I’m not really one way or the other. I voted for what I thought was a moderate option about Collins making the NIT that ended up being clearly in the minority among mostly pro Collins responses. I just also didn’t realize that Stanford basketball has basically had one 20 year golden era and wasn’t good before nor since. Of course, that’s one more golden era than NU has experienced…
I know the guy bringing up ND is an Illinois troll, but anyone that brings up ND as a NU comparable for Athletics is either out of their mind or a delusional NU alum. Also, the vote was pro Collins not the responses.
I’d take the NIT in a heartbeat any day of the week.
The point isn’t whether there is a difference in prestige. There will always be a difference between two schools. Heck, some people would say Harvard is more prestigious then Stanford or Princeton. The question is in the recruiting context whether there is a meaningful enough difference in prestige so that the NU degree can offset the lack of winning tradition. In my opinion the answer is no. I’m sure some hyper competitive industries might distinguish between Northwestern, Georgetown, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame but to 99% of the country they are looked at as outstanding universities that are just a notch below Harvard, Yale and Stanford. And I can’t imagine a scenario where a D1 level athlete who was worried about job prospects would see any functional difference between NU and Georgetown. Even in Chicago the job prospects for the guy who was a communication major and was the starting PG at Notre Dame are going to be same for the NU PG who was also a communications major.
and here come the excuse makers to tell you about Tex Winter and Bill Foster, because absolutely nothing has changed since then /s
I share your frustration. But there is no point in comparing NU to other schools, it was (is?) literally the worst P5 job in the country. We have ONE tournament apperance and by some accounts the worst admission standards in the P5. And spare me the living on the lake, North Shore, academic prestige, close to Chicago talking points. P5 coaches are competitive megalomaniacs and they want to win. Period. I'm not saying Collins SHOULD get more time, just that it's tough to say well this is how Michigan or Vanderbilt did it, so that's how NU should do it etc.
I agree with your approach and unlike others on this board I think we could get promising up and coming coach, but we would just have to overpay by millions. I actually don't fault NU for giving Collins the extension. If Collins wanted to leave in 2017 he would have been a serious candidate for any job in the country. If Coach K decided to retire the year we were in the tourney I bet Collins gets the Duke job. NU felt like they had to overpay to keep their guy which is not an unreasonable position.
OK then, don't change admissions standard and continue to finish in the bottom third of the conference. Would think the Ivy league might have an opening.
I very much doubt that the worst job in the country pulls Collins from Duke in 2013
My question did not intend to be any personal opinion on whether CC should stay or go.
First, reiterating that I think he will be allowed to stay through next year and, honestly, the team is playing well enough that I'm ok with one more year. That said, I feel Gragg should have a succession plan in place in case there is no...um...success, next year, and just hire a hot G5 coach and pay them appropriately. If they fail in 3-4 years, hire another one. And so on. Don't be afraid over "who would come here?!?", and accept poor performance.
"And sports are a phenomenal way of allowing upward mobility for kids who don't stand much of a chance with the deck they were dealt."
Professors are one of the most pandered, well paid, and coddled groups in America, let’s not go crazy shedding tears over a group who decade after decade has seen their pay go up and up while their actual work hours drop and drop.
My point really has nothing to do with how much professors get paid. They could be getting paid more than coaches and my point would be the same. Pay only adds to my point. The fact that coaches are not academically qualified to be hired as mentors to NU students who must be much more academically qualified than they are, is.
I agree in general about admissions standards, but why is this tied to basketball? Why tie this chance at upward mobility to something that isn't related to the academic mission that would foster that. There are TONS of hard-working kids with big dreams who do amazing things who could do well at NU and benefit from that upward mobility. I guess I don't see why their playing basketball would need to be in the mix to accomplish that.
CCC grew up 20 minutes from WR. He has raised a young family here. What makes you so sure he would leave skid marks with a quit exit?
Of course there are tons of hard working kids with big dreams that don’t get a chance. The question is how do you make a decision when there are literally tons of them. It comes down to something unique those individuals bring to the table. Certainly, should not be just athletics and I don’t believe it is.
Okay, so are you advocating that admissions be able to make decisions based on their evaluation of a candidate without strict GPA and standardized testing requirements and the like for all students? I am skeptical that will produce meaningful differences in the basketball players admitted unless you are focused on making larger exceptions for basketball players. And then it isn't about providing larger opportunities to kids for upward mobility. It's about getting in more basketball players you want.
This roster is not 5ht in BIG. It is better than we have had but not 5th in conference level.
You know we play 20 in conference games right? 4 wins gets us to nine and that would be sub 0.500
I think they were referring to a winning overall record rather than a winning conference record.
This situation exists because professors are among the most coddled, well-paid and protected professions in America.
yes, that, and then presuming the obligatory 1st round BTT loss, we'd end up at 16-14. Also, 9 conf wins would be the 2nd most in my lifetime (albeit with more conf games than other years)
I think they should make larger exceptions to give all people from disadvantaged backgrounds a better opportunity for admissions. A first generation college student versus a 3rd or 4th generation student. So, yes, I would advocate taking much more in consideration that standardized testing and GPA. The end result may be only a few more athletes, but there should also be consideration for artists, musicians, writers, or anyone that has demonstrated a strong skill that brings that diversity to the student body.
Academically qualified to mentor NU students? What on earth are you talking about
It's simple. If a student needs to be academically highly qualified to come to NU to play a sport as a significant part of their educational experience which NU offers as a significant part of that experience, why shouldn't their coaches be required to meet equally stringent intellectual standards? Conversely, if the coaches are not highly qualified both academically and and athletically, why should the students they mentor be highly qualified in both areas. It's a double standard. If sports are valued as a significant contributor to one's well rounded education, that suggests that the student who excels in a sport is as valuable to the university as the student who scores through the roof on tests but can barely lift a pencil, much less play a sport. Is there a difference between the University that accepts many students primarily on the basis of their athletic skills any different than the one that accepts students to the exclusion of their athletic skills? If athletics are important to education and personal development, then they should be treated equally with academics.
I'm not sure who helps the players with their academics, but it sure as hell isn't the assistant coaches.
Not my point. One way to put this is NU's adminissions policy with respect athletic admissions is discriminatory, if not hypocritical. Clearly athletics are not valued as a significant aspect of certain students' education and are not treated equally with respect to admission. One way to argue a cockeyed policy is to contrast it with an equally cockeyed one.
Not just athletics, no, but superior athletic skill should be recognized as skill equal to superior academic skill--it is simply a different skill. Mind and body are not two separate entities. That, I believe is what NU is missing, which is difficult to understand, although given NU's Methodist roots, maybe not.
I take your question seriously. In the sense that Jesse is a very physical person, and, yes, smart as well. He, like a current counterpart, has little patience for disagreement, except Jesse had a more enlightened perspective. Jesse ultimately promoted conspiracy theories, which are not always a bad thing--like that the sun doesn't orbit the earth. His counterpart just flat out lies, about everything. I'm not sure that this has to do with mind and body being one, except that Trump is a brain floating in a blob of blubber. Herein is one argument for physical development as a part of education from primary through higher ed, and those with athletic talent should be encouraged, not discriminated against..
