Coaches Lose Another One

[Hungry Jack]

I would love the return of Wanny to coaching football in Chicago. We could hear such truisms as "all the pieces are in place" and that "Justin has a knee. He's day to day" and (my all time fave Wannyism) "if you take away the 3 or 4 plays they scored on, we win the game."

God bless Wanny. He's great for media.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Then why not drop to FCS or DIII?

Because we run a perfectly competitive program at the B1G level right now.

 

[SmellyCat]

(my all time fave Wannyism) "if you take away the 3 or 4 plays they scored on, we win the game."

My favorite too. He once said something like "if you take away those two long runs by Barry Sanders, we stopped him," and those two long runs were both 75-yard touchdowns or something. And he averaged like four yards/carry on the rest of his runs. Wanny had a great Chicago moustache, I'll give him that.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Because we run a perfectly competitive program at the B1G level right now.

I was playing devil's advocate but we are not competitive if we have not beaten Iowa since 2012 and we are 1-7 vs Michigan under Fitz and we have lost twice in three years to MAC teams at home no less. Competitive means competing for the conference title. Once upon a time, competitive for NU meant not losing by more than 30 to MSU or Mich or not going winless in the conference. But today the middle and low tier of the conference is so weak that .500 in the conference doesn't mean much.

 

[willycat]

I'm about 99.9% sure Jim doesn't even have a "short list."

he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't have a "short list". Think most would believe that Dr. Phillips is checking all the boxes as a AD must.

 

[willycat]

Wannstedt would be our equivalent of Tim Beckman. Wanny rode Jimmy Johnson's coattails to the head coaching jobs he had and failed miserably in every situation. His tenure with the Bears was a joke. He is probably the last guy on earth I would think of to replace Fitz.

I just through Wanny's name out there because I got tired of reading all the posts, stating well who would you want as NU's next coach. I'm sure there are many coaches who are very competent and would take the NU job.

 

[willycat]

There's a reason he only lasted 6 years at Pitt, even with far less recruiting restrictions than Fitz. I would throw up if Wanny were ever hired as the head coach of NU. If you were in the vicinity when this happened, I would not turn my head away from your general direction, either.

Wow, another internet "tough guy". I'm not impressed but maybe the moderators will take notice.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I was playing devil's advocate but we are not competitive if we have not beaten Iowa since 2012 and we are 1-7 vs Michigan under Fitz and we have lost twice in three years to MAC teams at home no less. Competitive means competing for the conference title. Once upon a time, competitive for NU meant not losing by more than 30 to MSU or Mich or not going winless in the conference. But today the middle and low tier of the conference is so weak that .500 in the conference doesn't mean much.

Then we have different definitions of "competitive." A program should only consider dropping to a lower tier of competition if that program is either struggling to field a program financially or not even close in games (that's what I mean when I say "competitive"). Think more New Mexico State than Northwestern.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't have a "short list". Think most would believe that Dr. Phillips is checking all the boxes as a AD must.

I don't think that's the case when Fitz is signed through 2021, will have a brand spanking new facility in 18 months, and hasn't really done anything to warrant being put on the hot seat for anyone outside of a handful of loudmouths on these boards.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Wow, another internet "tough guy". I'm not impressed but maybe the moderators will take notice.

Because, what, he said something that you disagree with?

 

[DaCat]

Wow, another internet "tough guy". I'm not impressed but maybe the moderators will take notice.

Willy, I apologize for my poor attempt at humor. You're a fellow Cat fan with a different point of view that sometimes gets under my skin and it shouldn't. Carry on, my friend.

 

[DaCat]

Because, what, he said something that you disagree with?

Our friend willy gets under our skin sometimes, I don't know if deliberately or not. I promise not to puke in his general direction. Sigh.

But I don't appreciate the imagine of Wanny coaching the Cats. Yuck.

