ADVERTISEMENT

Indiana passed a dark ages milestone this year

eastbaycat99

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2009
2,360
3,430
113
By going 2-7 in conference this year, Indiana posted its 24th season since the last time they had a winning record in Big Ten play in 1993 (they did go 4-4 in 2001 and had a 7-6 overall record in 2007 and 6-5 in 1994 while only going 3-5 in conference). By reaching 24 years, they passed NU’s 23 consecutive years in the wilderness during the dark ages from 1972 to 1994.

I believe, but am not certain, that this is the longest period of futility in conference history. Indiana also retained its place in the cellar for all time standings for pre-expansion members of the conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmndcat
I cannot find even a quantum of solace in this. In fact, I scoff.

The Dark Ages is uniquely and enduringly Northwestern. IU may have established a standard of football futility, but they never had the institutional neglect that defined the Dark Ages.

To all the NU players who toiled in the Dark Ages, keeping a long dormant dream alive until resurrected by Arnold Weber and Gary Barnett, I salute you.
 
My freshman year (81) was Dennis Green's first. We were outscored 505-82, in 11 games, with 5 shutouts. That's an average score of about 46-7. Good times.

Ouch. Makes the 3-7 season under Agase during my graduate year at NU (69) look positively sparkling. Especially considering that the two seasons after that were the last winning seasons before the Dark Ages. I do remember that the Cats had a brutal OOC schedule that year as they usually did in those days. I did have the pleasure of seeing Mike Adamle rush for more than 300 yards against Wisconsin, but I also had to watch the Rex Kern-Jim Otis-Jack Tatum Buckeyes ground us into submission by a 35-6 score that was even worse than it sounds. That was Woody's "three yards" etc. offense at its best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan Smithee
While they've had bad seasons, they haven't been nearly as futile as some of the NU teams during their epic losing streak.
Yes, and that further highlights how much better NU has been than Indiana, on balance, over the years. Take out that unique, anomalous 25-year slice of our history - even hypothetically plugging in average, .500-type seasons in its place - and the gap between us and Indiana would be considerable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rmndcat
Yes, and that further highlights how much better NU has been than Indiana, on balance, over the years. Take out that unique, anamalous 25-year slice of our history - even hypothetically plugging in average, .500-type seasons in its place - and the gap between us and Indiana would be considerable.

I once took the time to add up NU's won-loss record from the inception of football to the last season before the Dark Ages, and I think was slightly over .500. The Cats weren't usually a powerhouse (except for maybe the brief period in the '30s and early '40s) in the Big 10, but they almost always were a respected, competitive team. The damage the Dark Ages period did to the NU football program and the perception of it nationally was HUGE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Artie M.
By going 2-7 in conference this year, Indiana posted its 24th season since the last time they had a winning record in Big Ten play in 1993 (they did go 4-4 in 2001 and had a 7-6 overall record in 2007 and 6-5 in 1994 while only going 3-5 in conference). By reaching 24 years, they passed NU’s 23 consecutive years in the wilderness during the dark ages from 1972 to 1994.

I believe, but am not certain, that this is the longest period of futility in conference history. Indiana also retained its place in the cellar for all time standings for pre-expansion members of the conference.
Next up Illinois
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaCat and rmndcat
Ouch. Makes the 3-7 season under Agase during my graduate year at NU (69) look positively sparkling. Especially considering that the two seasons after that were the last winning seasons before the Dark Ages. I do remember that the Cats had a brutal OOC schedule that year as they usually did in those days. I did have the pleasure of seeing Mike Adamle rush for more than 300 yards against Wisconsin, but I also had to watch the Rex Kern-Jim Otis-Jack Tatum Buckeyes ground us into submission by a 35-6 score that was even worse than it sounds. That was Woody's "three yards" etc. offense at its best.
I, at least, had 70 and 71
 
Yes, and that further highlights how much better NU has been than Indiana, on balance, over the years. Take out that unique, anamalous 25-year slice of our history - even hypothetically plugging in average, .500-type seasons in its place - and the gap between us and Indiana would be considerable.
But if you want to do that, wouldn't they also be entitled to plug in average 0.500 seasons for their futile stretch?
 
Yes, and that further highlights how much better NU has been than Indiana, on balance, over the years. Take out that unique, anamalous 25-year slice of our history - even hypothetically plugging in average, .500-type seasons in its place - and the gap between us and Indiana would be considerable.

Recently I was looking at our series records against other conference schools. The series against Indiana nicely illustrates the impact of the Dark Ages. In 1975 we were 32-15 all-time against IU. By 1993 the series was 34-31. Currently it is 47-34 (1 tie).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ricko654321
I once took the time to add up NU's won-loss record from the inception of football to the last season before the Dark Ages, and I think is was slightly over .500. The Cats weren't usually a powerhouse (except for maybe the brief period in the '30s and early '40s) in the Big 10, but they almost always were a respected, competitive team. The damage the Dark Ages period did to the NU football program and the perception of it nationally was HUGE.
Recently I was looking at our series records against other conference schools. The series against Indiana nicely illustrates the impact of the Dark Ages. In 1975 we were 32-15 all-time against IU. By 1993 the series was 34-31. Currently it is 47-34 (1 tie).
Yeah, another way of looking at it is that Fitz needs to basically average 9-4 seasons over the next 25 years to bring us back to around 0.500. He's managed that over the past 3 years with 27-12, but it shows how much of a deficit there is in the overall record.

Of course, as long as he wipes away another 80-100 net losses off the deficit, it'll be manageable for the next coaches to wipe away the remaining 20-40 and bring us back to 0.500.

Just puts it into perspective how long it takes to dig out of the hole that we were in...
 
But if you want to do that, wouldn't they also be entitled to plug in average 0.500 seasons for their futile stretch?
Theoretically, yes . . . but by and large, Indiana's futility has been relatively consistent over the decades; it's not like they had one particularly horrible stretch, one that distorted the overall record and was not really representative of the program for the majority of its history. Full disclosure: that's just based on my perception; it's possible someone could find an unusually "down" period for their program, but I'd certainly wager it'd be nothing like our Dark Ages. So I guess I was just reiterating that the reality of our football history is, in fact, quite a bit better than the perception created by those forgettable, outlier years.
 
Yeah, another way of looking at it is that Fitz needs to basically average 9-4 seasons over the next 25 years to bring us back to around 0.500. He's managed that over the past 3 years with 27-12, but it shows how much of a deficit there is in the overall record.

Of course, as long as he wipes away another 80-100 net losses off the deficit, it'll be manageable for the next coaches to wipe away the remaining 20-40 and bring us back to 0.500.

Just puts it into perspective how long it takes to dig out of the hole that we were in...
Those are some sobering numbers, zeek. For perspective, though, let's remember that that deficit was created largely by that historically putrid slice of our history, and that the entire era we refer to as the Dark Ages only comprised, what, some 20% of that history? Point is, for the solid majority of the program's existence NU has been a solidly competitive team. The Dark Ages didn't accurately represent the eight decades or so that preceded it, nor the NU program of the past two decades. In the big picture, it was really a blip -- a giant, comically painful blip . . . but not representative of what the program has been over the other hundred of so years of football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeek55
I once took the time to add up NU's won-loss record from the inception of football to the last season before the Dark Ages, and I think is was slightly over .500. The Cats weren't usually a powerhouse (except for maybe the brief period in the '30s and early '40s) in the Big 10, but they almost always were a respected, competitive team. The damage the Dark Ages period did to the NU football program and the perception of it nationally was HUGE.

Before the Dark ages, the Cats' cumulative overall record was 296-300-29.

Full breakdown:

Before Dark Ages 296-300-29 and 157-231-19 conferenece
Dark Ages 46-203-4 and 32-159-2 conference
After Dark Ages (1995 on): 151-132-0 and 90-96 in conference
Total 493-635-33 and 279-486-21 in conference
 
Those are some sobering numbers, zeek. For perspective, though, let's remember that that deficit was created largely by that historically putrid slice of our history, and that the entire era we refer to as the Dark Ages only comprised, what, some 20% of that history? Point is, for the solid majority of the program's existence NU has been a solidly competitive team. The Dark Ages didn't accurately represent the eight decades or so that preceded it, nor the NU program of the past two decades. In the big picture, it was really a blip -- a giant, comically painful blip . . . but not representative of what the program has been over the other hundred of so years of football.
Yeah, the biggest problem is just that it's taken so long to get to a place where the program is finally getting the necessary resources to compete and lay claim to being comparable to the top programs in terms of those resources.

The hangover from the Dark Ages in terms of lack of investment is finally being corrected a full 2 decades later. That's as important to perception as the success on the field.
 
My freshman year (81) was Dennis Green's first. We were outscored 505-82, in 11 games, with 5 shutouts. That's an average score of about 46-7. Good times.
The quality of play on the field was an improvement over the Venturi era. Don’t forget that his first game was a one point loss to Indiana where he went for two at the end of the game. He kicks that EP and the losing streak would have been over but he went for the win. Yes, I know it was just a Corso team but we still hung in with a conference opponent. 1981 was my senior year and after my first three years, Green’s team gave us a tiny shred of hope. They had a couple of key injuries in the Indiana game and just did not have the personnel to hang with anyone else.
 
As I noted, it was Denny's first year and I'm not blaming him for it. But that year, on the whole, had to be as bad as it gets.
 
As I noted, it was Denny's first year and I'm not blaming him for it. But that year, on the whole, had to be as bad as it gets.
Well, the previous year we had a flukish close game with Michigan to open the season when Michigan was having a very ugly start to their season (1-2 with the win being by 7 points over us at AA). After that, we did not see a whiff of a competitive game. We scored some points late in games but played some very bad teams and lost easily.

I am very defensive of Dennis Green. In my mind what he did with what he had was pretty amazing. Francis Peay confirmed that with his records after Green left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iskaboo
Well, the previous year we had a flukish close game with Michigan to open the season when Michigan was having a very ugly start to their season (1-2 with the win being by 7 points over us at AA). After that, we did not see a whiff of a competitive game. We scored some points late in games but played some very bad teams and lost easily.

I am very defensive of Dennis Green. In my mind what he did with what he had was pretty amazing. Francis Peay confirmed that with his records after Green left.
Without Dennis Green shattering all those awful streaks (losses, BIG losses and road losses) the very next year, I'm not sure we ever get to Gary Barnett and the GREAT 25 years since 1995.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gladeskat
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT