Athlon - Anonymous coaches on NU

[Gatabowl]

I agree that Stanford and Duke are fine academic schools and have better than average graduation rates. The difference is that Northwestern puts in the effort of making sure their athletes graduate with a Northwestern degree. It is part of the 40 not 4 concept. The difference on an 85 man roster for Stanford, is 10 kids who did not graduate. Of those 10, statistically only 2 went on to other schools to graduate while the other 8 left with no degree at all from any college (within 6 years). My guess is every football player who signed a letter of intent to Stanford and Duke wanted a degree from that university, but 12% of the roster will not get one. That is a very significant difference.

I totally get what you’re saying. 40 not 4 isn’t unique to NU though and there is a certain level of accountability and nuance involved here. There are a lot of drivers and potential factors to the discrepancy. For example, does Stanford have the “easier” majors NU does? Do they dissuade most athletes from pursuing more difficult majors (for every Patrick Ward there is Colter interested in going pre-med and pushed to Psychology. The same happens with others who end up in Comms, LOC, SESP)? How much does the staff push and how much accountability do they put on the players?

Students have agency when it comes to their education and goals. They are provided with ample resources and are not children. Given that all but 10 graduated I can’t imagine that the coaching staff is saying education doesn’t matter or they don’t have to go to class. I want all students to graduate, but how hard does the school need to push/tutor a kid who gets the opportunity of a lifetime but isn’t interested?

 

[Gatabowl]

I want to apologize to the board for my rant on graduation rate. I have a pet peeve on this topic for another reason. As a black male, I hate the exploitation of black athletes by colleges. So, in Northwestern’s football numbers, 100% of football players who are black graduated from Northwestern with a degree. Of the 10 people on Stanford’s roster who did not get a Stanford degree, 8 were black, 1 was Hispanic, and 1 was white. Of the 10 people on Duke’s roster who did not get a Duke degree, all 10 were black. So, no I don’t think it is equivalent and I fully understand what lies under the data. It really irks me.

You don’t have to apologize. It’s a valid and intellectually stimulating topic.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Just like you always do your condescending self. Really stick to just knowledge of football. You are out of your league in everything else.

Now go look up Stanford’s overall graduation rates, especially for those who got Pell or other similar financial aid.

Either way, this is the post that started our exchange:

I was under the impression that we did not do it to the degree that Stanford does and that is one reason their graduation rate for athletes is not that high (88% for their football players vs 97% for ours).

Stanford and NU do not have material difference in academic standards for athletes. Period. The rest of your rant is mostly a diatribe on immaterial differences in graduation data that you yourself admit isn’t bulletproof.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I want to apologize to the board for my rant on graduation rate. I have a pet peeve on this topic for another reason. As a black male, I hate the exploitation of black athletes by colleges. So, in Northwestern’s football numbers, 100% of football players who are black graduated from Northwestern with a degree. Of the 10 people on Stanford’s roster who did not get a Stanford degree, 8 were black, 1 was Hispanic, and 1 was white. Of the 10 people on Duke’s roster who did not get a Duke degree, all 10 were black. So, no I don’t think it is equivalent and I fully understand what lies under the data. It really irks me.

This is rather interesting. Thanks for doing the work to look into it. We could use more of that around these parts.
Your information should close the debate on which football program cares the most about preparing its black athletes for success in life.
Hail to thee, Northwestern football.

Stating it differently, this information appears to support the argument that Pat Fitzgerald was doing more than any other D1 head coach to help black athletes prepare for their lives after college. Obviously it also says a lot for the type of player Fitzgerald was bringing into the university.

Weird facts, given that the administration essentially branded Fitzgerald a racist, immoral, unethical scumbag and threw him out.

 

[hdhntr1]

I totally get what you’re saying. 40 not 4 isn’t unique to NU though and there is a certain level of accountability and nuance involved here. There are a lot of drivers and potential factors to the discrepancy. For example, does Stanford have the “easier” majors NU does? Do they dissuade most athletes from pursuing more difficult majors (for every Patrick Ward there is Colter interested in going pre-med and pushed to Psychology. The same happens with others who end up in Comms, LOC, SESP)? How much does the staff push and how much accountability do they put on the players?

Students have agency when it comes to their education and goals. They are provided with ample resources and are not children. Given that all but 10 graduated I can’t imagine that the coaching staff is saying education doesn’t matter or they don’t have to go to class. I want all students to graduate, but how hard does the school need to push/tutor a kid who gets the opportunity of a lifetime but isn’t interested?

Sorry I brought in DUKE because as we know, they play more games getting athletes in than Standford and NU do so it is probably unfair to include them in the discussion.

A lot might also depend on the period of time that the study covered as at the end of his tenure, Shaw's teams were not doing well. Stanford tends to get kids from across the country (as do we but the distances can be greater and Covid issues might have been involved as well as reasons for transferring

 

[Gatabowl]

Sorry I brought in DUKE because as we know, they play more games getting athletes in than Standford and NU do so it is probably unfair to include them in the discussion.

Yeah — and also, if they are bringing in guys that are good at sports and ultimately don’t want to put the work into school to graduate… that’s kind of on them. We are not exactly talking about Duke admitting the Derrick Roses of the world who got a sub-21 ACT three times in a row or whatever it was. If you try, you can graduate. Cs get degrees.

 

[hdhntr1]

So you’re saying the wins were only produced by the players and the loses were all the fault of the coaches? I would give some credit to the coaches for the two ten win seasons. They did develop those players. We are handicapped by our admission policies and it is not easy getting players. Failure to find the right QB candidates led to an issue after Thorson. We were relying on Hunter to be the man and he turned out to be the deer in the headlights. I fault the coaches for not having a good plan B when it became obvious that Hunter was gun shy. But just like any team, you need a competent QB to win. Ramsey and Bryant were not 5-star studs but they knew what they were doing. Hopefully Braun and Lujan can get that out of Wright while developing the QBs that they recruited.

I think we are getting a bit carried away by trying to make the coaching sound like a complete failure. You need players and coaches to have competency to win 10 games twice. I agree that McCall lost his way as well as a bad job by the entire staff in recruiting but there were some good years in there.

It was three 10 win seasons plus a couple 9 win seasons including 2018 (BIG W Champion) with McCall as OC. In fact we had winning records 9 of his 12 seasons

 

[hdhntr1]

The trips to the Championship games were primarily due to the D and playing in the B1GW.

Pair those historically great D's with an average to above average O and may have won the B1G, as well as the West a couple more times.

That's the difference Iowa fans have with your outlook.

They bemoan not having had a better O to go with their D, which prevented them from achieving more.

And the key difference between the Chickenhawks and the Cats is that despite all their ineptitude on O, they didn't keep losing to lower level teams, much less Dook during their losing streak.

That's the reason why the Cats continue to be not taken seriously.

Teams go to those games and it took everyone working together to get that done

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Yeah — and also, if they are bringing in guys that are good at sports and ultimately don’t want to put the work into school to graduate… that’s kind of on them. We are not exactly talking about Duke admitting the Derrick Roses of the world who got a sub-21 ACT three times in a row or whatever it was. If you try, you can graduate. Cs get degrees.

You think sub-21 is the litmus test? Ba hahahahaha.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

You think sub-21 is the litmus test? Ba hahahahaha.

12-14

 

[Gatabowl]

You think sub-21 is the litmus test? Ba hahahahaha.

fair point. He had a hard time getting into Memphis so it was likely a lot lower…

 

[hdhntr1]

12-14

Could not sign his name?