MAC titles. Our 2011 season, where we all but won the MACC, was a season where we had more of those players than any other year. Four of the names above were on that team (and healthy) along with a few others like Phil Bates.

I can't think of any former walkon that became a talent like those above. Maybe AJ will eventually but we'll have to see. Regardless, we will need to elevate our talent level if we expect to compete for a MACC anytime soon...and I don't think a strong walk-on program that takes 10 or more scholarships off the table is the way to do it. That 10 is a guess though...I really don't know what the actual number is.

So a nearly 300% greater reliance on walkons than usual ?!

Is good?

I'm not sure it's necessarily good or bad. If they are lowering the quality of players by giving scholarships to players that aren't all that good, that's a bad thing. If they are attracting better and better players to the program, who don't get "paid" a scholarship until they prove they can produce, it's a good thing. I know that the National Championship teams that Solich was a part of at Nebraska typically had a dozen or so former walkons who had earned scholarships, usually 4-5 starters, so it isn't something that necessarily limits the team.

Something that is not widely appreciated is the fringe benefit of the walkon program in terms of making the scholarship players better, too. It is well established that most people work harder, and perform better when pushed. If a scholarship player comes in, and has no one pushing him, he may or may not work his hardest.

One thing that is certain is that when walkons come into a program, with a goal of proving themselves, and trying to earn scholarships, they tend to work very, very hard. They lift hard, they study hard, they train hard, and they put out their best effort. That, in turn, adds to the culture, and the scholarship players work hard, too. After all, they don't want to be shown up by some walkon. The net result is that the team gets better.

After Solich left Nebraska, his successor disbanded their walkon program, and tried to recruit more 4-star athletes. Somehow something was lost, and the players foundered. They looked better on paper, but not on the field. Was it the related to the lack of walkons to push the starter? There is no way to be certain, but I suspect that it was.

Solich has built a culture of hard work at Ohio. Ohio has never had top-of-the-MAC rated recruiting classes, but has been in the top 2-3 in the MAC in terms of MAC winning percentage over the long term, and I think that reflects that they get the most out of the players they have, and the hard work of the players involved. Is that partly related to the walkon program? My guess is yes.

The last few years Ohio has had recruiting classes that are ranked much higher than the 2005-2012 classes. Will that ethic of hard work carry over and enable the recent recruits to accomplish more than than their predecessors, and win Monroe's elusive MAC Championship? We shall see, but I think they have a very good shot at it all three of the next three years.

Correct me if I'm wrong here boys....but AJ Oullette was a walk on that did not get a scholarship until one became available due to others losing their scholarship and well after the fact that he had proven to the coaches that he deserved it.

Some walk-ons (like AJ) are walk-ons simply because they were missed. AJ in particular was missed by colleges due to the fact that he graduated from such a small town school.

I believe there are walk-ons out there that are every bit as and in some cases more talented than "3" or "4 star" recruits. Therefore having a good walk-on program should be important.....but not impede on your recruiting efforts.

The mistake may not be bringing in the walk-on, but rather having missed the great athlete and letting what should be a scholarship player slip through your hands.

More than one way to look at it.....

Interestngly, if you win a MAC Championship--not an unreasonable request after you've been there 10 years--no one gives a flip if you do it with walkons or 2-star recruits or 8-star recruits.

Not MACC is not interesting.






dcf, get it now. post your usually noonecares stuff.

We ever figure out who #'s 61 and 73 are? They weren't listed on the roster.