Can our recruiting ever rival Barnett's classes?

[EvanstonCat]

Nope. It was 18% when I matriculated. I remember the number distinctly.

Then again, I do remember a lot of things differently as Glades likes to point out. I did a lot of brain damage when I was at NU.

I stand corrected.
Here's the data.

Damn, how am I gonna get my kids into college?

WTF

https://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/ir/data-book/v45/2.01-undergraduate-admissions-statistics.pdf

 

[Gladeskat]

Nope. It was 18% when I matriculated. I remember the number distinctly.

Then again, I do remember a lot of things differently as Glades likes to point out. I did a lot of brain damage when I was at NU.

So did I! Plus, I was tattooed a few times by Greg Boykin et al. I guess I had more brain cells to toss away than you did. Yeah, right

I stand corrected.
Here's the data.

Damn, how am I gonna get my kids into college?

WTF

https://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/ir/data-book/v45/2.01-undergraduate-admissions-statistics.pdf

Turn them into kickers or long-snappers.

 

[Mr Wickerpark]

I was around back then. The 2000 team was exciting, but Fitz has had better teams on the field including 8-2 in the big. The team was 8-4, 6-2 in the big ten, didn't need to play Ohio State and ended the season as a flat out bad--once DCs had time to adjust. I have no doubt you were complaining back then about the loss to a bad Iowa team and annihilation by Nebraska. It was fun to watch them and they deserve credit, but top to bottom several Fitz teams would beat them. Do you really think Hankwitz wouldn't have figured them out?

The mid-90s teams were great but Turk was talking about the great recruiting after the Rose Bowl.

Personally, I think Fitz's best teams would beat the 2000 team and the '96 team. The '95 defense against a Hank defense would be a sight to behold. Other than the '95 team, the difference in secondaries alone would be a huge problem for those early teams.

I just dont see any evidence that Fitz' teams have much offensive talent when compared to the Walker and Barnett offensive recruit talent.
Walker had several OL play and start in the nfl. And wright and herron along with Sutton. Our wr were far superior with barnett and walker. Ebert, peterman, philmore, musso, bates, herbert, patrick, Lane. All of these, and more, would start immediately on this half baked offense.
Fitz has truly developed recruits on the DL that play in the nfl but only after signing as free agents. Not like they are gifted athletically and are able to run like a deer in Indianapolis.

 

[torque-cat]

Nope. It was 18% when I matriculated. I remember the number distinctly.

Then again, I do remember a lot of things differently as Glades likes to point out. I did a lot of brain damage when I was at NU.

See link below. Admission rate to NU was ~40% from the early to mid-90s, dipped after all the NU Rose Bowl hype and then has been steadily dropping since then, as for most major private universities. Unless NU was MUCH harder to get into in the 80s and on par with Harvard admissions, the rate was not 18%. Or that number refers to some other metric.

https://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/ir/data-book/v45/2.01-undergraduate-admissions-statistics.pdf

 

[torque-cat]

I stand corrected.
Here's the data.

Damn, how am I gonna get my kids into college?

WTF

https://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/ir/data-book/v45/2.01-undergraduate-admissions-statistics.pdf

Funny we found the same chart. I appreciate that you can admit when you're wrong. I will do the same--if that ever happens

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Nope. It was 18% when I matriculated. I remember the number distinctly.

Then again, I do remember a lot of things differently as Glades likes to point out. I did a lot of brain damage when I was at NU.

There may be other sources for data further back, but the acceptance rate was about 32% in 2000 according to the Common Data set and I sincerely doubt it was more competitive in the decade immediately preceding:

https://enrollment.northwestern.edu/pdf/common-data/2000-01.pdf

Perhaps you’re thinking of enrollment rate (ie the percentage of applicants who ultimately enroll) instead of acceptance rate (ie the percentage of applicants who are offered admission)?

EDIT: Sorry, didn’t see the subsequent posts.