Nonsense. No Coach in the country would fall on the sword for something they didn’t know about.
I worked for Northwestern Football for four seasons. Ask me anything.
- Thread starter towercat
- Start date
What can a leader do while suspended? I'm more interested in the measures the leader would take when not suspended.
My (Kiara) opinion is as follows: Fitz almost certainly knew that about running was going on, but did not look at it as hazing. Would I bet my life? No. I can’t get into his head. But it was not a secret practice within the program. It was not something people whispered about. It wasn’t hush-hush. It’s well established at this point that the car washing/ loofah started in the early 2000s and players spoke openly about it in front of coaches and staff. Weird naked, sexual stuff has been going on for a long time.
If pretending Fitz didn’t know helps you reconcile your fandom or sleep at night, then so be it. But I am not so naive to think Fitz was clueless. It’s almost worse if Fitz has been walking around eyes wide shut for two decades.
If pretending Fitz didn’t know helps you reconcile your fandom or sleep at night, then so be it. But I am not so naive to think Fitz was clueless. It’s almost worse if Fitz has been walking around eyes wide shut for two decades.
My co-host saw people leaving the locker room when it was going on. I’m doubt there was a formalized opt-out process lol, but some people just left because they have lower tolerance for that kind of behavior.
Impossible to say.
Great question! I’ll ask Lena and get back to you.
Yes, and I think people would be very surprised to find out which players were most enthusiastic about running.
Sure, how about during the many years that running was common knowledge to be occurring. Student staff knew about it, and surely the assistant coaches did too. Did Fitz ever bother to ask his assistants if they knew of any hazing occurring? If not, why not?
From The Athletic:
“What Northwestern’s coaches knew, and what lengths they did or didn’t go to in order to halt the misconduct, became a flashpoint during Walker’s time. Lamitte says coaches knew about the loofah line because players referenced it in the skits they performed for the team and staff at the end of the preseason. He says one group of players mocked the offensive linemen in their skit by singing, “The loofah, the-the-the loofah roll call!” He also remembers coaches (he declined to name them) telling them to cut out the lewd behavior. He said Walker rarely came into the locker room, but he remembers him walking in once and being disgusted by what he saw.”
This occurred at some point between 2001 and 2005.
But during my time? Yes, I heard players and full-time staff laughing about running. I never heard it so crassly referred to as “dry-humping,” but I guess that is the clinical term for it.
If I heard people laughing about running, I wouldn't know they were talking about dry-humping.
Your insight is great. I’m about 25 minutes into the pod and will listen to the rest while mowing the lawn, now.
My read is that running was a common practice, and some really disliked it, and none felt comfortable enough to come forward and end it *because* it was simply part of the program.
I also think that this was a Fitz blind spot. I run a clean program, we’re a family, we don’t condone hazing, and there’s no hazing. To him, it wasn’t hazing.
And, along those lines, had he chosen to acknowledge that blind spot, rather than pretend it didn’t exist, he’d still have a job.
But Fitz hasn’t been big on being questioned lately, and isn’t particularly open to change.
This is really good perspective. Thank you.
It’s a colloquialism. It’s typically referred to in the context of “getting your cheeks ran.”
It’s lewd, but search “run them cheeks” on urban dictionary and see what pops up.
I don't think it's a term in the common vernacular. I don't hang in circles where people run each other's cheeks, so again, if I heard people laughing about it, I would have no clue.
We're talking about an athletic team. Lots of other things come to mind from the word "running" than people dry-humping each other.
That’s an obtuse way to look at it. Unless you’re 18-22 you / me have no clue what the day’s common lingo is. But normal running as in jogging in and of itself is not a funny activity even if given as a punishment for poor performance on the field. If you heard people laughing and joking about it, as a responsible coach, wouldn’t you ask what “running” really consists of? If not, that’s a sign of bad leadership and someone who should not be in charge of the well being of young adults.
Then why employ him? Wasn’t for the on field results. Can’t credit him for a clean program unless you are willing to bury him if it’s not.
He had $5MM reasons to know. To make it his business to know. He snubbed his nose at every other typical measuring stick for regaining a highly paid FB coach. All that was left was squeaky clean.
If I heard people laughing and joking, it wouldn't necessarily tip me off that something was wrong. And even if he inquired, "Hey, what's this 'running' thing you guys are joking about?" then I find it entirely believable that the answer they gave him was NOT: "We dry-hump each other. It's known as 'running each other's cheeks' if you look it up on the Urban Dictionary. Get with the times, old man."
