The Daily Northwestern weighs in on the Bowl Selection

[Alaskawildkat]

Ironic that the newspaper that played a pivotal role by publishing claims that proved to be erroneous which arguably resulted in the rushed and unjust firing of Coach Fitzgerald is now forced to pay him homage for his bowl record: (Yes, I am referring to the whole Fitzgerald's alleged clap signaling thing that proved to be a lie made up by a disgruntled former player.)

"NU enters with a four-game bowl winning streak — the second-longest in the Big Ten and fourth in the nation. "

Here is a link to the full article:

The Daily's Story

 

[techtim72]

They are kids getting trained to go out into today's very ugly world of journalism. Their hatchet job on Fitz based on their social cause agenda perfectly reflects how most journalists behave.

 

[phatcat]

made up by a disgruntled former player.)

Need to do a better job of making sure that the players are gruntled

 

[NUCat320]

Ironic that the newspaper that played a pivotal role by publishing claims that proved to be erroneous which arguably resulted in the rushed and unjust firing of Coach Fitzgerald is now forced to pay him homage for his bowl record: (Yes, I am referring to the whole Fitzgerald's alleged clap signaling thing that proved to be a lie made up by a disgruntled former player.)

"NU enters with a four-game bowl winning streak — the second-longest in the Big Ten and fourth in the nation. "

Here is a link to the full article:

The Daily's Story

Weird comment.

A shame that a six-month investigation conducted by a university-appointed law firm, along with subsequent reporting by our own Lou V as well as ESPN and The Athletic, confirmed that sexualized hazing was a well-known and accepted part of the Northwestern football program.

Even more of a shame that Pat Fitzgerald was advised to pretend that he did not know this about the program, even though first-year female managers who were not even allowed in the locker room did.

A shame that nobody except for somebody who left the program circa 2010 has ever denied that there was hazing.

A shame that the university, when presented with the opportunity to refute any of the whistleblower’s claims, chose to decline comment. (More of a shame that the university tried to bury the details form the outset, but whatever.)

Pat Fitzgerald was fired because he failed to take accountability for his mistakes, and everyone who wants Northwestern football to win games is in a better position for it.

@Purple Pile Driver I didn’t do it, he did.
@CoralSpringsCat you’ll tell us the true story, right?!

 

[Alaskawildkat]

Unfortunately the should have been in place system of due process was abandoned. I don't hear anyone defending the way the firing was handled. As originally stated, the erroneous reporting in the Daily Northwestern with regard to direct knowledge by the Coach played a pivotal role.

 

[NUCat320]

Unfortunately the should have been in place system of due process was abandoned. I don't hear anyone defending the way the firing was handled. As originally stated, the erroneous reporting in the Daily Northwestern with regard to direct knowledge by the Coach played a pivotal role.

‘Shrek’ was hardly listed in follow-up reporting, if at all.

NU declined to use the word ‘sexualized’ in the release. It was the culture of hazing — and the possibility of sexual assault happening routinely in the locker room — that undid the coach.

“It’s on me, except everything in the locker room.”

 

[Hungry Jack]

They are kids getting trained to go out into today's very ugly world of journalism. Their hatchet job on Fitz based on their social cause agenda perfectly reflects how most journalists behave.

They will fit right in at NYT

 

[Alaskawildkat]

It wasn't the "follow up reporting" that led to a rush to judgment over the weekend.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Even more of a shame that Pat Fitzgerald was advised to pretend that he did not know this about the program, even though first-year female managers who were not even allowed in the locker room did.

Funny that they refused to give me a simple yes or no answer when I asked them specifics about what exactly it was that they knew. It's also funny how suddenly they went silent in general.

 

[Ilvolino]

It is time to move on. Fitz is gone. He has his lawsuit and we have a new coach to support.

 

[NUCat320]

It wasn't the "follow up reporting" that led to a rush to judgment over the weekend.

It was when people found out there were d*cks flying everywhere, against people’s will. There’s a reason NU didn’t use the word ‘sexualized’ in the release.

The release — both content and timing — was intentionally designed to protect Fitz and to justify the two week unpaid vacation; once details came out, it was apparent to everyone involved that Fitz had to be gone.

“I should have done better and, with embarrassment, I accept a [two-, four-, or six-game; or maybe even a one-year] suspension” would have been the right way to handle it.

But Fitz chose not to pretend to be accountable. He was disappointed just to hear what was happening.

[@Alaskawildkat , there appears to be a typo in your second comment. “Unfortunately, the ___________ should have been in place”]

 

[Hans]

Weird comment.

A shame that a six-month investigation conducted by a university-appointed law firm, along with subsequent reporting by our own Lou V as well as ESPN and The Athletic, confirmed that sexualized hazing was a well-known and accepted part of the Northwestern football program.

Even more of a shame that Pat Fitzgerald was advised to pretend that he did not know this about the program, even though first-year female managers who were not even allowed in the locker room did.

A shame that nobody except for somebody who left the program circa 2010 has ever denied that there was hazing.

A shame that the university, when presented with the opportunity to refute any of the whistleblower’s claims, chose to decline comment. (More of a shame that the university tried to bury the details form the outset, but whatever.)

Pat Fitzgerald was fired because he failed to take accountability for his mistakes, and everyone who wants Northwestern football to win games is in a better position for it.

@Purple Pile Driver I didn’t do it, he did.
@CoralSpringsCat you’ll tell us the true story, right?!

bravo - what I like so much about Braun is that he seems like the type to take accountability and puts it on display in his press conference. That seems to have resonated with players and fans, certainly with me.

 

[Alaskawildkat]

"Unfortunately the should have been in place system of due process was abandoned. I don't hear anyone defending the way the firing was handled. As originally stated, the erroneous reporting in the Daily Northwestern with regard to direct knowledge by the Coach played a pivotal role."

Thanks NUCat320 for the correction. Not so much a typo though as referencing a "should have been in place system of due process" being abandoned would more properly be stated, a "should have been in place system of due process" was not followed."

 

[1830sherman]

They are kids getting trained to go out into today's very ugly world of journalism. Their hatchet job on Fitz based on their social cause agenda perfectly reflects how most journalists behave.

Eh, b.s. I have no interest in the rehashing of what the Daily did/didn't do. Bottom line, they broke an important story that nobody else had touched, and yes, their reportage had significant faults. But as one who spent most of his career in journalism, working with scores of reporters who were conscientious and scrupulous to a fault, I find this kind of sweeping statement to be just kneejerk nonsense.

 

[FeralFelidae]

The release — both content and timing — was intentionally designed to protect Fitz and to justify the two week unpaid vacation; once details came out, it was apparent to everyone involved that Fitz had to be gone.

The only thing that is apparent to me is that Schill and Gragg are spineless. Schill is a backstabbing weasel and Gragg wanted Fitz back in time for some fundraising event. Fitz accepted the punishment that was offered him.

 

[techtim72]

Eh, b.s. I have no interest in the rehashing of what the Daily did/didn't do. Bottom line, they broke an important story that nobody else had touched, and yes, their reportage had significant faults. But as one who spent most of his career in journalism, working with scores of reporters who were conscientious and scrupulous to a fault, I find this kind of sweeping statement to be just kneejerk nonsense.

"Significant faults"? Significant faults that played a large part in denigrating a man without due process and ruined his career. Do they have a course on flip attitudes at Medill or is that skillset absorbed through osmosis by observing the behavior of current industry leaders? To be clear, I thought the story needed to be reported. It was the dishonesty and agenda seeking nature of their reporting that I thought was reprehensible.

I know my statement was far too broad concerning other journalists and I wish it wasn't accurate.

 

[loyolacat]

Even more of a shame that Pat Fitzgerald was advised to pretend that he did not know this about the program, even though first-year female managers who were not even allowed in the locker room did.

and where is your evidence that Fitz knew....again should have known....and thought he knew....are not evidence of He Knew...cmon..it is fine ..you will believe what you want to believe....and the same 6 month report that you use to stat that hazing indeed occurred also stated that Fitz did not know...so ????? just saying.

