Fitz is The Closer in recruiting

[NJCat]

Sorry but you are not looking at this matter clearly...NU could win each and every "recruiting war" simply by going after players that most P5 schools won't be interested in. It may have a "perfect" record winning recruiting wars, and yet hardly win any B1G game...what good would that do?

True in theory. But in fact, this is not what NU is doing. Here are the class of 2018 commits that NU offered:
QB: Oklahoma, Va Tech, ISU
RB: Temple, OSU, Michigan, ND, Colorado, Iowa, Stanford, Yale (?)
WR: UCLA, ND, Duke, SMU
TE: OSU, Miami (FL)
OL: Michigan, ND, Texas, Pitt, Tennessee, Minny
DL: Stanford, Florida, ND
LB: Wisconsin, PSU, Michigan, Clemson (freakin' DC's son for cripes sake!)
CB: PSU, TCU, Duke,
S: PSU, AZ State, Baylor, BC
Athlete: Arkansas, Wisky

I count exactly 3 non-Power 5 players that NU recruited and didn't get. Otherwise they went head to head with big boys and lost. So for at least the class of 2018, your argument doesn't hold water.

And by the way, of the 86 offers NU made in 2017, a total of 4 went to players who committed to non-Power 5 schools. SO there are 2 consecutive years where your theory is unsubstantiated by facts.

 

[Turk]

I don't need a link. I used my eyes. It was literally my job to screen transcripts for prospective recruits. Many of Vanderbilt's players (including some of their more marquee recruits) were nowhere close to passing muster with NU admissions. We're talking 2.6 GPAs with 16 or 17 on the ACT. Just barely enough to qualify with the NCAA's sliding scale: https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2011-12_Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf

NU's requirements really aren't that stringent, especially if a kid has "a story." The staff played a huge role in developing a lot of kids who recognized and took advantage of the opportunity afforded by the NU degree. Best example is, somewhat ironically, Venric Mark; he was one of the best we had in articulating just how much NU and the coaches had done for him. It makes sense that he's currently working in recruiting so he can tell his story.

https://vanderbilt.rivals.com/news/vanderbilt-recruiting-perception-is-not-reality

Maybe so. An interesting read that it said that Vandy offered like 95 of the 250 top recruits. That seems to be counter Fitz. Not saying anyone is doing it better or worse. But I do think the appearance is that NU is snobby and not as compassionate or sensitive with student/athletes who are underprivileged. Granted, that could open the door for pollution, drugs, and other actions of ill repute, but not necessarily. Under the right infrastructure and support, it could mean a graduate and building a better man. Sure, you said NU does this and mentioned Venric, but it seems to me that may be an exception. Admittedly, I'm a biased fan but I'd like for NU to leave its comfort zone without academic compromise (must keep gpa up in college and no free rides) and take greater risk. It would be interesting.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

#1 - Yes I do, but more to the point, I argue over and over that we need to get better players. The ones we have been getting haven't been good enough to win B1G titles. The rankings (for the umpteenth time) are INDICATIVE. No one is suggesting we just offer kids based on what they are ranked. But, at the end of the day, our class rankings are indicative of strength and if we continually rank in the 40-50 range, that is an indication that we are not recruiting sufficiently well. What does it tell you when Stanford's classes continually are ranked higher and continues to perform better on the field? What does it tell you that all of our B1G championship teams had top 30 ranked classes making up the core of our starters, and none of our non-championship teams have had top 30 ranked classes making up the core?

#2 NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT WE SHOULD GO AFTER KIDS WHO DO NOT FIT ACADEMICALLY (please stop it with it strawmen). There are a bunch of kids at fit academically who we don't go after (again, just look at Stanford's commitment lists since Harbaugh took over). You can't begin to argue that we are going after the absolute best pool of talent that is academically qualified. We aren't. If we were, we wouldn't have such a high conversion rate while pulling in classes consistently ranked lower than Stanford's and Barnett's. We should not be giving up on 4 or 5 star recruits to go after kids who are less pursued simply to maintain high conversion rate (which was purely Deering's argument - had nothing to do with academic fit). The high conversion rate to me is an indication that we aren't stretching far enough. We SHOULD spend more time reaching a bit more.

NU doesn't/won't "give up" on kids to maintain a conversion rate. They will "give up" if it is clear the kid isn't interested in NU, isn't a fit for whatever reason, etc. The high conversion rate is more a function of coaches having a very good idea of knowing what they're looking for and the fact that the 2016 and 2017 (and now 2018) classes filled up pretty early and coaches could get an early head start on legwork for the next class. By identifying good prospects with a high likelihood to pick NU early in the process, the staff saves itself a lot of wasted time/effort.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

a) I don't think that is what Harbaugh did
b) whatever he did was not at all pointless, if you look at the talent as able to bring in and the championships he won.

Hell, this is like recruiting in any profession. You go after the best possible talent period, even if they wouldn't give you the time of day. And you do the work to tell your story and sell them so that they will reciprocate interest. Of course, if you sniff around and they aren't interested, you don't spend your time banging your head on a wall, you move on. But, at least fricking try and don't assume you can't win just because they are highly sought after.

It is literally what Harbaugh did. He would blast offer literally hundreds of offers on Signing Day (via fax, no less) without knowing anything at all about players besides their academic profile and an initial tape review. Receiving an "offer" was therefore Stanford/Harbaugh's sign that he's interested in you, but then he would start playing all kinds of games to "cut" kids who weren't good enough (delayed admissions decisions, flat-out refusing to accept commitments, etc.). The dude won a lot of ballgames, but did so with some very ethically questionable recruiting tactics. You're just flat not going to see Fitz engage in that kind of process. You're just not.

How exactly do you know the coaches don't/didn't try? Do you honestly think that the staff and recruiting office are unaware of the best players in the country? That they don't ask their high school coaches about them in meetings? That they don't bring back transcripts to see if they could get in academically? You honestly think they just ignore good players?

 

[EvanstonCat]

NU doesn't/won't "give up" on kids to maintain a conversion rate. They will "give up" if it is clear the kid isn't interested in NU, isn't a fit for whatever reason, etc. The high conversion rate is more a function of coaches having a very good idea of knowing what they're looking for and the fact that the 2016 and 2017 (and now 2018) classes filled up pretty early and coaches could get an early head start on legwork for the next class. By identifying good prospects with a high likelihood to pick NU early in the process, the staff saves itself a lot of wasted time/effort.

And that's great. That's also not at all what Deering was suggesting, or at least what I understood.

I also question whether they give up a little too early since our current practice also produces an output that falls short relative to the success that Barnett was able to achieve at NU and the success Stanford has been achieving since Harbaugh arrived (and left).

 

[EvanstonCat]

It is literally what Harbaugh did. He would blast offer literally hundreds of offers on Signing Day (via fax, no less) without knowing anything at all about players besides their academic profile and an initial tape review. Receiving an "offer" was therefore Stanford/Harbaugh's sign that he's interested in you, but then he would start playing all kinds of games to "cut" kids who weren't good enough (delayed admissions decisions, flat-out refusing to accept commitments, etc.). The dude won a lot of ballgames, but did so with some very ethically questionable recruiting tactics. You're just flat not going to see Fitz engage in that kind of process. You're just not.

How exactly do you know the coaches don't/didn't try? Do you honestly think that the staff and recruiting office are unaware of the best players in the country? That they don't ask their high school coaches about them in meetings? That they don't bring back transcripts to see if they could get in academically? You honestly think they just ignore good players?

Again, stop it with the strawmen. I'm not saying they don't try at all much less "just ignore good players." And I'm certainly arguing against Deering's suggestion that we focus on conversion rates and not on bringing the best possible talent that we can to NU.

I do think they don't try hard enough, since the results aren't as what our academic peer (or superior) has been able to achieve at Stanford and what Barnett was able to achieve at NU.

