ADVERTISEMENT

Tired of the McCall Criticism--and so is Fitz

I would say at least 90% of the scholarship football players would not be admitted to NU using the regular admission standard. It's not just a few guys.

More than that maybe. When I mentioned the ones that I knew, that is just anecdotal. I think our academic support staff is awfully good. It's time to take off the gloves and to stop pretending this special standard means anything.

What does it mean to you that we add an extra layer of admissions standards that still has nothing to do with the regular admissions standards?
 
the stats from college football had out total offense at 111th last year, slightly ahead of michigan who was "114 and purdue which was like #117.
This year, 12 months later, we tipped the charts at #117.
However, as i read the McCall appeals, which primarily were based on the idea that our offense was weighted down due to having a second year QB, I simply broadened the sample to 24 months which sweeps in a NFL QB and compile the offenses of the last two years.
The results of that sample study prove 100% that our offense is the #122 ranked (dead last) over that period.

Fitz has every right to keep McCall on his shoulders but nobody can say it would be worse if we madechanges, cuz there is no such thing as more worst.

In other words, your stats are complete made-up bullcrap.
 
1- I'm not saying that the staff decided, 'Hey, let's just go after cornerbacks hard this year' but is it just coincidence that we put a lot of our "athlete" recruits in the defensive backfield? That's really my point. We stacked the depth chart there, intentionally or not... maybe subconsciously?

2- Maybe Coach likes a built-in excuse for why he can't land the same level of talent. The fact is, we have won exactly three Big Ten titles since 1936 and all three were achieved without having to play Ohio State. How many times have we finished ranked in the final AP Poll since 1948? Three times (1995, 96, and 2012) and no Ohio State on the schedule. I'm not afraid of Ohio State and it wasn't those teams' fault that Ohio State was skipped on the schedule, but it's not exactly a coincidence, either.

Give our coaches the opportunity to recruit by the same rules as everyone else in the Big Ten. The only caveat is that they have to maintain the GSR and APR. Good luck with that, but that's the price that I would require and I think it can be done.

PLEASE! NO DIMBULBS!
 
Your post implied that the current criticism of the WR coach is a passing fancy that has been brought about by a couple of bad games. My reply tried to point out that this was not isolated criticism and that we have been having these same conversations for multiple years. This is not just coincidence. We are in a pretty unique situation where it's fairly easy in my mind to isolate what has gone wrong. We went from having highly productive WRs over an extended period of time to having highly unproductive WRs over multiple seasons. One main variable has changed over that period of time. The position coach.

You misread the implications of my post then. I meant literally what was written; will revisit in the timeframe stated to see if I was correct.
 
The point is that it was bad then and nobody did anything about it, so it's even worse now.

Same exact criticism of our DBs; took more than a couple of years for the term "Jerrified" to come into play. Don't know if it was that long for the RBs, though.
 
will you

lets not think that the db situation wasnt addressed, as it did not correct itself. Back in the day, JB was exclusively coaching the entire defensive backfield. The productivity was lacking and Fitz did address it, even though mikewebb denies this. Fitz assigned Hankwitz to take a more active role with the DBs, specifically the safeties. Since then....problem solved.

I believe Fitz will keep McCall however you may see similar tweaks. Co-Offensive coordinators may be one....dunno....but something will give.
146027716_picard-facepalm-gif-picard-facepalm-animated_zpsd183de02.jpg
 
I'm a graduate of NU and was friends with many football players, as well as baseball players. If you think I don't know all of this, you're mistaken.

The current system is arbitrary in the sense that it is not based on our peer institutions in FBS. It's not based on NU admissions for regular students (which is much, much, much stricter). It's not based on NCAA academic qualifications. I'm saying that we should adhere to the same standards as every Big Ten team at a minimum. We should continue to seek the best and brightest students, but our coaches should not be prevented from recruiting a student whose grades and/or scores are acceptable to every other FBS program except ours.

I'm also not saying that I would give Coach Fitzgerald total discretion. He has to follow NCAA and conference rules. He should receive input and recommendations from admissions because they can evaluate the likelihood of a student's academic success. But, he should not be handicapped by arbitrary, artificial standards that aren't consistent with NU admissions, aren't consistent with FBS peers, and aren't consistent with NCAA rules.

Ultimately, Coach Fitzgerald would be held accountable by the Athletic Director if the program recruits too many poor students. If Coach wants to take more minimum qualifiers, he has to maintain the GSR and APR. His staff will have tough decisions to make, but at least the decisions will be theirs and based on actual NCAA and Big Ten rules that our opponents also follow.

So to summarize, I'm not saying we should drop our pants and take everyone. I'm not saying Fitzgerald should be allowed to do whatever he wants. I'm not saying we should accept lower GSR and APR scores. I'm saying we get rid of the unfair competitive disadvantage that we have created for ourselves, almost as a built-in excuse for losses. We simply follow the rules for our conference and let the staff balance the roster. If the GSR numbers fall, heads roll. If the team fails to reach bowl games, heads roll. Everything is based on real numbers and not built-in excuses about why we can't recruit better players.

On the face of it, your argument makes sense. However, IMO it is not realistic. You put the caveot on maintaining the same GSR and APR scores, which would be a tall task if we accepted at NCAA minimum. Bringing in athletes which meet the NCAA minimum but don't meet are already very relaxed standards compared to typical NU students will not improve or allow us to maintain those scores even with our support system.
 
Trust me, I know full well. I took classes with guys who struggled but they worked hard and graduated. They were a step up from a minimum qualifier apparently or NU would not have admitted them. They had the luxury of summer classes (and often five years plus those summers), along with the study halls and academic tutoring, to build academic success.
But that was yesterday
and yesterday's gone

-Chad and Jeremy
 
One reason we have more success in recruiting for Defense than offense is that Hank has an awesome reputation as a defensive coach where McCall's reputation is more about being a good QB coach. HS coaches in the top programs know who is who in coaching and want the best for their guys. A WR in High School doesn't have to look hard to see NU isn't developing it's passing game.
 
The academic bar is an excuse. Stanford proves it. Their admission standards are HIGHER than ours, and yet they can bring in top 15 classes.

Barnett brought in a top 16 class in 1996. It can be done. Once we have our facilities up and running and if we can maintain some consistency in the next couple years of winning upwards of 10 games, we will be a lot more attractive to recruits than we have been. The academic requirement is a total excuse. It's a differentiator and hence a benefit for us in recruiting, particularly for the 25% of recruits that would qualify for us. Let's go get the best of them, or split them with Stanford, and if we do, then we'll be bringing in top 20 classes regularly.
 
The academic bar is an excuse. Stanford proves it. Their admission standards are HIGHER than ours, and yet they can bring in top 15 classes.

Barnett brought in a top 16 class in 1996. It can be done. Once we have our facilities up and running and if we can maintain some consistency in the next couple years of winning upwards of 10 games, we will be a lot more attractive to recruits than we have been. The academic requirement is a total excuse. It's a differentiator and hence a benefit for us in recruiting, particularly for the 25% of recruits that would qualify for us. Let's go get the best of them, or split them with Stanford, and if we do, then we'll be bringing in top 20 classes regularly.
I believe it can be used as an excuse too, but there is limited pool comparatively speaking. I am not sure your statement on Stanford is accurate related to football.
 
Well, there's a solution to muting the criticism, which comes justly: FIX THE OFFENSE. IT'S BROKEN.

Or just ban all criticism so we can all live in purple kool-aid harmony while we watch the worst offense in the country brought to you by the same folks who brought you the worst offense in the country last year.

Break out the marshmallows, guys. There offenses are worse than the marshmallows we used to consider a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IGNORE2
You are suggesting that we eliminate the very advantage that we use to actually recruit a team. It's called a near 100% graduation rate and extraordinarily strong job opportunities. I got news for you, the academic admissions are relaxed for football players. A lot. Do you really think the graduation rate would remain what it is if we lower to NCAA minimum? How many knuckleheads are our our team? None that I am aware of. Many of our athletes aren't academically gifted like the typical NU student, but they work hard in an environment that is conducive to being a better person. I want us to win as much as the next guy, but you can count me out if we start to see as many headlines for the police blotter as the football field.

Classic elitist snobbery nonsense. Since when does 2 fewer points on the ACT equate to the police blotter? Think before you type.
 
Your post implied that the current criticism of the WR coach is a passing fancy that has been brought about by a couple of bad games. My reply tried to point out that this was not isolated criticism and that we have been having these same conversations for multiple years. This is not just coincidence. We are in a pretty unique situation where it's fairly easy in my mind to isolate what has gone wrong. We went from having highly productive WRs over an extended period of time to having highly unproductive WRs over multiple seasons. One main variable has changed over that period of time. The position coach.

This is basically irrefutable without logical contortions that would put all but the most pathological liars in traction.
 
I'm a graduate of NU and was friends with many football players, as well as baseball players. If you think I don't know all of this, you're mistaken.

The current system is arbitrary in the sense that it is not based on our peer institutions in FBS. It's not based on NU admissions for regular students (which is much, much, much stricter). It's not based on NCAA academic qualifications. I'm saying that we should adhere to the same standards as every Big Ten team at a minimum. We should continue to seek the best and brightest students, but our coaches should not be prevented from recruiting a student whose grades and/or scores are acceptable to every other FBS program except ours.

I'm also not saying that I would give Coach Fitzgerald total discretion. He has to follow NCAA and conference rules. He should receive input and recommendations from admissions because they can evaluate the likelihood of a student's academic success. But, he should not be handicapped by arbitrary, artificial standards that aren't consistent with NU admissions, aren't consistent with FBS peers, and aren't consistent with NCAA rules.

Ultimately, Coach Fitzgerald would be held accountable by the Athletic Director if the program recruits too many poor students. If Coach wants to take more minimum qualifiers, he has to maintain the GSR and APR. His staff will have tough decisions to make, but at least the decisions will be theirs and based on actual NCAA and Big Ten rules that our opponents also follow.

So to summarize, I'm not saying we should drop our pants and take everyone. I'm not saying Fitzgerald should be allowed to do whatever he wants. I'm not saying we should accept lower GSR and APR scores. I'm saying we get rid of the unfair competitive disadvantage that we have created for ourselves, almost as a built-in excuse for losses. We simply follow the rules for our conference and let the staff balance the roster. If the GSR numbers fall, heads roll. If the team fails to reach bowl games, heads roll. Everything is based on real numbers and not built-in excuses about why we can't recruit better players.

What you're alluding to is the secret truth that nobody here wants to admit: that once you are in, you don't have to be half as bright as most of these faux-intellectuals think they are to graduate from NU. In fact, it's pretty doggone easy.

Shhh!!!

Don't say that!!!

OMG!!!
 
Last edited:
On the face of it, your argument makes sense. However, IMO it is not realistic. You put the caveot on maintaining the same GSR and APR scores, which would be a tall task if we accepted at NCAA minimum. Bringing in athletes which meet the NCAA minimum but don't meet are already very relaxed standards compared to typical NU students will not improve or allow us to maintain those scores even with our support system.

Anything is better than the current standards, which are based on neither the conference standards or NU regular admissions. The administration knows that it cannot possibly use "real" NU standards, so instead we get these made-up standards.

The elimination of the arbitrary, artificial standards is not a free pass for the coaches to do what they like. I'm also in favor of giving the kid a chance if he could play for Duke, Notre Dame, and everybody else. Athletic scholarships are supposed to be about opportunity, not giving NU built-in excuses for being pretty good but not ultimately good enough on the field.
 
Anything is better than the current standards, which are based on neither the conference standards or NU regular admissions. The administration knows that it cannot possibly use "real" NU standards, so instead we get these made-up standards.

