Some people have criticized Fitz for his lack of disclosure to fans. Another NU product, Mgr. Joe Girardi of the Yankees, has faced similar criticism. In the NYT today, Girardi was quoted as follows: "People sometimes don't understand where I come from. My job is to win games, so I don't ever want to give the other team one ounce of an advantage. I will protect players to the nth degree because I remember how difficult it was to play at this level and I believe leadership is based on love and love always protects. So that probably makes me a boring story most of the time." Too bad if some fans of the 'Cats or the Yankees have "inquiring minds" that must go unsatisfied between actual games, but Joe's words and Fitz's behaviors make perfect sense to me.
Maybe it's the NU way
- Thread starter Aging Booster
- Start date
You are probably right. But while Fitz says "don't ever ask me about scheme", Chris Collins seems quite willing to discuss what his strategies were after games. Different strokes for different coaches I guess.
It's a balancing act. Bigger fan base equals more money. Winning equals more money.
Interesting press equals more money.
I'm sorry, but when you have constituents for whom you are providing a service or a product, you need to be at least somewhat transparent about the function of that product or service. When you have investors (fans and contributors who in some cases pay lots of money), you need to be transparent. That doesn't mean giving away game plans or asking them to do your job for you, since it is your job to produce the results, but if you completely clam about what's going on within your organization, this is not only counter to good business practice it is counter to open intellectual inquiry which is what a university is fundamentally about. For example, I don't want to know which wide receivers Fitz is recruiting or how he is developing them, but if they don't perform, I (as an investor) want to know why not, at least in a general sense. It's like the dishwasher I paid for--if it period doesn't work, someone needs to explain why.
Or you can go buy another dishwasher from a company that tells you why it doesn't work. Nobody owes you anything. You weigh the value of what you get and decide whether you want to take your business elsewhere.
I'd love to have inside knowledge to every play that's being called and why, but I realize that isn't reasonable for what I pay and I value the rest of what I get from the program so much more for the price that I keep my business here. Your mileage may vary. Want more info? Donate a wing to the fake by the lake.
It's a form on ENTERTAINMENT. If you don't like a certain brand of entertainment, find something else you do like. Whining won't matter...
Ah, the fight begins. Not true that nobody owes constituents anything. BTW, this isn't about me needing information, it is about the nature of an organization that doesn't provide it.
Let forget the dishwasher for a moment, although if a company sells me a dishwasher that doesn't work, they owe me at least an explanation why not. Say you're a fan of your kid's high school football team. You pay taxes to support your local high school, but make no other monetary contributions to the program. Your son is on the team. The team has a very bad offense which has been so for a number of years, although you son is a good offensive guard. They win games, but the offense struggles in spite of some very good players. Your son plays regularly. The defense carries the team, however, and the offense plays so poorly that it seems odd there should be such an imbalance. Don't you believe that this father at least has the right to inquire about why this is the case? Not be a helicopter parent or critcize the coaches or demand to know coaching details, but simply inquire and get forthright answers?
No they don't. They owe you a working dishwasher. So they either fix it or provide a new one.
He can inquire away, but the coach is under no obligation to say anything about it other than "we're working on it."
You do have a point about finding something else you like, but when you are invested in an institution (like having spent four years at that institution and have a degree), that is difficult. I'm not sure I'd call college football entertainment however (on one level, yes it is)--you know all the hype about how it builds character and makes boys into men. I'd say it is more of an educational experience, as well as a representation of the university. School pride and all? Football is very serious business, and success is the goal. "Winning is not everything, it is the only thing" Much more serious than you make it sound. For example--an extreme example, if my college football team is populated by criminals, alumni have a right to know why. Same may be true of other dysfunctional elements. We obviously disagree on this issue, but there are in fact two sides to it.
Last edited:
Eventually (and that's the big question--at what point), coach may need a better excuse.
It really is so much a question of style. Fitz does his job his way. I find him very boring. I like him as the NU coach but I don't care to listen to anything he says because he pretty much says nothing. My interest in his program has dissipated. I still want them to win and have great seasons but I don't care as much as I did a while ago.
I really don't get all the beef about PF not being more forthcoming about player performance in the media. Do corporations publish their employee performance reviews online? CEOs are certainly held accountable by shareholders for poor performance, but it's not like the CEO is going to out some middle manager who screwed up the implementation of the new purchasing system.
To Jules' point, coach speak is a question of style, not of substance. It's PF's choice as to what he says in public.
Fitz is never going to throw a kid under the bus. Ever. And I would never want him to and I know you don't either. He's not going to call out his staff in the media either. Who does that to a coach? Now anytime you google that coach's name, what will you find? The one time your name is in the media! Coach Fitz calling you the worst coach ever. Even if you stepped back, took a lower job, improved, and made the jump back up, that quote will be with that coach forever. Who would want to work for a coach like that?
Ok, so what happened with the WRs. I listen/read ever word Fitz says that's out there (except Twitter, I don't like Twitter if I can avoid it):
1. If you look at recruiting, we went from a period of years where we had larger slower WRs. Now we have smaller quicker younger WRs replacing them. We went to a larger possession type WR after seeing guys like Brewer and Markhausen do the dink and dunk effectively. It didn't work.