As for Harbaugh's recruiting tactics, I'm not going to suggest we mimic him - but I don't believe it was simply a function of blasting offers and playing games with kids. Shaw has been able to sustain recruiting success, and they are the one school whose conversion rate is even HIGHER than NU's, so clearly he isn't taking that approach and whatever is leading to Stanford's success isn't simply a matter of blasting offers and playing games with kids.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

https://vanderbilt.rivals.com/news/vanderbilt-recruiting-perception-is-not-reality

Maybe so. An interesting read that it said that Vandy offered like 95 of the 250 top recruits. That seems to be counter Fitz. Not saying anyone is doing it better or worse. But I do think the appearance is that NU is snobby and not as compassionate or sensitive with student/athletes who are underprivileged. Granted, that could open the door for pollution, drugs, and other actions of ill repute, but not necessarily. Under the right infrastructure and support, it could mean a graduate and building a better man. Sure, you said NU does this and mentioned Venric, but it seems to me that may be an exception. Admittedly, I'm a biased fan but I'd like for NU to leave its comfort zone without academic compromise (must keep gpa up in college and no free rides) and take greater risk. It would be interesting.

Not sure how any of those "facts" in that article counter my argument that Vanderbilt doesn't really have admissions criteria above the NCAA minimums. A Vanderbilt football writer making that assertion isn't exactly a "fact."

I agree with you that Fitz should be given a longer leash to take more chances on borderline academic kids so long as his team's academic performance remains up to snuff. Been saying that on these boards for a while and pushed for it to the extent I could when I was working for the team. But it's a stretch to say that NU isn't "compassionate or sensitive" with underprivileged players. So long as kid was an athletic, academic, and social fit he could be recruited. Many guys on the team came from less-than-stellar backgrounds.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

And that's great. That's also not at all what Deering was suggesting, or at least what I understood.

I also question whether they give up a little too early since our current practice also produces an output that falls short relative to the success that Barnett was able to achieve at NU and the success Stanford has been achieving since Harbaugh arrived (and left).

The irony in your Barnett reverence is that his lowest-rated classes were also his most successful.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Again, stop it with the strawmen. I'm not saying they don't try at all much less "just ignore good players." And I'm certainly arguing against Deering's suggestion that we focus on conversion rates and not on bringing the best possible talent that we can to NU.

I do think they don't try hard enough, since the results aren't as what our academic peer (or superior) has been able to achieve at Stanford and what Barnett was able to achieve at NU.

As for Harbaugh's recruiting tactics, I'm not going to suggest we mimic him - but I don't believe it was simply a function of blasting offers and playing games with kids. Shaw has been able to sustain recruiting success, and they are the one school whose conversion rate is even HIGHER than NU's, so clearly he isn't taking that approach and whatever is leading to Stanford's success isn't simply a matter of blasting offers and playing games with kids.

My point is that NU and its staff are usually aware of the players who end up highly-rated quite early in the process (see Fields, Justin). If a highly-rated/starred kid doesn't have an NU offer, it's usually for a reason... and not because coaches simply "missed" him.

The decision to offer or not is then based on the coaches' evaluation of the players' academic/athletic/social fit with the program. Sometimes that's a high school coach saying "he's just not a fit for you guys" (happens more often than you'd think, especially if the NU coach has a strong relationship at the high school); other times it's a high school coach saying "you can offer, but there's no shot he picks NU;" other times it's a kid's personality not being a fit; most often it's a player not meeting the academic criteria to get through admissions.

Stanford's success stems from the fact that Harbaugh is one hell of a football coach despite his strange public persona, plus the fact that Stanford has many built-in advantages over NU (they basically have everything NU does, but just a tick better). Shaw has been able to build off the foundation that Harbaugh left while implementing a recruiting strategy that fits better with his way to run the program and his more low-key personality, hence the higher "conversion rate."

But yes, Harbaugh would basically blast offers then start playing games with kids to "trade up" to prospects he liked better even if he had already accepted a kid's commitment.

 

[EvanstonCat]

I agree with you that Fitz should be given a longer leash to take more chances on borderline academic kids so long as his team's academic performance remains up to snuff. Been saying that on these boards for a while and pushed for it to the extent I could when I was working for the team.

That is in essence the only point that I am making. I'm not sure why you choose not to realize that and simply agree when replying to me, instead of putting up strawmen that don't at all represent what I'm saying.

The irony in your Barnett reverence is that his lowest-rated classes were also his most successful.

That's not true at all. The core of his championship teams was that #26 rated first class (4th year and 5th year players in 1995 and 1996). His more poorly rated classes resulted in our dip when they were upperclassmen, and then the #16 and the following year's class (also top 30) were the core of our 2000 championship team.

 

[EvanstonCat]

My point is that NU and its staff are usually aware of the players who end up highly-rated quite early in the process (see Fields, Justin). If a highly-rated/starred kid doesn't have an NU offer, it's usually for a reason... and not because coaches simply "missed" him.

The decision to offer or not is then based on the coaches' evaluation of the players' academic/athletic/social fit with the program. Sometimes that's a high school coach saying "he's just not a fit for you guys" (happens more often than you'd think, especially if the NU coach has a strong relationship at the high school); other times it's a high school coach saying "you can offer, but there's no shot he picks NU;" other times it's a kid's personality not being a fit; most often it's a player not meeting the academic criteria to get through admissions.

Stanford's success stems from the fact that Harbaugh is one hell of a football coach despite his strange public persona, plus the fact that Stanford has many built-in advantages over NU (they basically have everything NU does, but just a tick better). Shaw has been able to build off the foundation that Harbaugh left while implementing a recruiting strategy that fits better with his way to run the program and his more low-key personality, hence the higher "conversion rate."

But yes, Harbaugh would basically blast offers then start playing games with kids to "trade up" to prospects he liked better even if he had already accepted a kid's commitment.

I don't buy that Stanford is better in all facets. Our coaches should be better (or could sell themselves as better). I think we have a better family atmosphere, we have a better support program. And we will soon have better facilities. I think we have ways to sell and beat Stanford (as we have on occasion) and the bar must be to do so - which gets back to my underpinning mantra, which is we are not doing as well as we could be and should not be satisfied (btw, I believe or at least hope Fitz would agree with that).

Also, I don't agree that we have to loosen academic restrictions as you suggested in another post (though I also don't argue that it wouldn't help). If we keep academic restrictions where they are, they are no tighter than Stanford's, and I believe we are actually in fact looser already. Basically, we should stop looking at this as an excuse given what Barnett achieved under the same restrictions at NU and what Stanford has achieved and continues to achieve under arguably tighter restrictions.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

That is in essence the only point that I am making. I'm not sure why you choose not to realize that and simply agree when replying to me, instead of putting up strawmen that don't at all represent what I'm saying.

Because your posts seemed to imply that you thought Fitz/NU simply weren't trying hard enough because we weren't landing 4- or 5-star guys. That's flat not true.

And I may be mixing up recruiting rankings from Barnett's early tenure... do you happen to have the year-over-year rankings of his classes?

 

[Mr Wickerpark]

That is in essence the only point that I am making. I'm not sure why you choose not to realize that and simply agree when replying to me, instead of putting up strawmen that don't at all represent what I'm saying.


That's not true at all. The core of his championship teams was that #26 rated first class (4th year and 5th year players in 1995 and 1996). His more poorly rated classes resulted in our dip when they were upperclassmen, and then the #16 and the following year's class (also top 30) were the core of our 2000 championship team.

You are correct. Barnett had recruiting success with the 93' class which was higher rated than any Fitz class. I think the highest rated Fitz class has been #52 ranked. A bit disappointed since i felt Fitz would do much better but as the article leads, he just doesnt reach out. He would much rather sink a 3 foot putt than get a little bold with 12 foot putts. Anyone can have great success with a layup over a 3 pt shot but it wont win championships. Walker never won a championship without a top 30 class either. He won with a top 15 class by virtue of barnett.

The article doesnt mistake that fitz isnt reaching high enough.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I don't buy that Stanford is better in all facets. Our coaches should be better (or could sell themselves as better). I think we have a better family atmosphere, we have a better support program. And we will soon have better facilities. I think we have ways to sell and beat Stanford (as we have on occasion) and the bar must be to do so - which gets back to my underpinning mantra, which is we are not doing as well as we could be and should not be satisfied (btw, I believe or at least hope Fitz would agree with that).

Also, I don't agree that we have to loosen academic restrictions as you suggested in another post (though I also don't argue that it wouldn't help). If we keep academic restrictions where they are, they are no tighter than Stanford's, and I believe we are actually in fact looser already. Basically, we should stop looking at this as an excuse given what Barnett achieved under the same restrictions at NU and what Stanford has achieved and continues to achieve under arguably tighter restrictions.

Like Northwestern, Stanford offers a world-class education... but is rated just a notch or two higher than NU.

Like Northwestern, Stanford has a world-class reputation... but has just a little better name recognition than NU.

Like Northwestern, Stanford offers a spectacular campus... but has the benefit of California sunshine.

Like Northwestern will have soon, Stanford has top-notch athletic facilities... but got them a couple years earlier, including a full stadium renovation.

(No clue how you could possibly judge the comparative "family atmosphere" or "support system.")

I guarantee you that Fitz and the staff aren't satisfied with .500 seasons, but Fitz is going to go about building the program into a consistent championship contender his way, which is different from how you would like to see it done. Fitz has always played the long-game, building depth of the program so we can be more consistent rather than a "flash in the pan" competitor when things line up just right.

I think 2017 and 2018 are critical years in continuing to build the program, especially with the new facilities opening soon. On-field success in 2017 and 2018 will effectively "activate" the new facilities. The good news is that I feel pretty good about our chances for a solid season in 2017; the schedule isn't too terrible, we have experience at key positions, and some interesting new additions that could shore up our weaknesses. I'll feel a whole lot better about 2018 if Thorson is still at the helm, as the schedule takes a pretty noticeable step up and we will be losing some other key guys due to graduation (JJackson, Lancaster, Igwebuike, etc.).

 

[gocatsgo2003]

You are correct. Barnett had recruiting success with the 93' class which was higher rated than any Fitz class. I think the highest rated Fitz class has been #52 ranked. A bit disappointed since i felt Fitz would do much better but as the article leads, he just doesnt reach out. He would much rather sink a 3 foot putt than get a little bold with 12 foot putts. Anyone can have great success with a layup over a 3 pt shot but it wont win championships. Walker never won a championship without a top 30 class either. He won with a top 15 class by virtue of barnett.

The article doesnt mistake that fitz isnt reaching high enough.

Flat out not true.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

And by the way, of the 86 offers NU made in 2017, a total of 4 went to players who committed to non-Power 5 schools. SO there are 2 consecutive years where your theory is unsubstantiated by facts.

You REALLY have trouble following the logic of an argument.

I am *NOT* arguing that NU *IS* doing that.
I am arguing that that should NOT be the criterion to judge recruiting performance.

Any P5 school can have an extremely high "yield rate" (i.e., win the vast majority of "recruiting wars") simply by targeting players that most other P5 schools (especially the stronger ones) would want.

Get it?

Therefore, you need some other criterion: the strength of the class should be paramount (subject to rules and standards).

 

[ThatkidfromHolland]

I honestly could care less how a class ranks. It's cool publicity when it's highly ranked but comparing recruiting ability and recruiting classes by rank is silly. It takes four years to see if you recruited well during a certain year. You can tell northwestern has had an uptick in talent since I've been watching just by watching the games. So I call that improvement in recruiting. I have no problems with how they are recruiting. These last two classes have phenomenal upside.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

You REALLY have trouble following the logic of an argument.

I am *NOT* arguing that NU *IS* doing that.
I am arguing that that should NOT be the criterion to judge recruiting performance.

Any P5 school can have an extremely high "yield rate" (i.e., win the vast majority of "recruiting wars") simply by targeting players that most other P5 schools (especially the stronger ones) would want.

Get it?

Therefore, you need some other criterion: the strength of the class should be paramount (subject to rules and standards).

Don't think anyone is really arguing that "hit rate" is a main driver of success. It's more an interesting stat that's driven by Fitz's approach to recruiting, which may or may not have some use in and of itself in the recruiting process (i.e. communicating to recruits how few offers go out builds a sense of "exclusivity" amongst those who have offers).

 

[EvanstonCat]

I honestly could care less how a class ranks. It's cool publicity when it's highly ranked but comparing recruiting ability and recruiting classes by rank is silly. It takes four years to see if you recruited well during a certain year. You can tell northwestern has had an uptick in talent since I've been watching just by watching the games. So I call that improvement in recruiting. I have no problems with how they are recruiting. These last two classes have phenomenal upside.

Yeah,Yeah we all get the Gladeskat school of thought that recruiting rankings don't matter.

The fact is that they do over the long haul. Not just statistically across programs (as has been hashed out repeatedly in analytical articles that have been posted on this site), but also at NU.

To wit: a #26 ranked class was the core (4th and 5th year players) for our 1995 and 1996 championship teams. Our post rose bowl class(es) in 1996 and 1997 were the core of our 2000 championship team. NO NU CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM WAS WITHOUT A TOP 30 RANKED RECRUITING CLASS ANCHORING ITS CORE. OTOH, none of our teams that did not have top 30 classes earned championship rings.

If you want to be happy with just getting to mid-tier level bowls, but never winning the B1G or getting ranked in the top 10, then by all means continue to be satisfied with our current recruiting.

BTW, I do think it is possible we contend for the title this year, and it is no coincidence that the team is anchored by Fitz's strongest class to date, that had multiple 4 stars, including our top tier QB and RB and the other NFL prospect on the defensive side, Godwin Igwebuike. Anyone who thinks we are going to win the B1G on a consistent basis with middling recruiting classes is dreaming and going against the data.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Because your posts seemed to imply that you thought Fitz/NU simply weren't trying hard enough because we weren't landing 4- or 5-star guys. That's flat not true.

And I may be mixing up recruiting rankings from Barnett's early tenure... do you happen to have the year-over-year rankings of his classes?

I posted a Sun-Times or Chicago Trib article earlier, can't find it. That very first class and the Autry class were very strong - and were the core of our championship teams. Every other Barnett class was ranked in the top 50, except the disastrous Jeff Dyra class (Dyra being the only impact player coming out of that one).

 

[Mr Wickerpark]

Flat out not true.

So he does reach out to studs but doesnt offer? Semantics, right?

 

[gocatsgo2003]

So he does reach out to studs but doesnt offer? Semantics, right?

Far, far from semantics. If a top player doesn't have an NU offer, it's typically for a reason.

 

[ThatkidfromHolland]

Yeah,Yeah we all get the Gladeskat school of thought that recruiting rankings don't matter.

The fact is that they do over the long haul. Not just statistically across programs (as has been hashed out repeatedly in analytical articles that have been posted on this site), but also at NU.

To wit: a #26 ranked class was the core (4th and 5th year players) for our 1995 and 1996 championship teams. Our post rose bowl class(es) in 1996 and 1997 were the core of our 2000 championship team. NO NU CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM WAS WITHOUT A TOP 30 RANKED RECRUITING CLASS ANCHORING ITS CORE. OTOH, none of our teams that did not have top 30 classes earned championship rings.

If you want to be happy with just getting to mid-tier level bowls, but never winning the B1G or getting ranked in the top 10, then by all means continue to be satisfied with our current recruiting.

BTW, I do think it is possible we contend for the title this year, and it is no coincidence that the team is anchored by Fitz's strongest class to date, that had multiple 4 stars, including our top tier QB and RB and the other NFL prospect on the defensive side, Godwin Igwebuike. Anyone who thinks we are going to win the B1G on a consistent basis with middling recruiting classes is dreaming and going against the data.

Well I don't think we've been getting middling recruiting classes lately. I think we are on the right path. Who said I wanted to be happy with mid tier bowls. I fully believe we are capable with the current and future players that we are capable of higher than that.

 

[hdhntr1]

Not necessarily. With very few exceptions, recruits wouldn't be formally admitted to school until after their junior year; the process required six semesters of grades and an SAT or ACT. Before then, it's basically the coaches' best guess as to whether recruits will qualify when the time comes. The staff is quite good at making those guesses, but there's some possibility that a kid could not be admitted after receiving an offer.

We have seen that

 

[Catreporter]

Walker never won a championship without a top 30 class either. He won with a top 15 class by virtue of barnett.

That 2000 team won with offensive innovation by Coach Walker and his offensive coordinator. Their defense was pretty bad (see Nebraska, TCU games for two examples). Walker deserves a lion's share of credit for what that team did and not Gary's recruits. I'm a huge Barnett fan. He did a sports miracle at NU, but he was a bad 0-8 in the BIG in '98 and Walker's first team with "Gary's core" went 1-7. Yes, he recruited some good players to Northwestern, but he left because he doubted he could sustain success here. Fitz has had sustained success with two 10-win seasons and two bowl wins in the last five years. Would I like to see us get to the BIG championship game? Heck yes, but it's a process. Stanford has had a pretty good history of success over decades before Harbaugh took over. Northwestern has not.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Fitz has had sustained success with two 10-win seasons and two bowl wins in the last five years.

You definition of "sustained success" seems pretty unambitious. Playing and even winning bowl games is better than not...but that doesn't mean it is a significant accomplishment...it is basically something that MOST (over 50%) of FBS teams do, simply by virtue of the sheer number of bowl games (relative to the number of FBS teams).
What PF has been doing can at the VERY BEST be called sustained mediocrity. I mean, he has won 1,2,3, 5, and 6 B1G games over 11 seasons...his worst season was actually his 8th. His B1G win percentage is 46%. Yes, there has been times in the past where a 46% B1G win percentage at NU would have looked mighty impressive, if not outright miraculous...but after winning three B1G crowns over 6 years, and winning 14 B1G games over 3 seasons immediately before this tenure started, it'd seemed NU should expect a bit more...or at least a few division titles over 11 seasons (or just ONE).

 

[gocatsgo2003]

You definition of "sustained success" seems pretty unambitious. Playing and even winning bowl games is better than not...but that doesn't mean it is a significant accomplishment...it is basically something that MOST (over 50%) of FBS teams do, simply by virtue of the sheer number of bowl games (relative to the number of FBS teams).
What PF has been doing can at the VERY BEST be called sustained mediocrity. I mean, he has won 1,2,3, 5, and 6 B1G games over 11 seasons...his worst season was actually his 8th. His B1G win percentage is 46%. Yes, there has been times in the past where a 46% B1G win percentage at NU would have looked mighty impressive, if not outright miraculous...but after winning three B1G crowns over 6 years, and winning 14 B1G games over 3 seasons immediately before this tenure started, it'd seemed NU should expect a bit more...or at least a few division titles over 11 seasons (or just ONE).

Please don't start this again.

 

[rwhitney014]

Please don't start this again.

I guess basketball grad transfer season has ended.

 

[hdhntr1]

You are correct. Barnett had recruiting success with the 93' class which was higher rated than any Fitz class. I think the highest rated Fitz class has been #52 ranked. A bit disappointed since i felt Fitz would do much better but as the article leads, he just doesnt reach out. He would much rather sink a 3 foot putt than get a little bold with 12 foot putts. Anyone can have great success with a layup over a 3 pt shot but it wont win championships. Walker never won a championship without a top 30 class either. He won with a top 15 class by virtue of barnett.

The article doesnt mistake that fitz isnt reaching high enough.

Al of ratings game is based on class size. Due to our RS policies and high grad rates, we never have huge classes. an example is this class where it will max out at about 16.

 

[Mr Wickerpark]

You definition of "sustained success" seems pretty unambitious. Playing and even winning bowl games is better than not...but that doesn't mean it is a significant accomplishment...it is basically something that MOST (over 50%) of FBS teams do, simply by virtue of the sheer number of bowl games (relative to the number of FBS teams).
What PF has been doing can at the VERY BEST be called sustained mediocrity. I mean, he has won 1,2,3, 5, and 6 B1G games over 11 seasons...his worst season was actually his 8th. His B1G win percentage is 46%. Yes, there has been times in the past where a 46% B1G win percentage at NU would have looked mighty impressive, if not outright miraculous...but after winning three B1G crowns over 6 years, and winning 14 B1G games over 3 seasons immediately before this tenure started, it'd seemed NU should expect a bit more...or at least a few division titles over 11 seasons (or just ONE).

There really isnt anything to show for fitz but i do think he recruits better than walker and has made us into a strong sparring partner. Never being a champ but being competitive enough for any team to be careful with us. You cant deny the occassional upset (see notre dame, stanford).

 

[NJCat]

I guess basketball grad transfer season has ended.

Actually, there is an update on Corey Evans posted a while ago on the hoops board......

 

[Catreporter]

What PF has been doing can at the VERY BEST be called sustained mediocrity

Just stop yourself. Talking numbers, Gary's record at NU was 35-45; Walker's was 37-46. Fitz is 77-62. NU all-time is 525-658. We've never had that kind of "sustained mediocrity." Even Ara was just 36-35 here.

 

[Mr Wickerpark]

Just stop yourself. Talking numbers, Gary's record at NU was 35-45; Walker's was 37-46. Fitz is 77-62. NU all-time is 525-658. We've never had that kind of "sustained mediocrity." Even Ara was just 36-35 here.

It is sustained mediocrity. No championships. No divisional crowns. Mediocre recruiting that simply doesnt grab nfl talent. Im not complaining but if we are someth in ng more than average then that makes Minny above average. I mean our big game this year will be minny. We should win all 3 ooc, and beat illinoy and purdue. That gives us 5 wins. If we beat Minny then we should end up with 7 wins since we should pull off one upset along the way. 7-5 is solid but it also proves felis right. I cant believe how much you guys rip him/her. If we arent mr mediocre then what are we?

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Just stop yourself. Talking numbers, Gary's record at NU was 35-45; Walker's was 37-46. Fitz is 77-62. NU all-time is 525-658. We've never had that kind of "sustained mediocrity." Even Ara was just 36-35 here.

First, unless you have some magic way to compare out-of-conference strength of schedule across coach's tenures you should focus on B1G records, since the strength of the conference (as a whole) is far more stable than a given team's OOC opponents.

Secondly, each coach has its own start point and should be judged with that in mind.The NU program had 14 B1G wins over the 3 seasons immediately preceding PF, and THREE B1G crowns over the immediately preceding decade...which is far more favorable than what the others (especially GB) found. Over the same length of time, the B1G crown count is against PF THREE to none (not even one division title).

Finally, even ignoring the start point of each coach, 41-48 is (at the very best) mediocre (regardless of how the others did). It is NOT sustained success. Not even close.

 

[Catreporter]

Measuring Fitz against Barnett's two year run is ridiculous! Walker's championship team was 8-4 with an ugly blowout loss to Nebraska at the Alamo Bowl. And it took a couple of "miracle" wins to get to 6-2 in the BIG.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

First, unless you have some magic way to compare out-of-conference strength of schedule across coach's tenures you should focus on B1G records, since the strength of the conference (as a whole) is far more stable than a given team's OOC opponents.

Secondly, each coach has its own start point and should be judged with that in mind.The NU program had 14 B1G wins over the 3 seasons immediately preceding PF, and THREE B1G crowns over the immediately preceding decade...which is far more favorable than what the others (especially GB) found. Over the same length of time, the B1G crown count is against PF THREE to none (not even one division title).

Finally, even ignoring the start point of each coach, 41-48 is (at the very best) mediocre (regardless of how the others did). It is NOT sustained success. Not even close.

Can we all please ignore this and hope it stops? Please?

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Measuring Fitz against Barnett's two year run is ridiculous! Walker's championship team was 8-4...

I'm comparing a decade (roughly) under PF vs a decade (roughly) under the others. One of the two includes THREE B1G crowns. The other not even a lowly division title. I am sure you know which corresponds to PF.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

 

[Mr Wickerpark]

He isnt trolling....you are. In fact you are bullying. He makes valid points which are backed up with evidence. Yes, we are mediocre. Be reasonable gocat.

 

[Catreporter]

He isnt trolling....you are. In fact you are bullying. He makes valid points which are backed up with evidence. Yes, we are mediocre. Be reasonable gocat.

Yes, I guess all the experts who say Fitz is overachieving are wrong. I will leave it at that.