 

[hdhntr1]

I was playing devil's advocate but we are not competitive if we have not beaten Iowa since 2012 and we are 1-7 vs Michigan under Fitz and we have lost twice in three years to MAC teams at home no less. Competitive means competing for the conference title. Once upon a time, competitive for NU meant not losing by more than 30 to MSU or Mich or not going winless in the conference. But today the middle and low tier of the conference is so weak that .500 in the conference doesn't mean much.

And how many teams have won a conference championship since Fitz took over? Out of now 14 teams, three teams (four including PSU but not sure if those still count) Not Mich, Not IA, not IL, not MN, Not Purdue or Indiana. Only OSU, MSU and WI and even a couple of the WI were somewhat tainted by OSU issues.

Just saying by your definition, only two to three teams in the conference are competitive.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Then we have different definitions of "competitive." A program should only consider dropping to a lower tier of competition if that program is either struggling to field a program financially or not even close in games (that's what I mean when I say "competitive"). Think more New Mexico State than Northwestern.

Well as long as you enjoy being mediocre. Zero titles, now in season #11. We were not even close to Iowa or Michigan in a 10 win season. We might as well be a club team if we can't sniff a title in more than a decade.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Well as long as you enjoy being mediocre. Zero titles, now in season #11. We were not even close to Iowa or Michigan in a 10 win season. We might as well be a club team if we can't sniff a title in more than a decade.

Really? There's no middle ground? It's either "go win a conference title" or "drop down to D-III/club"?

 

[YesterdaysCat]

And how many teams have won a conference championship since Fitz took over? Out of now 14 teams, three teams (four including PSU but not sure if those still count) Not Mich, Not IA, not IL, not MN, Not Purdue or Indiana. Only OSU, MSU and WI and even a couple of the WI were somewhat tainted by OSU issues.

Just saying by your definition, only two to three teams in the conference are competitive.

Hmm okay my definition was competing for the conference title. Let's see if your math is any good.

Penn State's wins were restored. They won the title under the old format during Pat's tenure.

Iowa has played for the title. Nebraska had played for the title. That's competing for the title if you're in the title game. They got smacked but they played for the title.

Michigan finished second in Pat's first and second seasons. Illinois finished second in Pat's second year. That is vying for the conference title.

So you have Penn State, Ohio State, Wisky, MSU, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan, and Nebby as competitive during Fitzgerald's tenure.

That's eight programs that played in the title game or finished 2nd under the old format.

Under Fitz we never finished better than 3rd in the old standings and never have been better than 2nd in our division.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Really? There's no middle ground? It's either "go win a conference title" or "drop down to D-III/club"?

Yes the middle is mediocrity and that is acceptable?

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Yes the middle is mediocrity and that is acceptable?

Yes, I think it is acceptable for NU to be middle-of-the-pack in most seasons and pushing for division/conference titles in our "up" years. It's not necessarily what anyone wants (who doesn't want to be winning titles annually like Ohio State?), but acceptable.

Unacceptable would be fielding teams that were consistently being blown out of the water and winning one or two B1G games (think more Purdue or Indiana).

 

[Fitz51]

Yes the middle is mediocrity and that is acceptable?

For a program which before 1995 accepted 0-3 win seasons as something to almost be expected, yes, the past ten years have presented a far better floor. It's like some posters here forget that this program was literally *the worst* in the nation, and was a laughingstock. I'm not happy with NU's lot in life, either, but man, compared to what this program *used* to be, things are so much better. Who knows what we'll say in another 20 years?

 

[beetlemania74]

Then why not drop to FCS or DIII?

Because we're still more competitive than the University of Illinois.

 

[Bwm57]

"He's got a foot"

 

[Just Gary]

How many teams have a great record against Ohio State the last 10 years? If you throw our the Fickle year, Ohio State has lost 5 games in conference and 1 B1G championship. 6 games in the last 10 years. With the Fickle year, they have lost 10 conference games and 1 B1G championship game in ten years. Iowa hasn't beaten Ohio State in the last ten years either. Only Michigan State has 3 wins against them.

