• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Partial Qualifiers

I have no problem with partials. I don’t know why any team would.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t even think they could practice their freshman year in order to get the academics in order.

Even if they could practice they could not play. They had a fairly strict set of guidelines they had to follow. Basically it is like going to juco for a year to get their poop in a group
 

i guess the issue is back in the day we could give scholarships to whoever. Now, we are allowed two male partial qualifiers.

Alot of kids that can play are left behind for a variety of reasons.
 



BigRedAvenger said:
Double elitest.”Some kids don’t belong in college and some teams shouldn’t be winning more than ours! Let’s kill two birds with one stone! - Texas”
Click to expand...

cthusker said:
I'll always believe the elimination of "partials" was orchestrated by TEXASS. They figured that was the quickest way to hurt Nebraska's program while doing the most damage. Those TEXASS schools were not going to beat Nebraska on the field so there had to be another way to cripple the program.

Letting those TEXASS schools in was the biggest mistake the Big 8 could have made at the time. Of course there was no shortage of Big 8 schools that absolutely despised the Huskers and were happy to do almost anything that would hurt or destroy our program.
Click to expand...
While it might be tempting to think it was a Texas led conspiracy against the Huskers, and the argument is the rest of the Big-8 went along out of jealousy; that would be an overly paranoid reading. BTW, this sort of "big school" enforcement /boycott threat is what allowed Jim Crow ("gentlemen's agreement") policies occur even outside of places where state laws required segregation.

Texas always had issues where they couldn't get some players in while less "academically stringent" schools could. So they basically dictated that the SW Conference would not take these players (Partial Qualifiers were only a later manifestation of NCAA rules that dated back to the 1960's*). So UT wouldn't want to play against players they couldn't take. So they didn't want Houston, or Tech, or aTm to be able to take players academically that UT couldn't. They even would make this argument to their fans as to why they would NOT consider joining the SEC (which the fans would have preferred).

*In the late 1960's the NCAA put in a minimum requirement that for a school to be able to take a player, they would need to predict a minimum Freshman GPA of 1.6 on an admissions test (ACT or SAT). The Big Ten put their limit at 1.7. Further, these predictions are going to be school based by definition. So an Iowa or Nebraska would likely have a better chance of qualifying a kid than Michigan, Ohio State or Northwestern; it would be easier to get in a kid with a low test score. Large state "flag ship" Universities tend to be way more competitive for admissions than small state's schools; Ag colleges easier to get into than the "doctor and lawyer" schools.

That 1.6 vs. 1.7 was a huge issue in the late 60's early 70's. Had a tOSU fan claim we got MNC in 70-71 because of that.
 
Last edited:
KleinTxHusker said:
While it might be tempting to think it was a Texas led conspiracy against the Huskers, and the argument is the rest of the Big-8 went along out of jealousy; that would be an overly paranoid reading. BTW, this sort of "big school" enforcement /boycott threat is what allowed Jim Crow ("gentlemen's agreement") policies occur even outside of places where state laws required segregation.

Texas always had issues where they couldn't get some players in while less "academically stringent" schools could. So they basically dictated that the SW Conference would not take these players (Partial Qualifiers were only a later manifestation of NCAA rules that dated back to the 1960's*). So UT wouldn't want to play against players they couldn't take. So they didn't want Houston, or Tech, or aTm to be able to take players academically that UT couldn't. They even would make this argument to their fans as to why they would NOT consider joining the SEC (which the fans would have preferred).

*In the late 1960's the NCAA put in a minimum requirement that for a school to be able to take a player, they would need to predict a minimum Freshman GPA of 1.6 on an admissions test (ACT or SAT). The Big Ten put their limit at 1.7. Further, these predictions are going to be school based by definition. So an Iowa or Nebraska would likely have a better chance of qualifying a kid than Michigan, Ohio State or Northwestern; it would be easier to get in a kid with a low test score. Large state "flag ship" Universities tend to be way more competitive for admissions than small state's schools; Ag colleges easier to get into than the "doctor and lawyer" schools.

That 1.6 vs. 1.7 was a huge issue in the late 60's early 70's. Had a tOSU fan claim we got MNC in 70-71 because of that.
Click to expand...
Did the Big 12 change the "partial qualifier rule" or not?
 
KleinTxHusker said:
While it might be tempting to think it was a Texas led conspiracy against the Huskers, and the argument is the rest of the Big-8 went along out of jealousy; that would be an overly paranoid reading. BTW, this sort of "big school" enforcement /boycott threat is what allowed Jim Crow ("gentlemen's agreement") policies occur even outside of places where state laws required segregation.

Texas always had issues where they couldn't get some players in while less "academically stringent" schools could. So they basically dictated that the SW Conference would not take these players (Partial Qualifiers were only a later manifestation of NCAA rules that dated back to the 1960's*). So UT wouldn't want to play against players they couldn't take. So they didn't want Houston, or Tech, or aTm to be able to take players academically that UT couldn't. They even would make this argument to their fans as to why they would NOT consider joining the SEC (which the fans would have preferred).

*In the late 1960's the NCAA put in a minimum requirement that for a school to be able to take a player, they would need to predict a minimum Freshman GPA of 1.6 on an admissions test (ACT or SAT). The Big Ten put their limit at 1.7. Further, these predictions are going to be school based by definition. So an Iowa or Nebraska would likely have a better chance of qualifying a kid than Michigan, Ohio State or Northwestern; it would be easier to get in a kid with a low test score. Large state "flag ship" Universities tend to be way more competitive for admissions than small state's schools; Ag colleges easier to get into than the "doctor and lawyer" schools.

That 1.6 vs. 1.7 was a huge issue in the late 60's early 70's. Had a tOSU fan claim we got MNC in 70-71 because of that.
Click to expand...

So your position is that it was a coincidence that this policy, led by Texas and their minion tag alongs, reduced the recruiting prowess of the Northern schools and allowed the Southern schools to become dominant, even when the stated purpose of said policy is to “level” the playing field in their favor?

Ya sounds like we are just being paranoid.
 
Last edited:
CrabHusker said:
Very prophetic.

I remember the discussion at the time and most felt the reduction in scholarships was a bigger issue. Add the change in Prop 48 policy by the Big12 and a slide was inevitable...at least from the 'Dynasty' 'Top of the mountain' status of those mid '90's teams.

Just a reminder that it's an ever changing landscape. What is a detriment today may be a benefit tomorrow.
Click to expand...
The scholarship reductions have hurt us badly.
 




BigRedAvenger said:
So your position is that it was a coincidence that this policy, led by Texas and their minion tag alongs, reduced the recruiting prowess of the Northern schools and allowed the Southern schools to become dominant, even when the stated purpose of said policy is to “level” the playing field in their favor?

Ya sounds like we are just being paranoid.
Click to expand...
I'm sure TEXASS was just trying to do the right thing.... FOR THEMSELVES!
 
We had many advantages that we don't have now...

1- accepted prop 48 students
2 - one of the only teams on TV
3 - had the first strength program designed for football
4 - walk-on program now getting destroyed by higher college tuition and other schools coming into our state


All part of the problem, but not all of it. Everyone playing by the same rules now and us being so isolated is a big deal.
 
ShortSideOption said:
We had many advantages that we don't have now...

1- accepted prop 48 students
2 - one of the only teams on TV
3 - had the first strength program designed for football
4 - walk-on program now getting destroyed by higher college tuition and other schools coming into our state


All part of the problem, but not all of it. Everyone playing by the same rules now and us being so isolated is a big deal.
Click to expand...

Everything you list has helped contribute to the demise of Nebraska football. There is no one huge thing you can point to, it is a lot of little things.

One thing that can not be overstated is this. Tom Osborne retired, IMO he is a top 10 coach all time. Too many people thought it was all about the system and that you could plug in other pieces and it would just keep going. Well we know that is not true. He was the most important piece of the system for over 25 years.
 
ShortSideOption said:
We had many advantages that we don't have now...



All part of the problem, but not all of it. Everyone playing by the same rules now and us being so isolated is a big deal.
Click to expand...

I would ammend that statement to read... "Everyone is "supposed" to be playing by the same rules now"! I honestly believe there are some ACC and SEC schools not playing by the rules....
 



ShortSideOption said:
That's fair... I think Freeze and others getting called out validates that.
Click to expand...
It's sad but when money reaches the astronomical amounts now being doled out to coaches the temptation to cheat becomes irresistible to some. I believe the majority of college coaches are good honest people but there are some really rotten apples in the mix. There has been a culture to look the other way with certain regions of the country. Yes it started long ago but continues on unabated in many cases. Look at what happened with Cam Newton? Anyone really believe the the stories that were published how innocent all the money changed hands?

IMO Nebraska has for the most part run a very clean program for the past 40+ years. That's a tribute to our coaches and administration. No we're not completely squeaky clean but compared to some of those other programs we're "Boy Scouts"..........
 

BigRedAvenger said:
So your position is that it was a coincidence that this policy, led by Texas and their minion tag alongs, reduced the recruiting prowess of the Northern schools and allowed the Southern schools to become dominant, even when the stated purpose of said policy is to “level” the playing field in their favor?

Ya sounds like we are just being paranoid.
Click to expand...
Paranoia is being irrational and thinking people are specifically out to get you. It wasn't personal, it was UT being UT.

Texas was just throwing its weight around like they always have. The late Frank Broyles had his issues and why he took Arkansas out of the SWC. U of H had difficulty getting into the SWC for certain reasons UT would just as soon people forget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top