ADVERTISEMENT

Why is our recruiting under Fitz not at par with Barnett or smart schools?

Toss in Zack Kustoc who was a Top 100 on the Prep Football Report (Tom Lemming) and the class would have been ranked higher than 15th, prolly top 8.

Fitz recruiting 'needs work' and I think this is an area he can work on. But, his yearly classes ranking 50s and 60s are definitely good enough to get us into a bowl game, baring injuries. I don't think anyone, with a straight face, would say that Fitz is nailing it on the recruiting front. Especially awol along the OL.

On the field, Fitz makes up for it by squeezing as much as he can out of our talent. Kids love him and love playing for him. I mean, he routinely has a Team Recruiting ranking of #11 or #12 in the Big Ten out of 14 teams but still finishes in the top half of the division. Not bad, given the deficiencies.

I can't disagree with anything you have said here. How is it that it seems like we have improved generally in recruiting over the last 4 years yet still our classes are ranked in the bottom third?
 
Toss in Zack Kustoc who was a Top 100 on the Prep Football Report (Tom Lemming) and the class would have been ranked higher than 15th, prolly top 8.

Fitz recruiting 'needs work' and I think this is an area he can work on. But, his yearly classes ranking 50s and 60s are definitely good enough to get us into a bowl game, baring injuries. I don't think anyone, with a straight face, would say that Fitz is nailing it on the recruiting front. Especially awol along the OL.

On the field, Fitz makes up for it by squeezing as much as he can out of our talent. Kids love him and love playing for him. I mean, he routinely has a Team Recruiting ranking of #11 or #12 in the Big Ten out of 14 teams but still finishes in the top half of the division. Not bad, given the deficiencies.

Kustok transferred in to play for Walker. How does that have anything to do with Barnett?
 
I can't disagree with anything you have said here. How is it that it seems like we have improved generally in recruiting over the last 4 years yet still our classes are ranked in the bottom third?

Because recruiting and college football overall has become much more competitive since that time. Barnett also rode the wave of the publicity of the Rose Bowl season and parlayed that into several good recruiting classes. No doubt that Barnett was an outstanding coach and supreme salesman. That being said, I think Fitz's more targeted and steady approach is building and will be much more sustainable over the long term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoralSpringsCat
[
Because recruiting and college football overall has become much more competitive since that time. Barnett also rode the wave of the publicity of the Rose Bowl season and parlayed that into several good recruiting classes. No doubt that Barnett was an outstanding coach and supreme salesman. That being said, I think Fitz's more targeted and steady approach is building and will be much more sustainable over the long term.
What wave was Barnett riding in 93 when he got a Top 25 recruiting class?

What do you mean more targeted? I'm going to get my popcorn for this one.
 
[

What wave was Barnett riding in 93 when he got a Top 25 recruiting class?

What do you mean more targeted? I'm going to get my popcorn for this one.

Barnett went after the best players he could get into school. FItz's recruiting has evolved over time to put an increasing emphasis on fit in addition to talent and academic standing. He has spoken about it and we have seen increasing evidence of that discerning approach over the years. I think that approach is more condusive to building a consistent positive culture for the program over an extended period of time but may not be compatibile with a goal of recruiting the "highest rated" classes. I hope that makes sense to you.
 
Barnett went after the best players he could get into school. FItz's recruiting has evolved over time to put an increasing emphasis on fit in addition to talent and academic standing. He has spoken about it and we have seen increasing evidence of that discerning approach over the years. I think that approach is more condusive to building a consistent positive culture for the program over an extended period of time but may not be compatibile with a goal of recruiting the "highest rated" classes. I hope that makes sense to you.
Don't think that NU's fans would mind 5 or 6 4*'s in each class. Barnett recruited those kind of kids regularly and with an antiquated stadium, terrible training facilities, no indoor practice facility and very little support from the AD and President.
 
  • Like
Reactions: julescat
Those highly touted recruits coming off the 95-96 miracle seasons went 1-15 in the Big Ten in 98 and 99. WaLKER'S innovative offense got them back on track in 2000 but then came the San Antonio disaster. Recruiting is an inexact science, especially in football. Also, I notice Vandy has 3 4-stars among their commits and still Rivals ranks their class behind ours, so their 3-stars must be lower rated. I am very comfortable with what Fitz is doing.
 