What is good about mentioning the teams we haven't beaten is that they are all in the Eastern Division.. Fitz record against Western Division Teams? Iowa 5-5 Wisconsin 3-3 Nebraska 2-3 Minn 6-3 Purdue 4-3 Ill 6-4. Granted, that is pretty mediocre but none of the Western teams have dominated NU during Fitz time.

The game Saturday was 22-21. It wasn't a blow-out. The teams were evenly matched. There were a lot of mistakes made by players and coaches. It's not the end of the world or a sign that everything is a bust for this season. It does show what a difference a couple of players can make, at least in the opener. WMU did a great job of exploiting the weak spots and they made no critical mistakes. Give that coaching staff credit. But let's not start this "all is doom" stuff after one game.

 

[Styre]

In my view, Fitz has taken the "long game" approach to building the NU program, trying to increase the athleticism in the program so we gradually raise the program's "floor." Even last year with two huge B1G October losses, we were playing meaningful B1G games well into November; we needed a ton of help to get to Indianapolis, but it was a conversation that could still happen.

I agree in general with your point, but we were effectively eliminated from the division race with the loss to Iowa, as we were 2 games behind them at that point and they had the tiebreaker. The standard for "meaningful B1G game" should be higher than "not mathematically eliminated yet."

My biggest complaint about Fitz's tenure is that we almost never have meaningful November games in terms of the conference title. I certainly don't want to get rid of him, and I was thrilled that he reached the 6 win threshold last year, but I would like a year every once in a while where I'm watching games in November that are meaningful for reasons other than bowl positioning.

Fortunately, the loss to WMU, while disheartening, does not have any impact on the conference race.

 

[DaCat]

Those are good points, Gary. WMU had to play a near perfect game for them to beat us... by one point.

 

[JoeWildcat]

Well as long as you enjoy being mediocre. Zero titles, now in season #11. We were not even close to Iowa or Michigan in a 10 win season. We might as well be a club team if we can't sniff a title in more than a decade.

So we beat two teams that were nationally ranked in the final polls, including the number 3 team in the country, and our only losses (admittedly ugly losses) were to nationally ranked teams, but we're not competitive? Not my definition of competitive.

 

[willycat]

Willy, I apologize for my poor attempt at humor. You're a fellow Cat fan with a different point of view that sometimes gets under my skin and it shouldn't. Carry on, my friend.

OK and Go Cats.

 

[Catreporter]

Comparing 1995-2000 era to today is like apples and oranges. No BIG championship game then, no wall-to-wall coverage on ESPN, no BIG network. Ironically, Northwestern's surprise success raised the expectations everywhere (If THEY could do it, why not us?) and big money has come pouring into the sport the last 15 years. I think two 10-3 seasons in the last four years are pretty good given our facilities deficit and high academic standards. Could it be better? Maybe. Could it be worse? Oh yeah, a lot worse.

 

[hdhntr1]

Hmm okay my definition was competing for the conference title. Let's see if your math is any good.

Penn State's wins were restored. They won the title under the old format during Pat's tenure.

Iowa has played for the title. Nebraska had played for the title. That's competing for the title if you're in the title game. They got smacked but they played for the title.

Michigan finished second in Pat's first and second seasons. Illinois finished second in Pat's second year. That is vying for the conference title.

So you have Penn State, Ohio State, Wisky, MSU, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan, and Nebby as competitive during Fitzgerald's tenure.

That's eight programs that played in the title game or finished 2nd under the old format.

Under Fitz we never finished better than 3rd in the old standings and never have been better than 2nd in our division.

So now your definition has changed. And last year with 6 conference wins, we were one game away from competing in the championship game. Yes we lost to IA and that was disappointing but they were on a role and we were not after the game with MI. Remember their crossover games? Pretty weak with MD and IN by comparison to our MI and PSU. By the way, 6 conference wins got Wis the title one year and 4 wins another. Also IL etc so 6 conference wins is the mark and we got there last year. So is not that no longer competitive? And by the way. Those Icons (Barnett and Walker) you point to had what, one 10 win season and 3 5 or more BIG win seasons between them?

 

[Styre]

And by the way. Those Icons (Barnett and Walker) you point to had what, one 10 win season and 3 5 or more BIG win seasons between them?

For the record, Barnett and Walker had five 5+ conference win seasons between them: 1995, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2005. Fitz has four to date -- 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2015 -- in four fewer seasons than Barnett+Walker.

 

[NJCat]

[QUOTE="hdhntr1, post: 355856, member: 640"And by the way. Those Icons (Barnett and Walker) you point to had what, one 10 win season and 3 5 or more BIG win seasons between them?[/QUOTE]

And by the way, neither Barnet nor Walker got to play FCS (I-AA) teams for a sure Home win........the 1996 team only played 11 regular season games and if you replace @Wake (L) with a home FCS cupcacke a la Fitz you get 10 wins. The 2000 Walker team played 9 Big 10 games and @ #20 TCU, put 2 home cupcakes in and you get 10 wins even in an 11 game season.

 

[WoodersonCat]

Yes, I think it is acceptable for NU to be middle-of-the-pack in most seasons and pushing for division/conference titles in our "up" years. It's not necessarily what anyone wants (who doesn't want to be winning titles annually like Ohio State?), but acceptable.

Unacceptable would be fielding teams that were consistently being blown out of the water and winning one or two B1G games (think more Purdue or Indiana).

Simple question that I'm too forgetful to remember the answer to:

When was our last November game that had conference championship ramifications for us?

I look at these "close but no cigar" years not in terms of final record where you can backdoor your way into a tie for third. I look at them more in terms of November games that matter. If you can get to the last game of the regular season with a title shot, that's really good.

Winning a division title is really really good.

Winning a BT title is excellent.

Winning a bowl game after that? Permanent NU legends.

That's the goal. When was our last November game with legend status still on the table?

 

[Sheffielder]

Because we're still more competitive than the University of Illinois.

Illinois has beaten Ohio State, gone to the Rose Bowl, and won two bowl games in the past 10 years, led by coaches we consider to be idiots...I don't know what that makes us...

 

[Gladeskat]

By keeping assistant coaches who consistently underperform, the message Fitz is sending is that he's ok with us being "good enough." For us, that is defined by winning at least six games in most years, making bowl games that we usually lose but might occasionally win, and always getting a pat on the head for "doing more with less."

As defeatist as this may sound, I can live with this, but I don't want to hear Fitz claim to want to compete for Big Ten championships, because he's not committed to doing what it takes to get there. He's committed to running a clean program and staying loyal to his boys which is both admirable and frustrating.

This was true before the WMU loss.

1) You (we) STILL don't know whether the problem is coaching or talent. I think improving talent will be more effective than improving coaching...but I don't know either.

2) You (we) DO NOT know what it takes, or what Fitz needs to do, to win Big Ten championships aside from recruit better. I don't know either.

3) Our main problem right now is defense in the sense that it was the primary reason why we lost (more break downs and botched plays on defense than offense), yet most here are complaining about offensive coaches.

Sorry if you've heard this before.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Yes, I think it is acceptable for NU to be middle-of-the-pack in most seasons and pushing for division/conference titles in our "up" years. It's not necessarily what anyone wants (who doesn't want to be winning titles annually like Ohio State?), but acceptable.

Unacceptable would be fielding teams that were consistently being blown out of the water and winning one or two B1G games (think more Purdue or Indiana).

But under Fitz, we have never won our division or been even 2nd place under the old format.

So you are saying you are not happy then? Because if you're not even winning the division you have no chance to win the title.