God help us if 18-22 year olds so frequently talk about running each other's cheeks that it has entered the common vernacular. Call me naive or out of touch; I take it as a compliment. What a sad statement on our culture.
Probably from some hip-hop lyric, but you must not have kids or spent time around a lot of jocks. They had runsmas and runsgiving and chanted about it as noted in many places. You don’t do that if someone is going for a casual jog or even running sprints. SMH. If I were in a position of leadership, I’d have at least been sus enough to ask what the heck was going on. Do I need to explain “sus” to you?
Last edited:
‘Running’ — putting on creepy masks and grinding your junk as a group against an individual — is not in the common vernacular. It was in Northwestern football’s common vernacular.
So all jocks know what running means? Dry-humping is common practice with jocks? Running the cheeks is all the rage with kids these days? Really?
I don't know the extent that the players chanted about runsmas and runsgiving. Did they chant it around the coaches? You have this insider knowledge?
The coaches did not have offices in the players' locker room. From what the jocks on this board have said, it is not common practice in NCAA sports for the coaches to hang out in the locker room. So whatever the players chanted in their locker room was not heard by the coaches.
Did @towercat know that running consisted of putting on creepy masks and grinding their junk on each other?
Last edited:
Runsmas happens when I hit Taco Bell on the way home from a ball game.
That’s not what I implied and you know it, but clearly you haven’t been exposed to much locker room, or even frat talk. It’s does seem that in NU locker rooms the players used certain vernacular about hazing their teammates and not just boasting about their exploits with the opposite sex. The Athletic article, Lou’s reporting, and the OPs of this thread are all my sources and they all corroborate that coaches / staff overheard “things”. You wanna be blind and deaf about it, so be it.
It’s being cornered type thing. The excuses for their deity are running thin.
No, I don't know what you're trying to imply. If you're saying it's frat talk, then fraternal organizations have lots of secrets. The third-party investigation could not find evidence that Fitz knew about players dry-humping each other. Lou's ex-staffer source is anonymous and his story conflicts with ex-staffer Hank's. I read the Athletic article and I remember naked pull-ups and car washes, but I don't remember anything about holding players down and dry-humping them. As for OPs of this thread, that's why I'm asking them very direct questions about whether they knew that running consisted of players wearing masks and dry-humping each other. If I wanted to remain blind and deaf about it I wouldn't be asking these very direct types of questions.
That third party law firm seems to have done a cursory job (prolly to cover for the AD) since other later reporting dug deeper than they did. Let’s see what Loretta Lynch uncovers and then we’ll talk.
Yet you won’t acknowledge that no one has gone on record with an affidavit, including mutually beloved Hank, that hazing including running never occurred. If you’re innocent and have nothing to hide then why not go on record and not hide behind a non specific group letter or tweet?
You know the OPs aren’t going to name names or would have been aware of the most egregious behavior. No one wants to rat on this, but once someone flips, most likely an accused player / assistant / staff, then it turns into who can cut deals / testify once the truth comes out. There will be an attempted settlement, but I think some of these accusers and attorneys will want this to go to court. Gon git bumpy…
Shrek gang in Evanston and Kenosha has been talked about in multiple places. How anyone can defend innocence of the perps and leadership on this is beyond the pale.
Just because you're not aware of something happening doesn't mean you can sign an affidavit asserting that it never happened. That's not how logic works.
Right, nobody wants to rat on this. Possibly nobody wanted to rat to Fitz either.
If you're claiming that the egregious behavior was so well-known that everybody knew, and that extends to Fitz, that's why I'm asking the question. What exactly did these insiders know about the alleged behavior?
So let’s not go that far and just sign a legal attestation / affidavit that none of the hazing behavior was ever observed, rumored, or known of? No one has done that to defend the program yet.
Bet they’re are numerous current and past players and assistant coaches who won’t do that. Then logic says they are hiding something.
We're stepping into the realm of law and I am not a lawyer. Maybe Fitz's lawyers are gathering affidavits for their case or maybe they plan to call people as witnesses. What would be the benefit of an assistant publishing a signed affidavit at this point when there are already pending cases? Would that get Fitz his job back? Would that assistant open himself up to legal headaches even if he can back up his affidavit with evidence? ("The process is the punishment" is a common saying these days. Lawyers aren't cheap. What's the benefit of opening yourself up to that?)
Dude, the coaches clearly didn't look at this crap as hazing. Otherwise it wouldn't have been talked and LAUGHED about openly by the whole team and staff. THAT was the problem. I'm not anti-Fitz AT ALL, and hate how he was fired, but c'mon, he probably was one of the ringleaders of this crap when he was a player.
The more I read about how long this went on, how common and widely accpeted it was including by the coaches, the more disgusted I am. Kiara, thank you so much for your insight - it is absolutely clear that EVERYONE knew what was going on. They just didn't consider it hazing. Period.
Freshmen carrying the veterans pads around, whoop dee doo. If you're gonna haze the new players, do that. But this running/car wash shit? What the hell is it with football players and offensive linemen?!?! Team bonding, my ass.
Last edited:
Exactly. Exactly.
And did he deserve to be fired, especially so summarily, so abruptly, so absent due process? Not in my opinion. Suspension, yes. Of course. But if Fitz "deserved" to be fired, so did ALL the other coaches (not the new ones). So did Randy Walker, for that matter.
Mr. Schill, you're a pinhead and a coward.
Thanks for the insight. The crass word “dry-humping” is really the trigger point of this whole hazing scandal. I don’t think many if any are denying something didn’t happen. However, is the depiction painted by some the reality? Not to be lewd, but did the perpetrators actually bounce their junk of other players cheeks? I know you can’t answer this, but back in my day in a college locker room, there is just no way ANYONE would stand for this. They would fight to the death. I don’t care how big and bad the perpetrators are. Now, if the car wash etc was viewed as some right of passage and the guys soapy ass cheeks brushed me, I could see living with that. Don’t like it, shouldn’t of happened, but I could see this being some team joke.
The “forced” part of it is what derails me. No way every player got “run”. Could not see a bad ass like AWalk putting up with this. In fact, have difficulty seeing anyone forced into these shenanigans. It sounds like in your previous comments you even implied some of this garbage may have been voluntary. Strange as that seems, that is what extends the acceptance of the behavior. It’s almost human nature to assume the worst. I don’t know Fitz like you do, but the little contact I have had ( and it was in a very casual setting) there is no way I am going to believe he either endorsed or knew of these exact activities.
Good stuff, PPD. We don't know the full details of what actual lewd contact took place with certain players - just a few particular young players who in some veterans minds had it coming? We don't know. Was it worse/way over the line for a few players? Are those few players telling the truth or embellishing?
I'm with you - if THAT is what took place with guys like Warren Long, Yates, Richardson... yeah, I'll buy that Fitz didn't know everything, and might have intervened and nipped this shit in the bud. Maybe.
Last edited:
I finished earlier this afternoon and I credit your thoughtful approach to the discussion.
Your opinions on the welcoming nature of the program were reassuring — the racism accusations have seemed pretty thin, and, as was covered here and on the pod, any rules against hairstyles had been changed in the past decade or so as their questionable nature was better understood. I can only hope that those accusations had nothing to do with the firing decision.
At one point, you mentioned something along the lines of ‘if they did consider it abusive’, which made me think of your above response.
So, among those who were most enthusiastic, do you think it had something to do with the abusive nature of the activity? Or was it just good clean American fun that they particularly enjoyed?
Ultimately, I’m trying to understand if there *were* sinister undertones, or if the entire program was so blind because it had gone on for so long.
(I thought The Athletic article did the best job of describing how traditions had changed/accelerated over time. Kalyn Kahler was one of the co-authors of that article, and would have been writing for The Daily while you both were there.)
And final final final question…
There was the ‘gayest locker room’ in the Big Ten comment, and one other reference to talking to other managers.
So, in your conversations with managers at other programs, do you think NU’s culture or hazing was generally more, less, or equally pervasive as compared to peer programs?
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, and nice work on the pod.
I've said from the beginning that Fitzgerald might be saying "I was unaware of any hazing" because he didn't consider the things he knew about to be hazing.
And of course, it is also very likely that he didn't know about some of the things that happened.
It depends on the exact wording of questions that he was asked.
All Schill had to do was say "We don't like this and we don't like that. Those practices must stop immediately." It was a layup.
And that would have solved the problem.
And of course, it is also very likely that he didn't know about some of the things that happened.
It depends on the exact wording of questions that he was asked.
All Schill had to do was say "We don't like this and we don't like that. Those practices must stop immediately." It was a layup.
And that would have solved the problem.
You have certainly made your opinion known.
Over, and over, and over.
Have you read corbi or CSC on this topic? Or do simply troll the other side because you don’t want to read it? There is an ignore function…
Exactly. Just copy and paste. adds nothing to the discussion.
They tried to run Jango. He said "no thanks", and that was it.
One of the plaintiffs was also a perpetrator. Go figure.
Didn’t his dad also say Jango wasn’t particularly popular within the team? Nothing wrong with that but a tough choice to be forced to make.
The irony from some around here is off the charts.