Barnett went after the best players he could get into school. FItz's recruiting has evolved over time to put an increasing emphasis on fit in addition to talent and academic standing. He has spoken about it and we have seen increasing evidence of that discerning approach over the years. I think that approach is more condusive to building a consistent positive culture for the program over an extended period of time but may not be compatibile with a goal of recruiting the "highest rated" classes. I hope that makes sense to you.

The problem with Barnett and all his salesmanship and charisma is he left.

NU was never his destination or his dream and as many times as he told everyone his forays to entertain other positions was just to stay competitive, in the end that wasn't really true. I don't blame him and he accomplished what seems like the impossible and I 'm grateful but he stung quite a few people who adore him anyway.
 
Those highly touted recruits coming off the 95-96 miracle seasons went 1-15 in the Big Ten in 98 and 99. WaLKER'S innovative offense got them back on track in 2000 but then came the San Antonio disaster. Recruiting is an inexact science, especially in football. Also, I notice Vandy has 3 4-stars among their commits and still Rivals ranks their class behind ours, so their 3-stars must be lower rated. I am very comfortable with what Fitz is doing.

Barnett won big with 2 and 3 star kids that could play. Then he lost big with much higher rated recruits that couldn't. It's as simple as that. That anybody would offer the 96' and 97' classes as examples of what NU recruiting should be today is beyond delusional. Fitz has a sound plan. Fill the core of each class with strong developmental prospects that rarely get 4 star consideration because they are less than a finished product. Then look to have 3rd and 4th and 5th year players as the strength of your team. Between targeting developmental prospects and the small class sizes necessary to accommodate 8-10 5th year seniors, the recruiting rankings are going to suffer. My only fault with Fitz's recruiting of late is the lack of playmakers at WR and the OL.

GOUNUII
 
Barnett won big with 2 and 3 star kids that could play. Then he lost big with much higher rated recruits that couldn't. It's as simple as that. That anybody would offer the 96' and 97' classes as examples of what NU recruiting should be today is beyond delusional. Fitz has a sound plan. Fill the core of each class with strong developmental prospects that rarely get 4 star consideration because they are less than a finished product. Then look to have 3rd and 4th and 5th year players as the strength of your team. Between targeting developmental prospects and the small class sizes necessary to accommodate 8-10 5th year seniors, the recruiting rankings are going to suffer. My only fault with Fitz's recruiting of late is the lack of playmakers at WR and the OL.

GOUNUII

Thanks for being the voice of reason. I was going to reply but thought better of it!
 
Those highly touted recruits coming off the 95-96 miracle seasons went 1-15 in the Big Ten in 98 and 99. WaLKER'S innovative offense got them back on track in 2000 but then came the San Antonio disaster. Recruiting is an inexact science, especially in football. Also, I notice Vandy has 3 4-stars among their commits and still Rivals ranks their class behind ours, so their 3-stars must be lower rated. I am very comfortable with what Fitz is doing.
One recruiting class doesn't make a consistent winner. But the fact that we won the BIG in 2000 was a direct result of the Top 15 class. Walker would have never won without Anderson, Cleeland, Souza, Brockmeyer, Harris, and Kustoc [same class year]. Talent matters.
 
Barnett went after the best players he could get into school. FItz's recruiting has evolved over time to put an increasing emphasis on fit in addition to talent and academic standing. He has spoken about it and we have seen increasing evidence of that discerning approach over the years. I think that approach is more condusive to building a consistent positive culture for the program over an extended period of time but may not be compatibile with a goal of recruiting the "highest rated" classes. I hope that makes sense to you.
Ok, so you are saying more talented players don't "Fit'? What science did you use to pull that one up? Yes, I've heard Fitz say this but it doesn't cover his stumbles in recruiting at middle to top levels. Especially along OL. He still hasn't addressed the problem of the OL coach and that necessarily affects OL recruiting, bigtime. Like I said, he has done a solid job with a team that lacks talent. True, he can land the occassional Anthony Walker but his talent isn't 'wow' either and could barely even get drafted in the NFL.

His recruiting is handicapped but not because Fitz is an idiot, after all, he realizes that "Top" talent fits here just as much as less talent. And that's true with all sports and it is proven at other smart schools like Stanford. If he could, he would immediately recruit more talented players who aren't stuck in developmental mode for 4 years, but he simply isn't a Barnett in that regard.

You show me a Big ten championship, or a Division championship, and I"ll show you a recruiting class that was ranked, including NU. 93 = 95,96. 97 = 2000.
That is science. Everything you said is myth as your comment has been disproven. Talent does "Fit" here. Give NU more credit!
 
Ok, so you are saying more talented players don't "Fit'? What science did you use to pull that one up? Yes, I've heard Fitz say this but it doesn't cover his stumbles in recruiting at middle to top levels. Especially along OL. He still hasn't addressed the problem of the OL coach and that necessarily affects OL recruiting, bigtime. Like I said, he has done a solid job with a team that lacks talent. True, he can land the occassional Anthony Walker but his talent isn't 'wow' either and could barely even get drafted in the NFL.

His recruiting is handicapped but not because Fitz is an idiot, after all, he realizes that "Top" talent fits here just as much as less talent. And that's true with all sports and it is proven at other smart schools like Stanford. If he could, he would immediately recruit more talented players who aren't stuck in developmental mode for 4 years, but he simply isn't a Barnett in that regard.

You show me a Big ten championship, or a Division championship, and I"ll show you a recruiting class that was ranked, including NU. 93 = 95,96. 97 = 2000.
That is science. Everything you said is myth as your comment has been disproven. Talent does "Fit" here. Give NU more credit!

I know you struggle with reading comprehension so I'll rephrase. Fit is just as important as talent and academic profile to FItz. If talent and academics are close, you take the better program fit and that may not always be the "most talented player" as defined by star ratings. Of course that doesn't even take into account the debate regarding star rankings accurately capturing a player's capabilities.

I will reiterate what I have said for several years, FItz's last 5-6 recruiting classes as a whole represent the most talented group of recruits that NU has ever brought in over that period of time. This is the most talented roster top to bottom that NU football has ever had. Talent identification and acquisition has not been the issue but I still question the talent development capabilities of this staff as a whole. That is what has held us back to date. Hopefully we can get over that hump this season. I certainly hope so.
 
I know you struggle with reading comprehension so I'll rephrase. Fit is just as important as talent and academic profile to FItz. If talent and academics are close, you take the better program fit and that may not always be the "most talented player" as defined by star ratings. Of course that doesn't even take into account the debate regarding star rankings accurately capturing a player's capabilities.

I will reiterate what I have said for several years, FItz's last 5-6 recruiting classes as a whole represent the most talented group of recruits that NU has ever brought in over that period of time. This is the most talented roster top to bottom that NU football has ever had. Talent identification and acquisition has not been the issue but I still question the talent development capabilities of this staff as a whole. That is what has held us back to date. Hopefully we can get over that hump this season. I certainly hope so.
I hope that i dont make a habit of this but i mostly agree with you.
Maybe this is wrong but i do believe our talent is better now than ever, as far as from player 1 thru 85. We arent getting the big studs but we arent getting low 2 stars anymore. Our talent is pretty similar from top to bottom with few exceptions. This has led to increased depth and has allowed us to continue being competitive to the finish line.

I have no idea on our player development but i dont observe anything outta line and my feeling is that our recruits are physically capable as seniors and thats probably the result of coaching and hard work.
I do think that Turk has a point and that Fitz' recruiting or finding talented 4 stars that fit could be improved upon. Seemed like all of barnetts studs fit and are still contributing to the program and society. Harris ran for state senator.
 
I can't disagree with anything you have said here. How is it that it seems like we have improved generally in recruiting over the last 4 years yet still our classes are ranked in the bottom third?
But generally they have performed better than incoming ratings. Because a number of the recruits are less than finished products. The result is we have many more 5th year seniors producing. A year later many of our players would be ranked higher than they were when originally evaluated by sites such as Rivals. We are also not in a rich recruiting area and have academic requirements that other schools do not significantly reducing our talent pool. About the only fair criticism is our recruiting vs Stanford. But Stanford has had some significant recruiting advantages. As we continue to develop, we should see a continued uptick and those advantages become smaller.
 
But generally they have performed better than incoming ratings. Because a number of the recruits are less than finished products. The result is we have many more 5th year seniors producing. A year later many of our players would be ranked higher than they were when originally evaluated by sites such as Rivals. We are also not in a rich recruiting area and have academic requirements that other schools do not significantly reducing our talent pool. About the only fair criticism is our recruiting vs Stanford. But Stanford has had some significant recruiting advantages. As we continue to develop, we should see a continued uptick and those advantages become smaller.
I agree. We are in an uptick. I think we have a real shot to win the division this year. That would be extremely significant then i can fuarantee that fitz would find alot more 4 stars.
 
Kustok transferred in to play for Walker. How does that have anything to do with Barnett?

I can't believe that nobody called you out on this. Kustok and Barnett were in touch before Barney left. When Barney took the CU job in mid January, he sort of played match maker between Zak and Randy. Randy was hired in late January and Zak came aboard in February.

So yeah, I'd say that it had something to do with Barnett.
 
I can't believe that nobody called you out on this. Kustok and Barnett were in touch before Barney left. When Barney took the CU job in mid January, he sort of played match maker between Zak and Randy. Randy was hired in late January and Zak came aboard in February.

So yeah, I'd say that it had something to do with Barnett.
But he was using it to rate a particular class and since Kustock came afterwards as a transfer (and because when Barney left we lost the QB he had recruited.... Also lost a few others.

No one is denying that Barnett was a great recruiter but like IA, top rated recruiting classes were not the best performing throughout their time here.
 
I can't believe that nobody called you out on this. Kustok and Barnett were in touch before Barney left. When Barney took the CU job in mid January, he sort of played match maker between Zak and Randy. Randy was hired in late January and Zak came aboard in February.

So yeah, I'd say that it had something to do with Barnett.

I don't recall that detail but I'll take your word for it. I do recall that kustok was originally transferring to Kansas and then switched to NU. Maybe that was as a result of the Barnett intro that you referenced.

That being said, my point wasn't to imply that Barnett was an overrated recruiter. My point was that you can't give Barnett's recruiting classes credit for a player that committed and played for Walker.
 
Ok, so you are saying more talented players don't "Fit'? What science did you use to pull that one up? Yes, I've heard Fitz say this but it doesn't cover his stumbles in recruiting at middle to top levels. Especially along OL. He still hasn't addressed the problem of the OL coach and that necessarily affects OL recruiting, bigtime. Like I said, he has done a solid job with a team that lacks talent. True, he can land the occassional Anthony Walker but his talent isn't 'wow' either and could barely even get drafted in the NFL.

His recruiting is handicapped but not because Fitz is an idiot, after all, he realizes that "Top" talent fits here just as much as less talent. And that's true with all sports and it is proven at other smart schools like Stanford. If he could, he would immediately recruit more talented players who aren't stuck in developmental mode for 4 years, but he simply isn't a Barnett in that regard.

You show me a Big ten championship, or a Division championship, and I"ll show you a recruiting class that was ranked, including NU. 93 = 95,96. 97 = 2000.
That is science. Everything you said is myth as your comment has been disproven. Talent does "Fit" here. Give NU more credit!
This is a no brainer, turk. Kustok was a top 150 so that recruiting class would have been a top 10 if it recognized the future all bigten qb. Regardless of who recruited him. One guy you didnt mention was jeff roehl who was also a top 150. We simply were loaded with top talent on offense, and sam simmons just added to it as well.

We beat michigan, notre dame, use, and sec schools for these recruits. Now we mostly beat purdue, minny, illinois.

All of those stud 5 star recruits fit. Maybe cerasani and brown didnt but most of them fit. Why wouldnt they?
The talent stand needs to be reopened here. Collins has, and so should fitz.
 
I think we all feel that we need to land more of the very high end talents. What school doesn't? However, I would echo Corbi's comment on depth of the team being as good as ever. We just aren't settling for projects anymore. My expectation as a fan is finally aligned with the staff in that every recruit should eventually be able to start for us. I can tell you 10 years ago I thought, " I would be surprised if this guy ever sees the field besides special team".

I don't care about class rank. It is a flawed system in that it rewards larger classes and even recruits that are not fully vetted by each of the services. You are a 4 star with one service, the rest don't even have you in the database, guess what you are a 4 star in the team ratings.

This is the old chicken and the egg theory. What do the 4 B1G schools that consistently bring in more talent have in common? Winning. What do the 4 B1G schools that we consistently out recruit have in common? Losing. The 4 at the top are going to get better talent until someone from that mid tier starts having more success on the field. It's not as easy as saying we need to get more 4-5 star players by out hustling people. The 6 teams in the middle are bringing in similar talent on paper. We will rise above them if we have 1) better talent evaluation and 2) better development once they get here.