 

[NUCat320]

and where is your evidence that Fitz knew....again should have known....and thought he knew....are not evidence of He Knew...cmon..it is fine ..you will believe what you want to believe....and the same 6 month report that you use to stat that hazing indeed occurred also stated that Fitz did not know...so ????? just saying.

You’re right. We can’t prove he knew any more than you can prove that I know what 2+2 is. It’s five, right?

But we have numerous reports that indicate that many, many people knew it was happening, and no reports of anyone (except one individual who left the program in ~2010) saying that hazing didn’t happen.

 

[FeralFelidae]

You’re right. We can’t prove he knew any more than you can prove that I know what 2+2 is. It’s five, right?

In the world of 1984, YES!

 

[loyolacat]

You’re right. We can’t prove he knew any more than you can prove that I know what 2+2 is. It’s five, right?

But we have numerous reports that indicate that many, many people knew it was happening, and no reports of anyone (except one individual who left the program in ~2010) saying that hazing didn’t happen.

So you agree...you have no evidence....just what you believe. and I have the evidence of NO EVIDENCE that proves in any way that Fitz knew.

 

[NUCat320]

So you agree...you have no evidence....just what you believe. and I have the evidence of NO EVIDENCE that proves in any way that Fitz knew.

I realize that @CoralSpringsCat has the full story, but I’m interested in your perspective, @loyolacat.

Do you believe:
- there was hazing and Fitz knew
- there was hazing and Fitz didn’t know
- there was no hazing
- there was hazing, but what’s the big deal about some sexual assault-adjacent in a locker room anyway
- something else?

If there was hazing, do you think it was Fitz’s job to know?

It strikes me that so many people have decided that knowable facts don’t exist.

1. We know there was hazing. It’s in the report.
2. While we cannot know what Fitz knew, we do know that low-level staffers knew, and we do know that Lou’s source defined it as “pretty well-known within the program.”
3. We know that, even in all the criticism (was it three open letters?), nobody has denied hazing happened.
4. We know that, in the most powerful defense of Fitz (from Hank), he said there were systems in place to report hazing, but *also* did not deny that hazing happened

What we *don’t* have is an email from Fitz to, like, an equipment manager, saying “Hey guys, we need to run our noodle-armed backup quarterback. Merry Runsmas.”

 

[FeralFelidae]

2. While we cannot know what Fitz knew, we do know that low-level staffers knew, and we do know that Lou’s source defined it as “pretty well-known within the program.”

Was Lou's source an ex-employee with an axe to grind?

 

[NUCat320]

Was Lou's source an ex-employee with an axe to grind?

Yup. Probably was. It was probably an anti-Fitz conspiracy.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Yup. Probably was. It was probably an anti-Fitz conspiracy.

There was an anti-Fitz conspiracy. CR conspired with the Daily and it seems there was a faction in the BOT putting their thumbs on the scales. Lou's source is anonymous but another ex-employee, Hank, went public with a very different account. I even find those suddenly-silent equipment managers to be fishy.

 

[NUCat320]

There was an anti-Fitz conspiracy. CR conspired with the Daily and it seems there was a faction in the BOT putting their thumbs on the scales. Lou's source is anonymous but another ex-employee, Hank, went public with a very different account. I even find those suddenly-silent equipment managers to be fishy.

I’m sure you do.

Also:
The investigators: Fishy!

Former players, who confirmed running to The Athletic: Skeevy!

Former players, who didn’t deny it in their open letter: Plants!

THE ENTIRE NORTHWESTERN TEAM, who didn’t deny it: Forgetful!

Lou V, who once devoted an entire column to how amazing it was to be invited into Fitz’s office: SECRETLY HOPING FOR HIM TO FAIL


To believe there was no hazing at Northwestern, you also have to believe that facts do not exist. You’re smarter than that.


Hank never said there was no hazing. Nobody has said there was no hazing.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Hank never said there was no hazing. Nobody has said there was no hazing.

Hank wouldn't presume to prove a negative because that's impossible, but Hank did say he wasn't aware of any hazing.

 

[NUCat320]

Hank wouldn't presume to prove a negative because that's impossible, but Hank did say he wasn't aware of any hazing.

And everybody else that confirmed hazing is a liar. It’s the only possible explanation.

You must realize that, when presented with evidence, Fitz also confirmed hazing.

Quibble with the firing all you want. But the only way you can deny hazing is if you believe truth does not exist.

This is, of course, par for the course among, ahem, certain parts of the population.

 

[FeralFelidae]

And everybody else that confirmed hazing was lying. It’s the only possible explanation.

You must realize that, when presented with evidence, Fitz also confirmed hazing.

Quibble with the firing all you want. But the only way you can deny hazing is if you believe truth does not exist.

This is, of course, par for the course among, ahem, certain parts of the population.

I'm not hung up on whether hazing occurred. It's impossible to prove a negative. I'm concerned with what people knew. I find the team managers to be fishy because I asked them directly for a straight answer and they would not provide it, and then they have been silent ever since. I didn't interact with those other people you listed so I don't have much of an opinion on them.

 

[NUCat320]

I'm not hung up on whether hazing occurred. It's impossible to prove a negative. I'm concerned with what people knew. I find the team managers to be fishy because I asked them directly for a straight answer and they would not provide it, and then they have been silent ever since. I didn't interact with those other people you listed so I don't have much of an opinion on them.

The ‘positive’ — that hazing occurred —was confirmed by numerous named and anonymous sources, to the investigators, to reporters from ESPN, The Athletic, and Wildcat Report.

I’m sorry that @towercat didn’t respond to you. Her whole thread is a good read.

I worked for Northwestern Football for four seasons. Ask me anything.

Long-time reader of the forum. Lots of folks have asked and DMed questions privately, but I'm off work today so I decided to make myself a little more available for folks. I'll pop in throughout the day to answer. The best way to learn about my experience is by listening to my podcast...

northwestern.forums.rivals.com

This is the highlight:

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 it makes you feel better, some of my questions went unanswered too.

Believe what you will. But facts are things that exist.

 

[csh2088]

It amazes me how many people don't know the difference between being at fault and being responsible.

 

[FeralFelidae]

The ‘positive’ — that hazing occurred —was confirmed by numerous named and anonymous sources, to the investigators, to reporters from ESPN, The Athletic, and Wildcat Report.

And I don't know who is claiming that hazing never occurred. I would never assert something that's impossible to prove. That is the straw man that you keep arguing against, though.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I’m sorry that @towercat didn’t respond to you.

She did respond to me. She just didn't give a straight answer to my question.

 

[FeralFelidae]

It amazes me how many people don't know the difference between being at fault and being responsible.

Are the legal adults who allegedly participated in the hazing responsible?

 

[NUCat320]

And I don't know who is claiming that hazing never occurred. I would never assert something that's impossible to prove. That is the straw man that you keep arguing against, though.

Gotcha. You’re not saying hazing didn’t occur.

You’re simply saying it was an anti-Fitz conspiracy. Who was in on it?

 

[UpsetAlert]

‘Shrek’ was hardly listed in follow-up reporting, if at all.

NU declined to use the word ‘sexualized’ in the release. It was the culture of hazing — and the possibility of sexual assault happening routinely in the locker room — that undid the coach.

“It’s on me, except everything in the locker room.”

Yawn.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Gotcha. You’re not saying hazing didn’t occur.

You’re simply saying it was an anti-Fitz conspiracy. Who was in on it?

CR conspired with the Daily.

Can you prove that there wasn't an anti-Fitz conspiracy?

 

[NUCat320]

CR conspired with the Daily.

Can you prove that there wasn't an anti-Fitz conspiracy?

I don’t know what you mean by conspiracy in this context. However, I think that CR reached out to The Daily only after the two-week suspension came out. If he had reached out prior, I see no reason why The Daily would have held back the story.


I truly have no idea what your position is.

My guess is you believe there was hazing, but that Fitz was wrongfully fired. Am I correct?

 

[CappyNU]

Enough already. No new ground is being broken here.