Why are walk-ons so terrible? Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
stinenavy
Posts: 4004 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 330 1
All Star
Bleh, you shouldn't get rewarded for not filling your scholarships.
12/20/2011 4:21 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 837 2
Pro
walkons are terrible so that when oregon gets both of the good players in oregon at least the walk ons suck
12/20/2011 4:31 PM
grantduck
Posts: 290 (0)
Hall of Famer
73
Prospect
Posted by stinenavy on 12/20/2011 4:21:00 PM (view original):
Bleh, you shouldn't get rewarded for not filling your scholarships.
Why not?  Plenty of teams have good walk ons in the real world.

Again, not suggesting 700+ guys, just that anyone who makes a d-1 squad can probably walk and chew gum.
12/20/2011 7:19 PM
milkamania
Posts: 295 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 201 1
Rookie
too many d1 schools purposefully take walk ons every year and ru 8-9 man rotations so they get extra recruiting money every season for the scholarships they have no intention of filling.  rewarding them with walk-ons that can get minutes without killing you is a bad idea. 
12/20/2011 8:43 PM
dwoelflin07
Posts: 97 (0)
Hall of Famer
101 6 5
Prospect
Posted by milkamania on 12/20/2011 8:43:00 PM (view original):
too many d1 schools purposefully take walk ons every year and ru 8-9 man rotations so they get extra recruiting money every season for the scholarships they have no intention of filling.  rewarding them with walk-ons that can get minutes without killing you is a bad idea. 
+1
12/20/2011 10:16 PM
backboy13
Posts: 586 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 2
Prospect
Posted by stinenavy on 12/20/2011 4:21:00 PM (view original):
Bleh, you shouldn't get rewarded for not filling your scholarships.
agreed, another example in which it's good that WIS isn't like real-life
12/20/2011 10:48 PM
udm_mike
Posts: 603 (0)
Hall of Famer
109
Rookie
I totally agree.  Every once in a blue moon there should be a walkon that turns into something. This wouldn't be rewarding anyone for anything.  It'd be winning the lottery.  Not the big one.  The $2 lottery.  I miss the days when you could every once in a while turn a walk on into a 10 mpg player by his sr season.  What's so wrong with that?
12/21/2011 8:15 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 668 3
Pro

I'd say that a walkon should at least have one ability or skill that would have let him play on a high school team.  1 ath, 15 speed guard?  Really?  I'd want a little bit of a raise in walkons not for what it would do for or two good human teams, I don't think that even if you improved the average walkon by 50 points, most good human coaches wold be playing them anything but mopup 95% of the time. . . but for the SIM teams of ghost ships.  Rein in the ugliness of a sim team with 6 walkons just a LITTLE bit.

 

12/21/2011 8:20 AM
milkamania
Posts: 295 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 201 1
Rookie
If you want to keep a walk on 4 years and have him develop into a mid level reserve, I wouldn't have an issue with that in the least.    I assumed the OP was referring to walk ons who were talented enough to play immediately, and that I am deadset against.  But if you want a system where a walk on, with the proper coaching over a couple years with the benefit of a scholarship turns into a serviceable reserve after 2-3 years, I think that would be OK, but can't see too many teams wasting 2-3 years to develop a player to get 10 bench minutes his senior year. 
12/21/2011 8:21 AM
udm_mike
Posts: 603 (0)
Hall of Famer
109
Rookie
Posted by milkamania on 12/21/2011 8:21:00 AM (view original):
If you want to keep a walk on 4 years and have him develop into a mid level reserve, I wouldn't have an issue with that in the least.    I assumed the OP was referring to walk ons who were talented enough to play immediately, and that I am deadset against.  But if you want a system where a walk on, with the proper coaching over a couple years with the benefit of a scholarship turns into a serviceable reserve after 2-3 years, I think that would be OK, but can't see too many teams wasting 2-3 years to develop a player to get 10 bench minutes his senior year. 
That's what I'm saying.  I've done it before.  Why, you might ask?  Because it was fun to red shirt a walkon and monitor his improvement into a decent backup. 
12/21/2011 9:16 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 668 3
Pro
Lets put it this way:  There should at least be some walkons that you would consider allowing to play MOPUP minutes off the end of the bench.

Heck, a division TWO walkon should be able to get mopup minutes at the very end of a division THREE bench.

 . 
12/21/2011 9:28 AM (edited)
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 57 144 14
Prospect
Yes! Yes yes yes! If the D2 walkons are no better than the worst of the worst D3 recruits, why the heck did they walkon to a D2 team?
12/21/2011 9:34 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 668 3
Pro
Just have recruits that don't sign or go juco walk on. . . The best of the remainging unsigned recruits would go juco. . . What is left wouldn't be great. . .
12/21/2011 1:31 PM
grantduck
Posts: 290 (0)
Hall of Famer
73
Prospect
Posted by milkamania on 12/21/2011 8:21:00 AM (view original):
If you want to keep a walk on 4 years and have him develop into a mid level reserve, I wouldn't have an issue with that in the least.    I assumed the OP was referring to walk ons who were talented enough to play immediately, and that I am deadset against.  But if you want a system where a walk on, with the proper coaching over a couple years with the benefit of a scholarship turns into a serviceable reserve after 2-3 years, I think that would be OK, but can't see too many teams wasting 2-3 years to develop a player to get 10 bench minutes his senior year. 

This is what I was getting at...and not often either, maybe say 1 in 25 walk-ons at best.

12/21/2011 5:49 PM
Why are walk-ons so terrible? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.