Again, probably more Rant Board material, but... he's dangerously anti-science/intellectualism (at least to the extent his campaign is to be believed).
6-6 is a yawner, sorry all !!!
- Thread starter Catbeast
- Start date
Again, probably more Rant Board material, but... he's dangerously anti-science/intellectualism (at least to the extent his campaign is to be believed).
As long as he promises to make NU sports great again, then I'm game...and relevant here. And maybe mike, gary, pa and the rest will be my friend again. But not woody, because clearly, he is not friend material.
I would suggest that he *is* the reason we are average. And that, further, the alternative to average looks a lot closer to Illinois or Purdue than it does to Wisconsin or Nebraska.
You and others keep posing this as an either/or proposition: either maintain your academic reputation or win more at sports by lowering your athletic admission standards.
This is and always has been a false dichotomy. It's shocking to me that supposedly " smart people" from NU continue to perpetuate this lie.
In fact, if NU lowers its football and basketball admission standards and wins more games, applications to NU will increase by A LOT, and NU's selectivity will actually increase. Every single study on this topic shows that. And one of their evidentiary points is NU itself after 1995, where applications jumped 20%+ and NU started to become the NU that many of us couldn't get into today.
If you're going to present a dichtomy regarding lowering admissions standards, at least present an accurate one.
Last edited:
You seem to forget that recruits are also students, not just mercenaries designed to increase the school's visibility. This is what makes NU different.
Yours is a very cynical view, on this and on everything.
(Of course, you do know this.)
From 2000, NU is 5-5 against Wisconsin, 8-6 against Minnesota and 7-8 against Iowa (and the first three losses in that series were in the early 2000s when we had the Colby defense and Ferentz had some of his best teams). In other words, the Cats are better than .500 against these clubs in this century. Yet, to read this board, you'd think they were blowing out Northwestern every year.
Did you actually read my post, or were you just looking for an opening to go on a rant?
This is just plain ridiculous. Chryst wasn't exactly a big success at Pitt. Came to an established winning program and has done well with a great defense that the last coach left. His offense is like watching paint dry. Half of Minnesota's players couldn't get into NU and Claeys had a nice soft schedule this year. And the jury is still out on Lovie as far as college coaching is concerned. A 3-9 first season with some blowout losses at home (34-10 to WMU!) don't instill a lot of confidence (Fitz's worst record was 4-8 coming off the death of his predecessor two months before the season opener).
Once again, you're ignoring the substance when it doesn't suit you. Of course, I read your post. Would you like me to repeat your argument back to you again? Here it is again:
First you said that you weren't arguing that NU couldn't relax their standards more while preserving their academic reputation. You then went on to say that NU could relax their standards and preserve their academic reputation because Fitz has been particularly good on the player graduation side. In other words, you argued that NU football could be an exception to the rule that it's a "one or the other" proposition.
But your argument (i.e., that Fitz is an exception to the rule) hinges on the rule being valid in the first place. Otherwise, he's an exception to nothing and you have no point at all.
And, that is in fact the case. The "rule" is invalid because whether it's ND or Duke or Wisconsin or BC or SMU or Georgetown or University of Miami or even NU itself after '95 or any of a host of others, with athletic success comes more applications and greater selectivity and academic reputation. The "rule" simply isn't the rule.
So yes, I read your post. You either accepted the premise that it's a one or the other proposition or you were making no point at all and speaking gibberish. Pick your poison.
I'll try to remember in the future that you're not particularly good with logic...maybe I can even help you avoid illogic like this is the future...
Last edited:
In what way does allowing a greater pool of student/athletes receive an NU degree constitute cynicism? Please explain.
It's not my argument. It's the NU administration's argument.
As I stated before, I think Fitz should be given a lot more latitude so long as his team continues to perform well academically and socially; so long as football players continue graduating and keeping their noses clean, I could give a rat's about their qualifications at time of enrollment. And I think the culture and systems in place for NU a football players are strong enough to make a difference for borderline kids. I've seen it firsthand.
You have proposed the following:
NU should raise its academic profile on the backs of students who they do not expect to succeed at the university based on their high school academic profile.
That's cynical.
We should hire Nick Saban. Alabama was pretty mediocre until Nick Saban showed up. He got that program turned around. They're football winners! The highest goal of any world class university.
Fitz's goal isn't to win Big Ten championships. It's to prepare young men for life. He's doing a darn good job and winning a lot of games along the way.
4 Championships for NU? I remember the 3 that Barnett led or recruited. Don't recall a 4th.
If that is the case we should drop out of D1 athletics.
Sorry to disagree with you, but I am not and have not been exactly enamored with Fitz for a number of years. I think there is better coaching elsewhere in the league. NU has consistently shown problems on the o-line, wide receiving, special teams and game management. Is this due to loyalty, financial limits, physical plant limitations, or otherwise, I do not know. I previously acknowledged the advantages and disadvantages each program has in the West Division. However, if Fitz is to get the credit for all the good that occurs, he also gets the blame for the crap. I just do not see too much upside, especially based on the last 8 years of his tenure for Fitz and see Minny and Wiscy with a higher upside.
Do you also recall that Barnett had as many winLESS B1G seasons as he did winNING seasons (two each)? Or that he had two winning records to go with five losing records (whether measured overall or conference records)?
Nobody ever remembers that. I am not trying to discredit his tremendous accomplishment, but we had some awful years under his leadership and two of them were after he won here!
Barney is a career sub 500 coach. Granted Lombardi would have trouble given NU's situation at that time, but let's be balanced here.
Somebody suggested Barney would have us winning a B1G title in 5 years. Certainly not impossible, but very unlikely and I could just as easily see it going the other way ( because we already did).
Sure you did.
I wrote, channeling you:
"NU should raise its academic profile on the backs of students who they do not expect to succeed at the university based on their high school academic profile."
This was based off of what you wrote:
"In fact, if NU lowers its football and basketball admission standards and wins more games, applications to NU will increase by A LOT, and NU's selectivity will actually increase."
Written another way:
"In fact, if NU lowers its football and basketball admission standards [read: "if NU admits students who they do not expect to succeed based on their academic profile"] and wins more games, applications to NU will increase by A LOT, and NU's selectivity will actually increase [read: "then NU will raise its academic profile"]."
The only way what you wrote differs from what I wrote is if you believe that all students, or at least all NCAA qualifiers, can be successful at Northwestern, regardless of high school academic profile, and that admission standards for athletes are simply arbitrary.
Now, we should consider what you also wrote:
"And one of their evidentiary points is NU itself after 1995, where applications jumped 20%+ and NU started to become the NU that many of us couldn't get into today. "
I got into NU after 1995, so maybe I just *get* it more than you do.
Alright, alright, alright.
Last edited:
1998 was the worst.
GB and the boys gave the Pumpkinheads their first conference win in two years, and then he high-tailed it out before the shine was fully off. Credit for the great years, but those great years weren't coming back.
This is not the 1940s. There is no such thing as a "student-athlete" in FBS football. College football is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and universities describe their football players as students so they can avoid paying them. Some schools, like NU, actually enforce academic requirements for football players. Some do not. But all of them are in the business of winning.
Northwestern is in the process of spending over two hundred million dollars to build a football practice facility. Explain how that is necessary to "prepare young men for life."
NU does a lot for its football players. Carr is a great example. It's admirable, and it's the sort of thing other universities should do. But that doesn't erase the fact that millions and millions of dollars change hands every year over the football team and only a small percentage of that money actually goes toward educating the players.
If you genuinely believe that the purpose of the football team is to prepare young men for life and that winning is secondary, you should be furious that the university is spending so much money on football coaches/facilities/etc. when that money could be invested into education.
I'm not one of those arguing for Fitz to lose his job, but we're not paying him $2.5M for his graduation rate. Similarly, the basketball program didn't hire Chris Collins because he prepares his players for life better than his predecessor.
And this is the antithesis fan to Woody and myself. As much as most of you despise us, this poster makes me cringe and pray for less nerds at NU.
We have one pre-tournament national title in men's basketball (1931) but we have no national titles in football. The football team has never finished a season ranked higher than 7th in the AP poll.
Ok, those qualify as great. I could live with either, or both, and another Rose Bowl victory.
Similar threads