As a non-alum, I think some people overestimate what Fitz has to sell to a 18 year old. The academic angle will rarely be the sole reason a kid commits. He wants, winning, development, a shot at a professional career, above average facilities, a vibrant social scene, great game day experience, compatible teammates, ALONG with the education and many times prioritize those other things first. It takes time to get near the top in all of these factors and check the boxes.

Personally, I think this can be our best overall class since 2014. It will end at best in the 40's nationally and 8-9th in B1G. I am betting it translates to significantly better results on the field. This is an incremental process that takes time. Funny, I think we are already in the middle of that process and most don't realize it. Fitz, Bates, Long, they are doing the job!
 
Ok, so you are saying more talented players don't "Fit'? What science did you use to pull that one up? Yes, I've heard Fitz say this but it doesn't cover his stumbles in recruiting at middle to top levels. Especially along OL. He still hasn't addressed the problem of the OL coach and that necessarily affects OL recruiting, bigtime. Like I said, he has done a solid job with a team that lacks talent. True, he can land the occassional Anthony Walker but his talent isn't 'wow' either and could barely even get drafted in the NFL.

His recruiting is handicapped but not because Fitz is an idiot, after all, he realizes that "Top" talent fits here just as much as less talent. And that's true with all sports and it is proven at other smart schools like Stanford. If he could, he would immediately recruit more talented players who aren't stuck in developmental mode for 4 years, but he simply isn't a Barnett in that regard.

You show me a Big ten championship, or a Division championship, and I"ll show you a recruiting class that was ranked, including NU. 93 = 95,96. 97 = 2000.
That is science. Everything you said is myth as your comment has been disproven. Talent does "Fit" here. Give NU more credit!

That's not how recruiting works.
 
This is a no brainer, turk. Kustok was a top 150 so that recruiting class would have been a top 10 if it recognized the future all bigten qb. Regardless of who recruited him. One guy you didnt mention was jeff roehl who was also a top 150. We simply were loaded with top talent on offense, and sam simmons just added to it as well.

We beat michigan, notre dame, use, and sec schools for these recruits. Now we mostly beat purdue, minny, illinois.

All of those stud 5 star recruits fit. Maybe cerasani and brown didnt but most of them fit. Why wouldnt they?
The talent stand needs to be reopened here. Collins has, and so should fitz.

Of course you agree with yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoralSpringsCat
Barnett went after the best players he could get into school. FItz's recruiting has evolved over time to put an increasing emphasis on fit in addition to talent and academic standing. He has spoken about it and we have seen increasing evidence of that discerning approach over the years. I think that approach is more condusive to building a consistent positive culture for the program over an extended period of time but may not be compatibile with a goal of recruiting the "highest rated" classes. I hope that makes sense to you.

That approach got us 3 titles in 6 years. I'll take that over zero titles and a consistent positive culture for the program, whatever that means.
 
This is a no brainer, turk. Kustok was a top 150 so that recruiting class would have been a top 10 if it recognized the future all bigten qb. Regardless of who recruited him. One guy you didnt mention was jeff roehl who was also a top 150. We simply were loaded with top talent on offense, and sam simmons just added to it as well.

We beat michigan, notre dame, use, and sec schools for these recruits. Now we mostly beat purdue, minny, illinois.

All of those stud 5 star recruits fit. Maybe cerasani and brown didnt but most of them fit. Why wouldnt they?
The talent stand needs to be reopened here. Collins has, and so should fitz.
Sorry but quite a few members of that class left A couple to Colorado. The QB that decided to go to Michigan (that provided the opening for Kustok.) In the end the class was more pedestrian than top 10. And not sure they had the star ratings back then or if any 5 star recruits in that class. Probably some 4s but 5s? And Roehl was not brought in by Barnett.

Look, no one is denying that Barnett was a great recruiter. He could sell snow to an eskimo and he had an NC ring.. But there are very, very few at that level and he left. So he was more of a shooting star. Most of the ones with that ability also have a lot more resources and are able to be a lot more "flexible" with requirements. Not really fair to compare Fitz directly with that. Fitz and company have the recruiting fairly solid and steadily improving and is starting to get the resources to work with. We will see steady improvements but not the sudden jump that Barnett was able to deliver. We focus on a couple weak areas but overall, the program is overall in the strongest position it has been in.
 
Fitz is like a Don Sutton or Tommy John, win 15 games for 20 years and you a re a 300 game winner. Barney more like a Dontrelle Willis, couple of really good years then pfft

What's your preference?
 
Fitz is like a Don Sutton or Tommy John, win 15 games for 20 years and you a re a 300 game winner. Barney more like a Dontrelle Willis, couple of really good years then pfft

What's your preference?
Throw in a couple 20 game seasons in the mix and more like Maddox. We had the Dontrell Willis and it was great. Now I will take Maddox.
 
Fitz is like a Don Sutton or Tommy John, win 15 games for 20 years and you a re a 300 game winner. Barney more like a Dontrelle Willis, couple of really good years then pfft

What's your preference?

Geez, I would take one Rose Bowl and 15 losing seasons over 15 mostly winning seasons but the crowning achievement of a Pinstripe Bowl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvanstonCat
Geez, I would take one Rose Bowl and 15 losing seasons over 15 mostly winning seasons but the crowning achievement of a Pinstripe Bowl.
Also gator bowl. Both wins. We lost the rose bowl and citrus bowl. I get as frustrated with Fitz as the next guy, but I do like seeing them competitive year after year. I can still remember being frustrated w 1997 and then WTF about 1998 then quit? I will always be appreciative, grateful, respectful, etc about 1995/96 but I will take sustained success over a flameout.

Also, for reference, I think Barney was coaching at Ft Lewis college at Fitz current age.
 
Also gator bowl. Both wins. We lost the rose bowl and citrus bowl. I get as frustrated with Fitz as the next guy, but I do like seeing them competitive year after year. I can still remember being frustrated w 1997 and then WTF about 1998 then quit? I will always be appreciative, grateful, respectful, etc about 1995/96 but I will take sustained success over a flameout.

Also, for reference, I think Barney was coaching at Ft Lewis college at Fitz current age.
+1 reasonable post.
 
Also gator bowl. Both wins. We lost the rose bowl and citrus bowl. I get as frustrated with Fitz as the next guy, but I do like seeing them competitive year after year. I can still remember being frustrated w 1997 and then WTF about 1998 then quit? I will always be appreciative, grateful, respectful, etc about 1995/96 but I will take sustained success over a flameout.

Also, for reference, I think Barney was coaching at Ft Lewis college at Fitz current age.

You'd rather go 7-6 and win a lower-tier bowl game than be the Big Ten champs and lose in the Rose Bowl.

You make a lot of sense. Are you related to Adam Cushing?
 
C'mon Turk. First you say star ratings are largely meaningless, then you say Duke and Vandy recruit higher star players.

As for the rest, recruiting today is much more competitive because of the money in college football.

That's not what he said. He said there had been star inflation since the Barnett era so it's worthless to compare average stars then to average stars now. He didn't say it was worthless to compare star ratings now, which is apples to apples.
 
You'd rather go 7-6 and win a lower-tier bowl game than be the Big Ten champs and lose in the Rose Bowl.

You make a lot of sense. Are you related to Adam Cushing?
I have only so many years left. With your plan, I'd see one Rose Bowl maybe (if I live another 15), but plenty of bad football is guaranteed. No, thanks. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a Rose Bowl win which still might come if we continue to win lesser bowls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Pile Driver
You'd rather go 7-6 and win a lower-tier bowl game than be the Big Ten champs and lose in the Rose Bowl.

You make a lot of sense. Are you related to Adam Cushing?
As I said, I get as frustrated with Fitz as anyone, but he has sustained a level of success. Barnett has two good years out of eight (I think?).
In fact I don't think Fitz could do what Barney did (inspire a long term loser), but I also don't think Barney could do what Fitz does ( stay with a program after initial success needs rebuilding and filed a fairly consistent team annually).
 
Fit is just as important as talent and academic profile to FItz.

Well, then, it stands to reason that Coach Fitz needs to find a better "fit" from the guys he is recruiting - because we haven't won a division title, let alone a Big Ten title, with this fit-based recruiting. I miss November games that matter, which we had with Barnett's teams, which were apparently just a band of "misfits", if my reading comprehension is good enough to understand Corbi's point :)
 
Last edited:
Barnett has two good years out of eight (

"Good" years?? Barnett's teams won the damn Big 10 and finished 8th and 15th in the final AP poll. If that is your definition of "good" then NU hasn't been good since then.

And BTW Barnett was at NU for 7 seasons not 8.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT