Yep. Princeton ran a single-wing formation and their fullback was Cosmo Iaccovazzi, best football name ever.
What has happened to Fitz?
- Thread starter stpaulcat
- Start date
I think I'm at the same place as you are on this.
Fitz's philosophy worked until 2020. It worked while Hank was here.
It no longer works and there's no sign that it can work moving forwards. That's partially why so many of us are down on the status of the program. There's no going back to the success we enjoyed previously under the current iteration of the coaching staff; Hank ain't walking through that door.
It's better to realize that in year 2 of the downtrend than in year 5 or 6. We don't want to go through 5 or 6 years of this.
If we go 1-11 as expected, there has to be wholesale changes in this program because we're staring at the abyss with no way out...
Big Ten is adding USC and UCLA, two teams that are undefeated as of now. One of which recruits at the same level as Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State and another that recruits just below that.
The conference schedule will only get tougher when the Big Ten West goes away and we face Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/USC/UCLA a lot. We need to be beating the SIUs, Miamis of Ohio, and Dukes if we want to get bowl eligible. Fitz can't just treat them as another game; they're often a half of the games we're favored in and it's often too difficult to get to 6 wins without all of those 3. Losing against all 3? Worst season in the modern history of the program.
The problem isn't that Fitz didn't take the games seriously. The problem is that those teams are better than ours. Better athletes? Probably not. Better team/coaching? Surely
Agreed and that's the biggest problem of all.
When you're favored on paper against 3 teams with 2 of those against teams that should be at a talent deficit and lose all 3 games, it's a coaching problem.
Absolutely. It’s more concerning that Fitz doesn’t know why the players are not executing, if he thinks everything is clicking in practice, and that the coordinators are calling good plays on game day, something is very wrong about the coaching. If most of the players, who are legitimate FBS athletes who were offered by many other FBS teams, look like they are struggling with even the fundamentals of football on game day.
We are basically. 500 v Wisconsin since like 1985. We compete against Wisconsin. Getting embarrassed by this mediocre, coachless version shows how bad it is, like the Neb thrashing last year
Let's put this all in perspective.
NU has more all-time losses than every other program save Indiana (which has done well at least in basketball). 686 miserable losses. The Dark Ages doesn't account for all that futility. Up until Gary Barnett, the 133 year-old program only broke .500 about 1/3 of the time. And this "stat-for-losers" includes all those rosy early decades against suspect competition such as local high school teams and glorified drinking clubs. Indeed, NU was the worst all-time winning percentage of any program of recognition or note (with Indiana again the exception). As for the 27-year Golden Age of Wildcat Football, the trio of Barnett, Walker, and Fitz has produced 13 winning seasons, which is considered mediocrity in certain precincts.
The unmistakable conclusion from this perspective: it's harder to win here than everywhere else. We all have our own theories why this is so. Great coaches have tried their hands at it, failed, and then went on to great acclaim coaching elsewhere. Great players have competed wearing the purple, only knew futility at NU, and then went on to HOF careers in the NFL (heck, even Otto Graham had a losing record at NU). Facilities and renovations are great, but their value seems to diminish in almost the same manner as when you drive that new car off the dealer's lot.
To me this suggests that Fitzgerald is afforded a very low margin of error. Is that unfair? Yes and I had been a Fitz fan for the whole body of work. He signed up for the job and is being paid handsomely for it. A bad hire, misplaced loyalty to something other than the program, or a slight breather from all the accumulated intensity of the years puts us into the position that we now confront.
NU has more all-time losses than every other program save Indiana (which has done well at least in basketball). 686 miserable losses. The Dark Ages doesn't account for all that futility. Up until Gary Barnett, the 133 year-old program only broke .500 about 1/3 of the time. And this "stat-for-losers" includes all those rosy early decades against suspect competition such as local high school teams and glorified drinking clubs. Indeed, NU was the worst all-time winning percentage of any program of recognition or note (with Indiana again the exception). As for the 27-year Golden Age of Wildcat Football, the trio of Barnett, Walker, and Fitz has produced 13 winning seasons, which is considered mediocrity in certain precincts.
The unmistakable conclusion from this perspective: it's harder to win here than everywhere else. We all have our own theories why this is so. Great coaches have tried their hands at it, failed, and then went on to great acclaim coaching elsewhere. Great players have competed wearing the purple, only knew futility at NU, and then went on to HOF careers in the NFL (heck, even Otto Graham had a losing record at NU). Facilities and renovations are great, but their value seems to diminish in almost the same manner as when you drive that new car off the dealer's lot.
To me this suggests that Fitzgerald is afforded a very low margin of error. Is that unfair? Yes and I had been a Fitz fan for the whole body of work. He signed up for the job and is being paid handsomely for it. A bad hire, misplaced loyalty to something other than the program, or a slight breather from all the accumulated intensity of the years puts us into the position that we now confront.
I would agree with a lot of your points, but there's two critical differences now that should mean that things can be different here compared to before.
1) The $ being pumped into this program are unprecedented. We've never financed athletics at Northwestern to the extent that they're being financed now. The facilities here will be absolute top notch across the board compared to everyone else once the stadium is done. That also applies to coaching salaries. This isn't the 90s where Ryan and other trustees had to put together money to keep GB here.
2) The move to a Power 2 with the bulk of the TV money and distributions that come with it. And the best TV spots for the teams. We have a spot in the Power 2 in the Big Ten.
Yes, we'll always have a smaller fanbase compared to other schools. Yes, the academic requirements will make it tough to recruit top athletes here that can play at this level.
But, Fitz is earning $6 million a year give or take. His assistants are being paid high 6 figures (and eventually some will get 7 figures a year).
They have to deliver or they're not earning their pay. We just lost to a team that pays its coaches less than 1/20th of what our coaches are getting.
Nick Hill over at SIU earns $250k base salary. His assistants earn peanuts compared to Bajakian and JON. It's frankly embarrassing to be making excuses for Fitz and his staff and team getting completely outclassed despite having more talented athletes than SIU on paper.
When you get paid like the big boys, you better deliver.
Anything from the last century is ancient history. Only old fossils like us pay attention. We have a respectable record against all but the three big dogs since 95.