2. We loaded up on DBs after seeing a long run of terrible DB play. All those good quick guys (Igwebuike, Campbell) went to D. Our D was really good because of it, but the WR play was awful.
3. #1 and #2 combined with scholarship limits, and guaranteeing 4 years scholarship, it's gonna take 3-4 years to fix the WR corp. It was a mistake to do these things. Mistakes take time to correct.
4. Fitz has called out the WRs maturity publicly. What more do you want him to say? Sounds like the big issue to me.
5. Fitz corrected #4 by having the DBs take the WRs under their wing. Sounds like a plan to fix the big issue to me.
What more do people want?
It might be different in today's day and age, but in my experience, coaches don't provide detailed explanations to MR & Mrs O lineman's parents why their O has struggled. Nor should they. Having been close to people who have been successful doing this, I can assure the worst type of critics typically are the parents who want answers and don't know $h?! from shinola. If the community doesn't like the results replace him, but at least back in the day no self respecting coach was going to be drawn into a conversation or debate with parents on what he should or shouldn't be doing.
He only throws entire teams under the bus...like claiming NU recruits a "different type" of student-athlete, implying NU players are better students and citizens than, say, Illinois players.
Then he gets 500 yards of rushing shoved down his throat in one direction for doing so.
If you ask me, Fitz talks too much at times.
[I know, I know...classic contrarian Glades, but his hubris at the expense of other programs bothers me at times.]
But for you specifically(and anyone else not attending the school), right now it is merely entertainment.
Very true. But then it would seem that the school spends quite a bit of money to solicit more fans. I guess hoosboot suggests NU is out of touch with what the fan wants. We know NU exists - don't need a bunch of billboards and air time to remind. But some fans want more information, more news stories and your response says go root somewhere else. And many do. And many others simply don't open their pocketbooks. And all of this is ok. Until one side wants more for less, I guess.
Personally, I feel I get what I pay for - which is a season ticket for FB and a few BB games. But when I get those calls asking for more money, I politely decline. I know that I will not be donating a wing and since I should not have any greater expectations, as you point out, then there are better charitable causes for the money I give without condition.
Not really. Are we the shareholders as alum or the general public? Publicly traded or privately held? Bet your arse that a CEO or other C level executive reporting poor results to the shareholders in a privately held company is going to explain the whys and whos and what is being done to resolve the problem or fear losing that job. How many of you have or had an interest in a substantial, yet privately held, corporation. Tell me, put PF's outward demeanor on the CEO where the company overall succeeds but one specific division doesn't hold its own, tell me you would accept the 'shut your mouth and don't worry about it' from that CEO. Tell me that attitude would not have you demanding a new top dog. I get it - 10 wins - with a flailing division that has under-performed repeatedly. Now, with a better O division that at least broke even, that company probably moves up to greater profit levels - like 11, 12 wins. Tell me, my successful NU brethren, you turning a blind eye to that division and welcoming a 'go fvck yourself' response from the CEO?
And before you say you would kiss the CEOs buttocks because he has turned the company profitable - keep in mind, he is not the first or only CEO to do so for your company. Just the most arrogant.
I must be missing something. When PF speaks coach speak, I do not feel like I am personally being insulted, nor being told to f**k off or shut my mouth or whatever. I just don't take anything he says personally.
Then again, I believe in management by objective, and the objective is to win games, so I was pretty happy this year, regardless of style points.
As far as being a stakeholder in NU, I earned my degree, had a great time doing so, and feel I have benefitted immensely personally and professionally from my association with NU. I do not have season tickets (will change when my son gets older), but if I did, and did not like the W/L results, I could always choose not to renew, not watch on TV, and burn my fan paraphernalia.
I just don't see how people get so worked up over this.
Then again, I believe in management by objective, and the objective is to win games, so I was pretty happy this year, regardless of style points.
As far as being a stakeholder in NU, I earned my degree, had a great time doing so, and feel I have benefitted immensely personally and professionally from my association with NU. I do not have season tickets (will change when my son gets older), but if I did, and did not like the W/L results, I could always choose not to renew, not watch on TV, and burn my fan paraphernalia.
I just don't see how people get so worked up over this.
HJ - Agree to much of what you said - btw, if you are referring to me in terms of getting worked up, you have it wrong. Just firing up the ole devil's advocate. I'm not invested enough to care that dearly.
Are there baseball fans here? This opening day, there have *got* to be baseball fans here.
Last night, I was reading through my 2016 Baseball Prospectus entry for the Tampa Bay Rays. (I'm a total dweeb.)
The Rays are among the most cutting edge franchises, a leading analytics shop on the inside, and a black box that does not self-promote to the outside. (We know Theo Epstein runs an innovative team because he always tells you how innovative his team is; the Rays just are.)
One of the observations from the article is that the Rays use communication to the media and the chattering classes for very specific purposes. Basically, they discuss things with the media to rally the troops and to build camaraderie and common purpose around potentially unorthodox approaches that require team buy-in.
There were two specific examples:
1. Limiting starting pitchers by batters faced or times through the order, versus pitches or innings
2. Promoting an aggressive, 'hit the first fastball you see' approach, as opposed to the patience-focused approach that's been in vogue since moneyball (which was about finding value in undervalued skills, and not about taking walks) came out in 2003
With #1, it's an observation bloggers made. The Rays modified how they handled starters' workloads. They deployed their bullpen differently, using relievers for longer stints. They removed pitchers 18 batters into effective outings, even with low pitch counts. But it wasn't necessarily controversial, though it was different - no need to rally the relief corps around more innings, or the starters around a quick hook.
With #2, a change in approach pretty clearly came from a team meeting in late July. And it's different, not just from baseball in general, but from the Rays' training on approach over the past decade. In the Rays' estimation, "Work the count, get to the pen" has proven a less effective tactic as 98 mph flamethrowers have become increasingly common. And, as the Rays' pitches per appearance dipped and first pitch swinging percentage surged, their manager, hitting coach, team leaders, other players all openly discussed it with reporters. BP surmised that this effort was to reassure the players themselves that it was important, and that *it was working*.
Does Fitz handle media interactions this way? No, not at all. Do most coaches? Probably not. It's not groundbreaking - 'rally the troops' and 'celebrate success' are all both change management and business philosophies - but it is interesting to see the Rays be so apparently intentional in these interactions.
In general, I thought it was interesting.
Last night, I was reading through my 2016 Baseball Prospectus entry for the Tampa Bay Rays. (I'm a total dweeb.)
The Rays are among the most cutting edge franchises, a leading analytics shop on the inside, and a black box that does not self-promote to the outside. (We know Theo Epstein runs an innovative team because he always tells you how innovative his team is; the Rays just are.)
One of the observations from the article is that the Rays use communication to the media and the chattering classes for very specific purposes. Basically, they discuss things with the media to rally the troops and to build camaraderie and common purpose around potentially unorthodox approaches that require team buy-in.
There were two specific examples:
1. Limiting starting pitchers by batters faced or times through the order, versus pitches or innings
2. Promoting an aggressive, 'hit the first fastball you see' approach, as opposed to the patience-focused approach that's been in vogue since moneyball (which was about finding value in undervalued skills, and not about taking walks) came out in 2003
With #1, it's an observation bloggers made. The Rays modified how they handled starters' workloads. They deployed their bullpen differently, using relievers for longer stints. They removed pitchers 18 batters into effective outings, even with low pitch counts. But it wasn't necessarily controversial, though it was different - no need to rally the relief corps around more innings, or the starters around a quick hook.
With #2, a change in approach pretty clearly came from a team meeting in late July. And it's different, not just from baseball in general, but from the Rays' training on approach over the past decade. In the Rays' estimation, "Work the count, get to the pen" has proven a less effective tactic as 98 mph flamethrowers have become increasingly common. And, as the Rays' pitches per appearance dipped and first pitch swinging percentage surged, their manager, hitting coach, team leaders, other players all openly discussed it with reporters. BP surmised that this effort was to reassure the players themselves that it was important, and that *it was working*.
Does Fitz handle media interactions this way? No, not at all. Do most coaches? Probably not. It's not groundbreaking - 'rally the troops' and 'celebrate success' are all both change management and business philosophies - but it is interesting to see the Rays be so apparently intentional in these interactions.
In general, I thought it was interesting.
Last edited:
I get worked up. I don't know why. I wish I didn't, I think. Maybe it's a character flaw.
It's more different strokes for different sports. Football coaches are, on the whole, obsessively paranoid about protecting every scrap of information that might possibly escape the program. Basketball coaches, on the whole, don't care about that and will talk about almost anything you ask them. Neither Fitz nor Collins is at all out of the ordinary for his respective profession.
Interesting. I'd expect the opposite for the two sports. Football is played once a week and with the obsession coaches have for film study, there can't be any secrets in their preparation. Basketball is played two or three times a week and therefore there is less time for prep for any given game. I would have thought there'd be a higher premium for secrecy in hoops than in football. Go figure.
That's cool stuff. Wish you hadn't buried it in this silly thread. Copy and post it into a new thread, and I will engage.
This argument comes around and goes around. At the end of the day a coach's approach is OK if it works and if it is acceptable in the University environment. I don't like Fitz's approach, I think it is unsophisticated and unnecessary, but not worth fretting about and it is his to live and die by. Works for me.
I care about wins and losses, not press conferences. It may make the football team more boring to follow in the offseason, but if it produces better results on the field then I don't care. So long as coaches don't cheat or harm players, I'm fine with whatever means they decide to use in order to generate success on the field or court.
They better effing win though. And do it while upholding our academic standard. That's what they are paid to do, and if they aren't delivering, their jobs should be on the line.
That's not really what hoosboot says, but okay. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.
I have stock in Yum Brands, parent to KFC, and while I want to know the Colonel's secret recipe, I'm just as well content to eat the chicken.
My attitude toward NU football is somewhat analogous. Still, I miss those open practice reports from Lou.
My attitude toward NU football is somewhat analogous. Still, I miss those open practice reports from Lou.
Similar threads