The elimination of the arbitrary, artificial standards is not a free pass for the coaches to do what they like. I'm also in favor of giving the kid a chance if he could play for Duke, Notre Dame, and everybody else. Athletic scholarships are supposed to be about opportunity, not giving NU built-in excuses for being pretty good but not ultimately good enough on the field.

Very sensible argument. The playing field should be level with the peer Universities. I don't get the "extra credit because we have higher admission standards" argument either.
 
The academic bar is an excuse. Stanford proves it. Their admission standards are HIGHER than ours, and yet they can bring in top 15 classes.

Barnett brought in a top 16 class in 1996. It can be done. Once we have our facilities up and running and if we can maintain some consistency in the next couple years of winning upwards of 10 games, we will be a lot more attractive to recruits than we have been. The academic requirement is a total excuse. It's a differentiator and hence a benefit for us in recruiting, particularly for the 25% of recruits that would qualify for us. Let's go get the best of them, or split them with Stanford, and if we do, then we'll be bringing in top 20 classes regularly.

You can't compare recruiting rankings in the 1980s and 1990s with today. The current rankings systems have their flaws, but rankings in the 1990s were heavily influenced by local awards and regionalism. Today every service has access to game film. Today kids attend multiple camps and most offers are confirmed with the school through back channels. I don't want to say we weren't #16 in 1996, but we never finished in the top 25 with those recruits and never won a bowl game. In fact, 66-17 spoke volumes about the talent, poor defensive coaching aside.

As far as I know, there is only anecdotal evidence that Stanford football has higher standards for all of its players. For all of Stanford's bluster, we do not know if they are admitting any minimum qualifiers. Also, we do not take their shotgun offering approach and maybe we should try it. I'm 100% in favor of duplicating what Stanford does, with the exception of slow playing commits.
 
I believe it can be used as an excuse too, but there is limited pool comparatively speaking. I am not sure your statement on Stanford is accurate related to football.

Yep, there was a lot of tough talk from Harbaugh that Stanford football had the highest standards, but to me, he was doing that for self-serving reasons, so he could justify slow-playing commits. You know, 'we can't accept your commitment because our admissions policy is just so strict.'
 
Can we just short circuit this whole silly debate, please. Because I have a decent sense of where this is going.

The eggheads who need to feel intellectually superior to everyone around them are going to say that NU's mission is to educate only the best and the brightest with the highest academic qualifications and to never compromise anything about academics with something as pedestrian and anti-intellectual as football.

Then somebody who is truly smart (not just phony baloney smart) is going to post NU's own mission statement - and dare the fake intellectuals to find the part about only accepting uber-brainiacs into the school.

And then the faux brainiacs, faced with no logical argument, will launch into a name-calling screed against whoever it is that dares to (1) claim that it never did - and doesn't now - take a genius to graduate from NU and (2) back it up with proof from NU's own mission statement in pretty much a walk-off home run of a rhetorical argument.

So can we just cut to the chase this time?

Will somebody please just post the NU mission statement so people can yell and scream at them and call them names for detonating the mistaken belief that every student who graduates from NU needs to be a genius?

And then can we get back to important things like whether Wrassler will ever break par? Oops, wrong board...
 
Classic elitist snobbery nonsense. Since when does 2 fewer points on the ACT equate to the police blotter? Think before you type.

Interesting that I have classic elitist snobbery and never went to NU. My point was we recruit kids where we "sell" academics as a differential. Read recruits comments when they commit, they come here for two primary reasons; 1) academics and 2) Fitz. Do you really think they commit due to our awesome fan support, game day experience or tradition of winning?

Sorry but where does letting in the recruits scoring 2 less points on the ACT turn this program around? How has it worked for Illinois? Being successful in recruiting usually means you have to know who you are and who you are not. We know who we are, who we want, and need to develop better.

I hate when we use this BS argument that out admissions are so tough we can't compete. Overblown. Are they more difficult than the rest of the B1G, of course, but tell me exactly what recruit of recent vintage claimed to have NU as their dream school, but couldn't get in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gladeskat
Interesting that I have classic elitist snobbery and never went to NU. My point was we recruit kids where we "sell" academics as a differential. Read recruits comments when they commit, they come here for two primary reasons; 1) academics and 2) Fitz. Do you really think they commit due to our awesome fan support, game day experience or tradition of winning?

Sorry but where does letting in the recruits scoring 2 less points on the ACT turn this program around? How has it worked for Illinois? Being successful in recruiting usually means you have to know who you are and who you are not. We know who we are, who we want, and need to develop better.

I hate when we use this BS argument that out admissions are so tough we can't compete. Overblown. Are they more difficult than the rest of the B1G, of course, but tell me exactly what recruit of recent vintage claimed to have NU as their dream school, but couldn't get in.

Umm, your message stands on its own, regardless of who the messenger is. Where you went is irrelevant to your message.

Some people, believe it or not, actually don't judge the message by the messenger. Hard to believe, I know....
 
Can we just short circuit this whole silly debate, please. Because I have a decent sense of where this is going.

The eggheads who need to feel intellectually superior to everyone around them are going to say that NU's mission is to educate only the best and the brightest with the highest academic qualifications and to never compromise anything about academics with something as pedestrian and anti-intellectual as football.

Then somebody who is truly smart (not just phony baloney smart) is going to post NU's own mission statement - and dare the fake intellectuals to find the part about only accepting uber-brainiacs into the school.

And then the faux brainiacs, faced with no logical argument, will launch into a name-calling screed against whoever it is that dares to (1) claim that it never did - and doesn't now - take a genius to graduate from NU and (2) back it up with proof from NU's own mission statement in pretty much a walk-off home run of a rhetorical argument.

So can we just cut to the chase this time?

Will somebody please just post the NU mission statement so people can yell and scream at them and call them names for detonating the mistaken belief that every student who graduates from NU needs to be a genius?

And then can we get back to important things like whether Wrassler will ever break par? Oops, wrong board...

The thread usually does when posters stop replying. It might be a new concept, but that is how it works around here. If you don't like where you know it is going to go, don't read it. Pretty simple.
 
I hate when we use this BS argument that out admissions are so tough we can't compete. Overblown. Are they more difficult than the rest of the B1G, of course, but tell me exactly what recruit of recent vintage claimed to have NU as their dream school, but couldn't get in.

I can think of two right now, and they were well publicized cases.

Can you explain why we have admissions standards for football that are not based on our FBS peers, not based on NCAA and Big Ten rules, and not based even on our regular admissions criteria?

The truth is that we want to brag about having tough standards for the sake of having tougher standards and nothing else. There are no feel-good 39-point losses.
 
I can think of two right now, and they were well publicized cases.

Can you explain why we have admissions standards for football that are not based on our FBS peers, not based on NCAA and Big Ten rules, and not based even on our regular admissions criteria?

The truth is that we want to brag about having tough standards for the sake of having tougher standards and nothing else. There are no feel-good 39-point losses.
Which two?
 
I can think of two right now, and they were well publicized cases.

Can you explain why we have admissions standards for football that are not based on our FBS peers, not based on NCAA and Big Ten rules, and not based even on our regular admissions criteria?

The truth is that we want to brag about having tough standards for the sake of having tougher standards and nothing else. There are no feel-good 39-point losses.
Who said anything about feeling good about a 39 point loss? I have not been one to brag about tougher standards either. Again, I will say it, what differentiates NU from those peer institutions you reference? Know your brand and sell it?

I suspect that are admission standards for the program are designed to predict academic success and potential to progress to a diploma. I don't think we arbitrarily make them up so we can feel elitist or brag. That is ludicrous.
 
You can't compare recruiting rankings in the 1980s and 1990s with today. The current rankings systems have their flaws, but rankings in the 1990s were heavily influenced by local awards and regionalism. Today every service has access to game film. Today kids attend multiple camps and most offers are confirmed with the school through back channels. I don't want to say we weren't #16 in 1996, but we never finished in the top 25 with those recruits and never won a bowl game. In fact, 66-17 spoke volumes about the talent, poor defensive coaching aside.

As far as I know, there is only anecdotal evidence that Stanford football has higher standards for all of its players. For all of Stanford's bluster, we do not know if they are admitting any minimum qualifiers. Also, we do not take their shotgun offering approach and maybe we should try it. I'm 100% in favor of duplicating what Stanford does, with the exception of slow playing commits.

I totally disagree. That team won a B1G. Had Wheeler not tragically died, I think we would have won another one. The talent on that team was impressive. We had a Heisman finalist at RB who went over 2000 yards. The offense was super prolific. Multiple All-conference linemen. WR's that could separate and catch. 3 LB's were on the draft board (until Silva got injured). DL's were drafted. We were done in by the Colby Swiss.

I'm not against the shotgun offer approach (and have actually suggested it) - given that it seems to deliver better results, at least for Stanford.
 
Who said anything about feeling good about a 39 point loss? I have not been one to brag about tougher standards either. Again, I will say it, what differentiates NU from those peer institutions you reference? Know your brand and sell it?

I suspect that are admission standards for the program are designed to predict academic success and potential to progress to a diploma. I don't think we arbitrarily make them up so we can feel elitist or brag. That is ludicrous.

They are arbitrary in the sense that they are not tied to our peers, not tied to NCAA and conference rules, and not tied to regular NU admissions.
 
In other words, your stats are complete made-up bullcrap.
Huh? You are either joking or in complete and utter denial. For those who care, this year, our offense finished very close to last place along all things, not just total offense. Only 4 teams scored less than our 24 Offensive TD's. Only 5 teams had less than our 4.47 yards per play [Kansas, Boston College, UCF, Kent State, Missouri].

Each of those teams had impact players who got hurt. Our offense finished #116 with all the starters and no injuries. Now, if you take the last two years, we are in fact dead last in total offense. So, not sure what your problem is, Glades.
 
I totally disagree. That team won a B1G. Had Wheeler not tragically died, I think we would have won another one. The talent on that team was impressive. We had a Heisman finalist at RB who went over 2000 yards. The offense was super prolific. Multiple All-conference linemen. WR's that could separate and catch. 3 LB's were on the draft board (until Silva got injured). DL's were drafted. We were done in by the Colby Swiss.

I'm not against the shotgun offer approach (and have actually suggested it) - given that it seems to deliver better results, at least for Stanford.

The team shared a Big Ten title and was absolutely destroyed by Nebraska. I know that it may be indelicate to critique a sacrosanct team in our mostly futile history, but our 2000 and 2001 teams resembled latter-day Indiana in a lot of ways, which makes sense given the Wilson connection.

Whether or not the team would have finished in the top 25 without the Wheeler tragedy or if the team would have been much better with a different defensive coordinator, that's entirely speculation. We're dealing with what actually happened.
 
Or just ban all criticism so we can all live in purple kool-aid harmony while we watch the worst offense in the country brought to you by the same folks who brought you the worst offense in the country last year.

Break out the marshmallows, guys. There offenses are worse than the marshmallows we used to consider a joke.

Can we resume the marshmallow wars in the stadium too? I remember my family being embarrassed for me - I thought it was fun. They came from IU, IL, MI, PU and collectively were more than disappointed. None ever went to a second game.
 
You can't compare recruiting rankings in the 1980s and 1990s with today. The current rankings systems have their flaws, but rankings in the 1990s were heavily influenced by local awards and regionalism. Today every service has access to game film. Today kids attend multiple camps and most offers are confirmed with the school through back channels. I don't want to say we weren't #16 in 1996, but we never finished in the top 25 with those recruits and never won a bowl game. In fact, 66-17 spoke volumes about the talent, poor defensive coaching aside.

As far as I know, there is only anecdotal evidence that Stanford football has higher standards for all of its players. For all of Stanford's bluster, we do not know if they are admitting any minimum qualifiers. Also, we do not take their shotgun offering approach and maybe we should try it. I'm 100% in favor of duplicating what Stanford does, with the exception of slow playing commits.

The #16 rating occurred in 1997. Out of that class, only two players made it to the NFL (DA2 and Napo). The 1996, 1998, and 1999 classes (and Walker's 2000, 2001, and 2002 classes) were better in terms of producing NFL caliber athletes.
 
Huh? You are either joking or in complete and utter denial. For those who care, this year, our offense finished very close to last place along all things, not just total offense. Only 4 teams scored less than our 24 Offensive TD's. Only 5 teams had less than our 4.47 yards per play [Kansas, Boston College, UCF, Kent State, Missouri].

Each of those teams had impact players who got hurt. Our offense finished #116 with all the starters and no injuries. Now, if you take the last two years, we are in fact dead last in total offense. So, not sure what your problem is, Glades.

No problem. Our offense is poor, but we are not the worst offense in D1 football. We may be damn close to the worst, but your claiming that we are the worst and that we had no injuries (Frazier, Mogus, Mertz, others?) is just nonsense.

We're bad, we're very bad, but we're not THE worst offense in D1 football the past two years.
 
Last edited:
I totally disagree. That team won a B1G. Had Wheeler not tragically died, I think we would have won another one. The talent on that team was impressive. We had a Heisman finalist at RB who went over 2000 yards. The offense was super prolific. Multiple All-conference linemen. WR's that could separate and catch. 3 LB's were on the draft board (until Silva got injured). DL's were drafted. We were done in by the Colby Swiss.

I'm not against the shotgun offer approach (and have actually suggested it) - given that it seems to deliver better results, at least for Stanford.

Only two players from the 1997 recruiting class (the #16 class we are talking about here) made it in the NFL. Most of those glorious WR's, LB's, and OL were from other classes. Sorry.

That said, Barnett did a very nice job of recruiting in most years, particularly in 1993-1994. Just don't EVER look at his 1995 class. It makes John Pont look great as a recruiter.
 
I can think of two right now, and they were well publicized cases.

Can you explain why we have admissions standards for football that are not based on our FBS peers, not based on NCAA and Big Ten rules, and not based even on our regular admissions criteria?

The truth is that we want to brag about having tough standards for the sake of having tougher standards and nothing else. There are no feel-good 39-point losses.

Because it's based on historical evidence for the profile of strident who can succeed at NU. The Admissions Office's job is (in part) to ensure that those students admitted to NU can do the work and graduate. A kid at the NCAA minimums (which are really laughably low) is most likely not prepared for an NU curriculum.
 
Can we resume the marshmallow wars in the stadium too? I remember my family being embarrassed for me - I thought it was fun. They came from IU, IL, MI, PU and collectively were more than disappointed. None ever went to a second game.

That's what I was getting at. If the offense is gonna be unwatchable, we might as well have some fun in the stands while we distract ourselves from the Dark Ages futility we're watching.
 
No problem. Our offense is poor, but we are not the worst offense in D1 football. We may be damn close to the worst, but your claiming that we are the worst and that we had no injuries (Frazier, Mogus, Mertz, others?) is just nonsense.

We're bad, we're very bad, but we're not THE worst offense in D1 football the past two years.

Based on what? Who is and how are they worse?
 
What you're alluding to is the secret truth that nobody here wants to admit: that once you are in, you don't have to be half as bright as most of these faux-intellectuals think they are to graduate from NU. In fact, it's pretty doggone easy.

Shhh!!!

Don't say that!!!

OMG!!!
That sucks to know. Because it was really hard for me.
 
No problem. Our offense is poor, but we are not the worst offense in D1 football. We may be damn close to the worst, but your claiming that we are the worst and that we had no injuries (Frazier, Mogus, Mertz, others?) is just nonsense.

We're bad, we're very bad, but we're not THE worst offense in D1 football the past two years.

Great, so we are the tallest amongst a few midgets
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT