Epley's comments on Talent

[Mavric]

I find it absolutely hilarious that some people are just aghast that the athletic department would think of planning news releases or certain statements out for PR.

Every single athletic department does that in the world.

It's even funnier that some people also don't think that happened during previous coaching staffs.

I think a noticeable distinction could be made between doing PR pieces to highlight the good things in the program compared to highlight where your program is lacking.

If this happens at every single athletic department, could you point us to a couple others who put out a PR piece that says "we don't have good enough players"?

 

[GBRedneck]

I find it absolutely hilarious that some people are just aghast that the athletic department would think of planning news releases or certain statements out for PR.

Every single athletic department does that in the world.

It's even funnier that some people also don't think that happened during previous coaching staffs.

I think a noticeable distinction could be made between doing PR pieces to highlight the good things in the program compared to highlight where your program is lacking.

If this happens at every single athletic department, could you point us to a couple others who put out a PR piece that says "we don't have good enough players"?

I can't wait to read all of these negative PR pieces from other schools.

 

[StPaulHusker]

What would the public opinion have been if Epley only talked about the 11 other sports they tested and left football off the discussion?

He talks about how great athletes in other sports are and yet all some of you can get out of this is that the AD needs to spin football.

 

[Mavric]

What would the public opinion have been if Epley only talked about the 11 other sports they tested and left football off the discussion?

He talks about how great athletes in other sports are and yet all some of you can get out of this is that the AD needs to spin football.

What other sports? He talked about volleyball but I don't see any others.

The main focus was football and that's what the discussion is about.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I would imagine that Nebraska has done this for years, even without Epley at the helm. Wouldn't you want to get a snapshot of changes players have made from beginning of the season to the end of the season?

I'm also curious if Nebraska did this during Epley's first stint with the program.

All in all, all Epley and the athletic program said was "here is where our players are at, here is where we need to be to get to the level we want to be at, and here's how long it's going to take Mark to get us there." Everyone else has (unsurprisingly) taken it and ran it in 500 different directions.

 

[DomiNUs]

I find it absolutely hilarious that some people are just aghast that the athletic department would think of planning news releases or certain statements out for PR.

Every single athletic department does that in the world.

It's even funnier that some people also don't think that happened during previous coaching staffs.

I just don't get why it has to be some sort of nefarious act on the part of some boogeyman named "Pedeyhorst", whoever that is....

I think it's awesome this stuff was made public again.

I agree that testing results should be public. But the timing and the commentary that went along with it ("These players suck and that's why we had a losing season") is counter productive and demotivating for the team. Pederson did the same thing publicy in '04. How did that work out?

I missed the part in the articles where this was said. Guess I should've put on the reading glasses.

Don't you know that by NOT saying those things, they actually said them without saying them?

" but in football we need to do a better job of bringing in talented recruits so we don't have to do quite so much development or quite so much coaching."

Yep, you're right..he totally spoke about existing players in that sentence and not future recruits.

Thanks for proving the point btw.

The comment is about the present and the future. The current players know that.

The current players are the result of a recruiting scheme that's not working which is why "we need to do a better job of bringing in talented recruits"

The current players are the ones needing too much development and coaching because of the current recruiting scheme not working which is why he said "so we don't have to do quite so much development or quite so much coaching."

Think TA's comments about wanting to be coached as if he was a freshman. After 4 years he still has not progressed past freshman level development. That's the very definition of needing too much development and coaching.

The current players all fully understand what the comment means.

Basing all that off a snippet of a comment taken out of context in relation to the whole of the work? Bad conjecture.

Regardless, still couldn't find anywhere in the articles where anybody says, "These players suck and that's why we had a losing season."

What I read in that comment was that the staff needs to do a better job in recruiting the right athletes to make the job of coaching and developing them easier. It makes no inference to current players and is solely based off what they want to do in the future.

 

[StPaulHusker]

What would the public opinion have been if Epley only talked about the 11 other sports they tested and left football off the discussion?

He talks about how great athletes in other sports are and yet all some of you can get out of this is that the AD needs to spin football.

What other sports? He talked about volleyball but I don't see any others.

The main focus was football and that's what the discussion is about.

He said that the highest tester was a softball player.

But perhaps the problem is that the journalists don't care to ask the right questions to find out about the other athletes.

 

[Mavric]

I would imagine that Nebraska has done this for years, even without Epley at the helm. Wouldn't you want to get a snapshot of changes players have made from beginning of the season to the end of the season?

I'm also curious if Nebraska did this during Epley's first stint with the program.

All in all, all Epley and the athletic program said was "here is where our players are at, here is where we need to be to get to the level we want to be at, and here's how long it's going to take Mark to get us there." Everyone else has (unsurprisingly) taken it and ran it in 500 different directions.

They still have done testing but it's been "diluted" according to Epley. Not sure what that means but I assume they're doing more/different tests other than the four - now three - that he uses for his benchmarks. That combined with the advances in the NALP have led them to the decision to reset all the testing records and start over.

 

[Mavric]

What would the public opinion have been if Epley only talked about the 11 other sports they tested and left football off the discussion?

He talks about how great athletes in other sports are and yet all some of you can get out of this is that the AD needs to spin football.

What other sports? He talked about volleyball but I don't see any others.

The main focus was football and that's what the discussion is about.

He said that the highest tester was a softball player.

But perhaps the problem is that the journalists don't care to ask the right questions to find out about the other athletes.

That could be. The only concrete numbers presented were on football and volleyball.

It would be interesting to see all the numbers. Until then I don't think it's surprising that most of the discussion in the football forum about an article that mostly focused on football is about football.

 

[StPaulHusker]

What would the public opinion have been if Epley only talked about the 11 other sports they tested and left football off the discussion?

He talks about how great athletes in other sports are and yet all some of you can get out of this is that the AD needs to spin football.

What other sports? He talked about volleyball but I don't see any others.

The main focus was football and that's what the discussion is about.

He said that the highest tester was a softball player.

But perhaps the problem is that the journalists don't care to ask the right questions to find out about the other athletes.

That could be. The only concrete numbers presented were on football and volleyball.

It would be interesting to see all the numbers. Until then I don't think it's surprising that most of the discussion in the football forum about an article that mostly focused on football is about football.

But that is my point. Did the article HAVE to be about football. Or did the writer make it about football because of the season we had?

I mean, Epley talks about how great the volleyball team tested and how great the talent is and it got like one paragraph even though they were on their way to a Final 4/ National Championship.

I would guess that if this was a "PR stunt" by the AD, he would have wanted to maybe downplay the football team a bit and shed more light where our teams were actually really good.

 

[Mavric]

But that is my point. Did the article HAVE to be about football. Or did the writer make it about football because of the season we had?

I mean, Epley talks about how great the volleyball team tested and how great the talent is and it got like one paragraph even though they were on their way to a Final 4/ National Championship.

I would guess that if this was a "PR stunt" by the AD, he would have wanted to maybe downplay the football tram a bit and shed more light where our teams were actually really good.

And maybe our AD should have realized that was never going to happen.

 

[StPaulHusker]

But that is my point. Did the article HAVE to be about football. Or did the writer make it about football because of the season we had?

I mean, Epley talks about how great the volleyball team tested and how great the talent is and it got like one paragraph even though they were on their way to a Final 4/ National Championship.

I would guess that if this was a "PR stunt" by the AD, he would have wanted to maybe downplay the football team a bit and shed more light where our teams were actually really good.

And maybe our AD should have realized that was never going to happen.

 

[GBRedneck]

Just ask yourself, why would an AD who recently hired a coach who is in danger of having the worst season in 58 years go out of his way to get major state newspapers to publish an in-depth article about how poor the talent level is on the football team?

It's quite obvious to anyone with their eyes open.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Just ask yourself, why would an AD who recently hired a coach who is in danger of having the worst season in 58 years go out of his way to get major state newspapers to publish an in-depth article about how poor the talent level is on the football team?

It's quite obvious to anyone with their eyes open.

I think it's obvious that anyone who has an axe to grind against the AD and coaching staff will read anything they can into it to make them look bad.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Just ask yourself, why would an AD who recently hired a coach who is in danger of having the worst season in 58 years go out of his way to get major state newspapers to publish an in-depth article about how poor the talent level is on the football team?

It's quite obvious to anyone with their eyes open.

Not sure why you are alarmed about it.