 

[Gladeskat]

So what? They're [MAC] winning very few match ups annually.

But top MAC and other mid-major teams are very competitive with P5 teams. We didn't lose to Kent State, EMU, or Buffalo. We won a B10 title outright and still lost to Miami (O). Stuff happens and it is not entirely because of horrendous coaching. Sometimes the mid-major opponent is good.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

1) You (we) STILL don't know whether the problem is coaching or talent. I think improving talent will be more effective than improving coaching...but I don't know either.

2) You (we) DO NOT know what it takes, or what Fitz needs to do, to win Big Ten championships aside from recruit better. I don't know either.

3) Our main problem right now is defense in the sense that it was the primary reason why we lost (more break downs and botched plays on defense than offense), yet most here are complaining about offensive coaches.

Sorry if you've heard this before.

We don't know the problem? Currently it's OL, WR, DE. How many years running has it been OL and WR? I would say this is year 3 for WR and year 4 for OL (at least since Pat Ward graduated after 2012).

We have struggled landing our top OL and WR targets for pretty much years. So we know recruiting has not been good enough. Then we also know the coaching isn't good enough to compensate. Maybe the coaching would be adequate with quality talent but we know it's not good enough with the recruits that we signed.

For DE, we anticipated some drop off after Lowry and Gibson by signing Goens and Gaziano, but they're young. That means a year of holding the fort with two situational pass rushers trying to play three downs. We might have reached at the end of a class for Washington after a decommit. We converted a lanky LB, Odenigbo, into a DE by having him gain a billion pounds.

You can add QB to the list. We started a RS frosh because the senior was not good enough and the next guy was, as it turned out, badly injured. The coaching was not good enough to have a RS frosh play well.

So we know it is recruiting, as you said, but yeah, we know something about the coaching. We know it might be okay with quality talent but it is not good enough when we miss on our top recruiting targets. Jerry Brown wasn't good enough before we gave him Harris, Van Hoose, Henry, Campbell, etc.

If we have to stack the deck so much at DB to succeed, so much that we struggle at WR, what does it suggest about the coaches? Same with DL/OL.

Aren't we at a point at which we are really confident only about our LB coach? We have had some mediocre talent and great talent but when was the last time our LBs sucked?

 

[DaCat]

But top MAC and other mid-major teams are very competitive with P5 teams. We didn't lose to Kent State, EMU, or Buffalo. We won a B10 title outright and still lost to Miami (O). Stuff happens and it is not entirely because of horrendous coaching. Sometimes the mid-major opponent is good.

Agree. Some people will never admit MAC teams can be good. And the best that the MAC has to offer had to play a perfect game to beat us by 1 point.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

But top MAC and other mid-major teams are very competitive with P5 teams. We didn't lose to Kent State, EMU, or Buffalo. We won a B10 title outright and still lost to Miami (O). Stuff happens and it is not entirely because of horrendous coaching. Sometimes the mid-major opponent is good.

No doubt WMU is good but paraphrasing Midvale Dave, aren't we the Big Ten and aren't we supposed to be better than this now? I have said a few times that Fitz was oddly lacking in emotion at times on Saturday. He looked shell shocked, like he didn't expect our D to fall so flat.

Oh and 1995 loss was 21 years ago and it was a lot more fluky than Saturday's LOS dominance by WMU.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

Agree. Some people will never admit MAC teams can be good. And the best that the MAC has to offer had to play a perfect game to beat us by 1 point.

Why is it that it's either MAC is bad or we are bad? In this case it's neither. WMU is good and we have the potential to be good. It's still not acceptable to be a Big Ten team losing at home to a MAC team twice in three years! And it easily could have been three years in a row.

 

[DaCat]

It's still not acceptable to be a Big Ten team losing at home to a MAC team twice in three years! And it easily could have been three years in a row.

It also easily could have been zero losses too. The if game works both ways.