ADVERTISEMENT

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

Yes, we need to recreate the Barnett miracle! Let's hire an assistant from a national championship team (Clemson, Alabama, Ohio St?) who's never been a head coach to work under the academic restrictions here and see if we can do it again! Great plan (sarcasm alert).
 
As I said, I get as frustrated with Fitz as anyone, but he has sustained a level of success.

How are you defining sustained success? Big Ten titles? Zero. Rose Bowls? Zero. BCS Bowls or Playoff Appearances? Zero. Number one rankings? Zero. Top 10 rankings? Zero. Wins vs. Ohio State? Zero. Wins vs. Michigan? One (I think).

Here's a big one. Big Ten record? 41-48. Better than former NU men's basketball coach Bill Carmody (jaw dropping 70-150), but what if Fitz had to play the top tier Big Ten teams twice in a season on occasion like NU men's hoops does? We all love Fitz's personality. He recruits hard, and his players play hard and graduate on time, so we just ignore the fact that he's a losing Big Ten coach.
 
"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.

Yeah, uh, but we won a Gator Bowl! (Pounds chest.)
 
How are you defining sustained success? Big Ten titles? Zero. Rose Bowls? Zero. BCS Bowls or Playoff Appearances? Zero. Number one rankings? Zero. Top 10 rankings? Zero. Wins vs. Ohio State? Zero. Wins vs. Michigan? One (I think).

Here's a big one. Big Ten record? 41-48. Better than former NU men's basketball coach Bill Carmody (jaw dropping 70-150), but what if Fitz had to play the top tier Big Ten teams twice in a season on occasion like NU men's hoops does? We all love Fitz's personality. He recruits hard, and his players play hard and graduate on time, so we just ignore the fact that he's a losing Big Ten coach.

Sup, Feli?
 
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 :)

It's a process. barnett's approach got us to the top quicker but did not have staying power. I think FItz's approach has taken longer but I believe it will result in long term success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StreamCat
It's a process. barnett's approach got us to the top quicker but did not have staying power. I think FItz's approach has taken longer but I believe it will result in long term success.

Alright. I can buy that line of reasoning. That's a fair point.

We can see whether it pans out or not with time, so that probably means we'd want some sort of benchmarks. How much time is this going to take? And what do we call long term success? How is that measured?
 
Last edited:
How are you defining sustained success? Big Ten titles? Zero. Rose Bowls? Zero. BCS Bowls or Playoff Appearances? Zero. Number one rankings? Zero. Top 10 rankings? Zero. Wins vs. Ohio State? Zero. Wins vs. Michigan? One (I think).

Here's a big one. Big Ten record? 41-48. Better than former NU men's basketball coach Bill Carmody (jaw dropping 70-150), but what if Fitz had to play the top tier Big Ten teams twice in a season on occasion like NU men's hoops does? We all love Fitz's personality. He recruits hard, and his players play hard and graduate on time, so we just ignore the fact that he's a losing Big Ten coach.

Ok, we get it, you think Fitz is a swell guy and not do good as a coach. So tell us all, who exactly do you think would do better that doesn't have a National Championship Title next to their name?
 
Yes, we need to recreate the Barnett miracle! Let's hire an assistant from a national championship team (Clemson, Alabama, Ohio St?) who's never been a head coach to work under the academic restrictions here and see if we can do it again! Great plan (sarcasm alert).

Call the Touchdown play!

I can't even imagine all the out of context record quotes that we'll all be subjected to if the Cats don't win big this year!

Barnett did a great job changing the culture and for that we are grateful, but some act like we were going to beat OSU, Michigan consistently if he stayed . Balderdash. He was used up by the end of the 7th year. He wasn't even believing his own message, so he left. Guess what a quick ascent and equally quick decent at Colorado that they still haven't fully recovered from.

The right guy for the job is here right now.
 
Alright. I can buy that line of reasoning. That's a fair point.

We can see whether it pans out or not with time, so that probably means we'd want some sort of benchmarks. How much time is this going to take? And what do we call long term success? How is that measured?

Well, I think we are already seeing the consistency and staying power. FItz's run of bowl game appearances is unparalleled in NU history. I do think that after 10+ full years at the helm, it is time to show we are capable of competing with the elites of our conference. The pieces are in place on the field and assuming we stay relatively healthy, I would be very disappointed to not make it to Indy this year. It's time for FItz to show that under his leadership this program can be more than consistently competitive. It's time to take the next step.
 
Well, I think we are already seeing the consistency and staying power. FItz's run of bowl game appearances is unparalleled in NU history. I do think that after 10+ full years at the helm, it is time to show we are capable of competing with the elites of our conference. The pieces are in place on the field and assuming we stay relatively healthy, I would be very disappointed to not make it to Indy this year. It's time for FItz to show that under his leadership this program can be more than consistently competitive. It's time to take the next step.

2 for 2. That's another perfectly fair and completely reasonable position that I can buy off on.
 
Well, I think we are already seeing the consistency and staying power. FItz's run of bowl game appearances is unparalleled in NU history. I do think that after 10+ full years at the helm, it is time to show we are capable of competing with the elites of our conference. The pieces are in place on the field and assuming we stay relatively healthy, I would be very disappointed to not make it to Indy this year. It's time for FItz to show that under his leadership this program can be more than consistently competitive. It's time to take the next step.

It's a little bit surprising that it has taken 10 years to be "capable of competing with the elites of our conference." Just a couple of years before he took over, didn't we beat OSU? Have we beat them since then? (Answer: No.)

We were "capable of competing with the elites of our conference" before Fitz. By now shouldn't we be competing with the elites of the country? Just saying. Ten years is no joke.
 
It's a little bit surprising that it has taken 10 years to be "capable of competing with the elites of our conference." Just a couple of years before he took over, didn't we beat OSU? Have we beat them since then? (Answer: No.)

We were "capable of competing with the elites of our conference" before Fitz. By now shouldn't we be competing with the elites of the country? Just saying. Ten years is no joke.[/QUOTe


We are never going to have the consistent amount of talent that OSU does. And not a whole lot of teams have beaten OSU during that time. Heck we do not play them but about every 3rd year and that last couple times we played them, we had them on the ropes. And guess what. Barney did not beat them either.
 
so we just ignore the fact that he's a losing Big Ten coach.

For the record, Gary Barnett was also a losing coach at NU. His overall B1G record was 23-33 (.411) and his overall record was 35-45-1 (.432). He had those two magnificent years where he went 15-1 in conference (still shocking after all these years), but he was 8-32 in the other five, including two 0-8s. He had two winning Big Ten seasons during his seven years in Evanston.

Fitz is 77-62 (.554) overall and 41-48 (.461) Big Ten, better than Barnett on both counts -- though we all know the program was in much better shape when he took over. He finished above .500 in the Big Ten five times in 11 years but has never came close to matching Barnett's highs.
 
It's a little bit surprising that it has taken 10 years to be "capable of competing with the elites of our conference." Just a couple of years before he took over, didn't we beat OSU? Have we beat them since then? (Answer: No.)

We were "capable of competing with the elites of our conference" before Fitz. By now shouldn't we be competing with the elites of the country? Just saying. Ten years is no joke.

I am not talking about a one off win. How many times did we beat OSU prior to that victory by Walker's team. We have never had a football program that was able to consistently compete over multiple seasons with the elites of our conference. I believe FItz has the program in a position to do so. It's time to take that next step.
 
He was used up by the end of the 7th year. He wasn't even believing his own message, so he left. Guess what a quick ascent and equally quick decent at Colorado that they still haven't fully recovered from.

That's revisionist history. We did NOT suck in 1998 because Barnett "wasn't even believing his own message."

In 1997, we went 5-7 because D'Wayne Bates got hurt during the week one shutout of Oklahoma. Bates missed 11 of 12 games. We lost to Wake by 7, Rice by 6, Wisky by 1, and #2 PSU by 3 points.

You don't think Bates would have had an impact on those games?

If losing Bates destroyed 1997, Lloyd Abramson ruined 1998 way back in 1995. Let's step back to spring of 1995. Abramson was anointed the starting QB -- as a RS frosh -- after spring practice. He quit football in August 1995, literally a few days before camp. Schnur, Chris Hamdorf, and Tim Hughes battled for the starting gig. Schnur won and the rest was history.

Fast forward to summer 1997, and Schnur's eligibility is up. Tim Hughes had started at QB way, way back in '94 but couldn't complete 50% of his passes. That was with Darnell Autry and Dennis Lundy lugging the leather in '94. If you couldn't complete 50% with those two in the backfield drawing the safeties up, it was going to be problem. Why else do you think Barnett recruited Abramson and was ready to hand him the job as a RS frosh in '95?

Hughes was the '97 starter and then Bates goes down. Losing season.

Now we're in 1998 and Hughes and Hamdorf was gone. We were supposed to have a 3-year starter at QB, but instead, we've got two rookies, Gavin Hoffman (who becomes the starter) and Nick Kreinbrink. Hoffman was really indecisive, but you could see that he had potential. Just wasn't ready yet. By the end of the season, he was in touch with Penn about going to Wharton and that's where he went.

Back in the summer of 1995, everybody thought that losing the projected 4-year starting QB would torpedo 1995, but in actuality, Abramson's departure damaged 1997 and 1998. Barney recruited a replacement, Hoffman, but Gav was too green. The whole team was rebuilding by then, but the talent coming in was unbelievable.

It's B.S. to say Barney "wasn't even believing his own message." That wasn't the problem. Cycling in a young team to replace a Rose Bowl squad was the problem. Doing it without an experienced QB or RB was a problem.
 
Last edited:
For the record, Gary Barnett was also a losing coach at NU. His overall B1G record was 23-33 (.411) and his overall record was 35-45-1 (.432). He had those two magnificent years where he went 15-1 in conference (still shocking after all these years), but he was 8-32 in the other five, including two 0-8s. He had two winning Big Ten seasons during his seven years in Evanston.

Fitz is 77-62 (.554) overall and 41-48 (.461) Big Ten, better than Barnett on both counts -- though we all know the program was in much better shape when he took over. He finished above .500 in the Big Ten five times in 11 years but has never came close to matching Barnett's highs.

Uhhh, yeah, but Barnett took over a garbage pile and I'm not talking about Mount Trashmore.

If "we all know the program was in much better shape when (Fitzgerald) took over" then what the hell, man? You just admitted your response sucks.
 
I am not talking about a one off win. How many times did we beat OSU prior to that victory by Walker's team. We have never had a football program that was able to consistently compete over multiple seasons with the elites of our conference. I believe FItz has the program in a position to do so. It's time to take that next step.

Well, of course that would be wonderful. I can't really do anything but hope you're right. There's no question that FItz is here for the next few years unless he does so well that he gets hired by the Bears or something. And if that were to happen, I wouldn't be able to complain.
 
That's revisionist history. We did NOT suck in 1998 because Barnett "wasn't even believing his own message."

In 1997, we went 5-7 because D'Wayne Bates got hurt during the week one shutout of Oklahoma. Bates missed 11 of 12 games. We lost to Wake by 7, Rice by 6, Wisky by 1, and #2 PSU by 3 points.

You don't think Bates would have had an impact on those games?

If losing Bates destroyed 1997, Lloyd Abramson ruined 1998 way back in 1995. Let's step back to spring of 1995. Abramson was anointed the starting QB -- as a frosh -- after spring practice. He quit football in August 1995, literally a few days before camp. Schnur, Chris Hamdorf, and Tim Hughes battled for the starting gig. Schnur won and the rest was history.

Fast forward to summer 1997, and Schnur's eligibility is up. Tim Hughes had started at QB way, way back in '94 but couldn't complete 50% of his passes. That was with Darnell Autry and Dennis Lundy lugging the leather in '94. If you couldn't complete 50% with those two in the backfield drawing the safeties up, it was going to be problem. Why else do you think Barnett recruited Abramson and was ready to hand him the job as a frosh in '95?

Hughes was the '97 starter and then Bates goes down. Losing season.

Now we're in 1998 and Hughes and Hamdorf was gone. We were supposed to have a 3-year starter at QB, but instead, we've got two rookies, Gavin Hoffman (who becomes the starter) and Nick Kreinbrink. Hoffman was really indecisive, but you could see that he had potential. Just wasn't ready yet. By the end of the season, he was in touch with Penn about going to Wharton and that's where he went.

Back in the summer of 1995, everybody thought that losing the projected 4-year starting QB would torpedo 1995, but in actuality, Abramson's departure damaged 1997 and 1998. Barney recruited a replacement, Hoffman, but Gav was too green. The whole team was rebuilding by then, but the talent coming in was unbelievable.

It's B.S. to say Barney "wasn't even believing his own message." That wasn't the problem. Cycling in a young team to replace a Rose Bowl squad was the problem. Doing it without an experienced QB or RB was a problem.

Part of consistently competing with the elites means having a roster that is deep enough that it can sustain the loss of a top player without missing a beat.
 
Part of consistently competing with the elites means having a roster that is deep enough that it can sustain the loss of a top player without missing a beat.

No argument there. There's no question that Fitzgerald has been consistent. But where's the peak and should it take 10 years?
 
That's revisionist history. We did NOT suck in 1998 because Barnett "wasn't even believing his own message."

In 1997, we went 5-7 because D'Wayne Bates got hurt during the week one shutout of Oklahoma. Bates missed 11 of 12 games. We lost to Wake by 7, Rice by 6, Wisky by 1, and #2 PSU by 3 points.

You don't think Bates would have had an impact on those games?

If losing Bates destroyed 1997, Lloyd Abramson ruined 1998 way back in 1995. Let's step back to spring of 1995. Abramson was anointed the starting QB -- as a frosh -- after spring practice. He quit football in August 1995, literally a few days before camp. Schnur, Chris Hamdorf, and Tim Hughes battled for the starting gig. Schnur won and the rest was history.

Fast forward to summer 1997, and Schnur's eligibility is up. Tim Hughes had started at QB way, way back in '94 but couldn't complete 50% of his passes. That was with Darnell Autry and Dennis Lundy lugging the leather in '94. If you couldn't complete 50% with those two in the backfield drawing the safeties up, it was going to be problem. Why else do you think Barnett recruited Abramson and was ready to hand him the job as a frosh in '95?

Hughes was the '97 starter and then Bates goes down. Losing season.

Now we're in 1998 and Hughes and Hamdorf was gone. We were supposed to have a 3-year starter at QB, but instead, we've got two rookies, Gavin Hoffman (who becomes the starter) and Nick Kreinbrink. Hoffman was really indecisive, but you could see that he had potential. Just wasn't ready yet. By the end of the season, he was in touch with Penn about going to Wharton and that's where he went.

Back in the summer of 1995, everybody thought that losing the projected 4-year starting QB would torpedo 1995, but in actuality, Abramson's departure damaged 1997 and 1998. Barney recruited a replacement, Hoffman, but Gav was too green. The whole team was rebuilding by then, but the talent coming in was unbelievable.

It's B.S. to say Barney "wasn't even believing his own message." That wasn't the problem. Cycling in a young team to replace a Rose Bowl squad was the problem. Doing it without an experienced QB or RB was a problem.

You have excuses for your excuses. I can make the same claim on some of Fitz's team's regarding injuries. Injuries happen, and the head coach should be reasonably prepared for such occurance. Who is responsible for the depth chart?

Barney had a losing record and two winless records in conference. That's a fact. He deserves supreme credit for the cultural turn around, but we stunk for over half the seasons he was here. Sure, there are reasons for why we stunk, including injuries, but you are what you are.

I hate the Barney comparisons and 20 years should've enough time to let it go. Barney had some major disadvantages to Fitz and he can be credited with setting the table for future coaches. He also had a few breaks in the rose bowl season too. I am really not trying to discredit Barney or anything else he accomplished, but it is an apples to oranges debate any way you look at it. The landscape of 2017 is not the same as 1995. Some of the very obstacles that existed in 1995 Still exist.
 
No argument there. There's no question that Fitzgerald has been consistent. But where's the peak and should it take 10 years?

You do realize we are talking about NU, right? The track record of our program would cause some to argue that it can never be done let alone do it as quickly as 10 years. In addition, It's not like FItz inherited a stacked team that was coming off multiple bowl appearances. Lastly I will say that it would be unfair to not consider his age/experience and circumstances under which he took over the program when judging the job he has done. Considering all the above, I think he has done a remarkable job. We'll see if he is capable of taking it to the next level.
 
Uhhh, yeah, but Barnett took over a garbage pile and I'm not talking about Mount Trashmore.

If "we all know the program was in much better shape when (Fitzgerald) took over" then what the hell, man? You just admitted your response sucks.

You're right. He did take over a trash pile and got it to the Rose Bowl in Year 4. That's maybe the single best coaching job in college football history. But then, after two straight Big Ten titles, they were right back down to 0-8 within two years. That's why I'm bringing up the records. You stated Fitz was a losing Big Ten coach; I wanted to make sure we were all clear that Barnett was a losing Big Ten coach, too, and in fact had a losing record overall. Even after the Big Ten titles, he was a losing coach again in his final two years, when he went 3-13 in conference. Barnett had two magnificent years but was abysmal in the other five. Fitz is a more consistent winner, both in and out of conference. If you want to point out that Fitz hasn't come close to a B1G title, then you also have to point out that he didn't go 0-8, either.
 
Alright. I can buy that line of reasoning. That's a fair point.

We can see whether it pans out or not with time, so that probably means we'd want some sort of benchmarks. How much time is this going to take? And what do we call long term success? How is that measured?

Fitz is 41 and 48 in the B1G. There is a new football facility coming on line. Lets say before the first group who actually gets to use the facility, graduates, he is better than 500. that would mean he would have to be a little better than 5 and 4 over the next 5 years. That isn't really that unreasonable and predictors point to a good start at making up some ground this year. The benefits of the new facility should be in full bloom after that for a decade. Then Fitz will be ready to retire.
 
Last edited:
You do realize we are talking about NU, right? The track record of our program would cause some to argue that it can never be done let alone do it as quickly as 10 years. In addition, It's not like FItz inherited a stacked team that was coming off multiple bowl appearances. Lastly I will say that it would be unfair to not consider his age/experience and circumstances under which he took over the program when judging the job he has done. Considering all the above, I think he has done a remarkable job. We'll see if he is capable of taking it to the next level.
In BB they did
 
Well, I think we are already seeing the consistency and staying power. FItz's run of bowl game appearances is unparalleled in NU history. I do think that after 10+ full years at the helm, it is time to show we are capable of competing with the elites of our conference. The pieces are in place on the field and assuming we stay relatively healthy, I would be very disappointed to not make it to Indy this year. It's time for FItz to show that under his leadership this program can be more than consistently competitive. It's time to take the next step.

I feel like every year I have to remind some folks that to date NU has the worst facilities, worst crowds and highest academic requirements in the conference. Barnett performed a miracle but he didn't change any of the factors I mentioned compared to the other teams in the conference. Practice facilities will soon be at the top of the conference. That should help but there are still lots of obstacles to recruiting and competing at Northwestern.

He's a really good coach that is committed to the program. I think we will break through if Thorson stays healthy and we can generate a pass rush.
 
I feel like every year I have to remind some folks that to date NU has the worst facilities, worst crowds and highest academic requirements in the conference. Barnett performed a miracle but he didn't change any of the factors I mentioned compared to the other teams in the conference. Practice facilities will soon be at the top of the conference. That should help but there are still lots of obstacles to recruiting and competing at Northwestern.

He's a really good coach that is committed to the program. I think we will break through if Thorson stays healthy and we can generate a pass rush.

+1
 
In BB they did

I've always felt that the it was easier to turn around a basketball program quickly as compared to football. All you need is 1-2 studs in back to back classes and you can compete. In football you need 10+ studs in every class for 3-4 years before you have a chance. Much harder in football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoralSpringsCat
I've always felt that the it was easier to turn around a basketball program quickly as compared to football. All you need is 1-2 studs in back to back classes and you can compete. In football you need 10+ studs in every class for 3-4 years before you have a chance. Much harder in football.

Absolutely.
 
That's revisionist history. We did NOT suck in 1998 because Barnett "wasn't even believing his own message."

In 1997, we went 5-7 because D'Wayne Bates got hurt during the week one shutout of Oklahoma. Bates missed 11 of 12 games. We lost to Wake by 7, Rice by 6, Wisky by 1, and #2 PSU by 3 points.

You don't think Bates would have had an impact on those games?

If losing Bates destroyed 1997, Lloyd Abramson ruined 1998 way back in 1995. Let's step back to spring of 1995. Abramson was anointed the starting QB -- as a RS frosh -- after spring practice. He quit football in August 1995, literally a few days before camp. Schnur, Chris Hamdorf, and Tim Hughes battled for the starting gig. Schnur won and the rest was history.

Fast forward to summer 1997, and Schnur's eligibility is up. Tim Hughes had started at QB way, way back in '94 but couldn't complete 50% of his passes. That was with Darnell Autry and Dennis Lundy lugging the leather in '94. If you couldn't complete 50% with those two in the backfield drawing the safeties up, it was going to be problem. Why else do you think Barnett recruited Abramson and was ready to hand him the job as a RS frosh in '95?

Hughes was the '97 starter and then Bates goes down. Losing season.

Now we're in 1998 and Hughes and Hamdorf was gone. We were supposed to have a 3-year starter at QB, but instead, we've got two rookies, Gavin Hoffman (who becomes the starter) and Nick Kreinbrink. Hoffman was really indecisive, but you could see that he had potential. Just wasn't ready yet. By the end of the season, he was in touch with Penn about going to Wharton and that's where he went.

Back in the summer of 1995, everybody thought that losing the projected 4-year starting QB would torpedo 1995, but in actuality, Abramson's departure damaged 1997 and 1998. Barney recruited a replacement, Hoffman, but Gav was too green. The whole team was rebuilding by then, but the talent coming in was unbelievable.

It's B.S. to say Barney "wasn't even believing his own message." That wasn't the problem. Cycling in a young team to replace a Rose Bowl squad was the problem. Doing it without an experienced QB or RB was a problem.


You are missing so much regarding the demise of Barnett and NU football in 97 and 98, I don't know where to begin.

1. Abramson was known to be a high risk QB recruit because he was a flake of a personality. MSU and Michigan wouldn't touch him, even though he was a Michigan kid. Barnett took the risk and got burned. And Barnett had no plan B. Had Schnur not blossomed his last two years as an effective game manager, Barnett would have gone 0 for 7 recruiting QBs during his years in Evanston. That's 1-7 recruiting QBs that helped NU win games. Near misses and early quitters don't count. That's a .125 winning percentage.

2. You make no mention of the putrid 1995 recruiting class that Barnett was totally responsible for. That class was essentially a total whiff. Can you name the 97 and 98 starters from that class. They would have been juniors and seniors. You can't because there weren't any of any consequence. That was devastating to NU's chances of winning in those years.

3. Barnett's head was indeed elsewhere at the end of the 97 season. I have that on good authority from one of his coordinators.

4. No RBs to replace DAI? See point no. 1. Barnett had the opportunity. He didn't deliver.

5. How about no OLM that could move the LOS? Barnett batted less than .300 in successfully recruiting OLM to NU. His 93 and 96 OL classes were pretty good. His other OL classes were not. So when holdovers like Johnson and Kardos, and 93 guys like Padgett and others moved on, the OL pups from 96 were all they had to work with. It obviously didn't work.

6. Have you ever looked at the DBs Barnett recruited to NU. OMG. Really made things difficult for his DC after Ray (Peay holdover) and Martin ( We beat Army for him) moved on.

The great recruiter myth regarding Barnett has lived on for more than 20 years now. Why? Hell. I don't know why. His success in 95 and 96 was far more the result of having a bunch of great overachievers playing for him. A great staff working for him. A whole bunch of stars aligning. And his own motivational and game day coaching talents...which I believe were exceptional.

Barnett gets all the credit for the single greatest coaching achievement I have witnessed in my 50+ years of following sport. He also gets credit for virtually everything good that has happened to the program since. The change he created still inures to the benefit of the program today. My only point is that there is no need to make excuses for his swift fall from the top. He just never recruited all that well, with some glaring holes as mentioned above, after striking gold in 2 and 3 star seams in 93 and 94.

The program is in much better shape than when Barnett was at the helm. Then again, let's not forget that we now have a totally committed BOT, an insanely supportive President and possibly the best AD in the Country. Those factors make a HUGE difference. Look for the next step up that Corbi refers to beginning this year.

GOUNUII
 
You have excuses for your excuses. I can make the same claim on some of Fitz's team's regarding injuries. Injuries happen, and the head coach should be reasonably prepared for such occurance.

Oh, yeah? So which injuries on Pat's teams have kept us from winning the Big Ten? You're talking about missing D'Wayne Bates. I don't recall a player of that caliber missing 11 games in a recent season. Please share.
 
Gary Barnett changed the landscape of college football, in a way. Other schools said "If Northwestern can do it, why can't we", and the playing field got a lot more competitive. That, and ESPN began televising games nonstop and bowl games mushroomed. So did recruiting sites! Now we have league championship games and a 4-team playoff. The stakes have been raised considerably since Gary's miracle run. By any measure, Fitz has done a great job at Northwestern in the current climate. We are positioned to remain a solid, competitive program, which was a pipedream for those of us who lived through the Dark Ages. Enjoy!
 
First off, this isn't a B*tch post. Do I think Fitz is doing a great job? Hell yeah. But there are some questions I have that I'd like to hear some answers on.

1. Barnett recruited a top 15 class after one successful season with a crap stadium and a miserable AD in Taylor, and an Admin that was as tight as two coats of paint. The Albrieights #39 recruit, Harris', Anderson's, Benfley's, Brown's, Nyehnhuis'. He owned the best recruits in Wisconsin with Albreight, and John Navarre, etc. And the academic restrictions were maybe even tougher than what Fitz has to go through today. Without comparing how Barnett did it, and how Fitz is recruiting, what gives and why can't we get any Big League Top 100 studs? Granted our #1 recruit this year is great and a home grown dude but he is no better than a concensus #200 recruit. From there it drops off. And I don't buy all of the star rankings because close to 50 schools have 3.0 average star rankings whereas, back in the day, only about 30. There has been star inflation. But since Barnett got a top 15 recruiting ranking, why are we stuck at #45+ each year, at the end of the year? This suggest that we have room for improvement.

2. Smart schools. As I look at the private schools, I see suck programs like Duke and Vandy ahead of us this year with average star value. With a #1 practice facility in the nation, and a consistent solid program, what's the deal? While I can't fuss about Notre Dame or Stanford, or USC out recruiting us, isn't it fair to question why the Duke's and Vanderbilt's outgun us?

I admit I may be wrong, but just by looking at this, I'd say that Fitz is handicapped with stricter academic standards than Vandy or Duke. I don't mind that. I don't want problems here and I have no problem getting recruits who have to work harder over 5 years to get to a bowl game than a 5 star who muddies the program and leaves after 2. Not that a Christian McCafferty would muddy anything.

But the real stinker to my thinking is that Barnett actually did compete with all the top schools without even winning a bowl game. What gives? Something seems odd. And again, not a knock on Fitz because I like where this program is at. And as far as recruiting he is relentless and doesn't annoy me like Randy did or Carmody.

I'll be more impressed with Duke and Vandy when they start beating us consistently on the field, which I don't recall has been happening recently. In fact, I believe it's been the other way around.
 
I vote for Fitz over Barnett all day long -- as would the Northwestern administration. Sustained success over a one shot wonder is part of the Northwestern DNA imo.

.02
and, Go Cats !!
 
That's revisionist history. We did NOT suck in 1998 because Barnett "wasn't even believing his own message."

In 1997, we went 5-7 because D'Wayne Bates got hurt during the week one shutout of Oklahoma. Bates missed 11 of 12 games. We lost to Wake by 7, Rice by 6, Wisky by 1, and #2 PSU by 3 points.

You don't think Bates would have had an impact on those games?

If losing Bates destroyed 1997, Lloyd Abramson ruined 1998 way back in 1995. Let's step back to spring of 1995. Abramson was anointed the starting QB -- as a RS frosh -- after spring practice. He quit football in August 1995, literally a few days before camp. Schnur, Chris Hamdorf, and Tim Hughes battled for the starting gig. Schnur won and the rest was history.

Fast forward to summer 1997, and Schnur's eligibility is up. Tim Hughes had started at QB way, way back in '94 but couldn't complete 50% of his passes. That was with Darnell Autry and Dennis Lundy lugging the leather in '94. If you couldn't complete 50% with those two in the backfield drawing the safeties up, it was going to be problem. Why else do you think Barnett recruited Abramson and was ready to hand him the job as a RS frosh in '95?

Hughes was the '97 starter and then Bates goes down. Losing season.

Now we're in 1998 and Hughes and Hamdorf was gone. We were supposed to have a 3-year starter at QB, but instead, we've got two rookies, Gavin Hoffman (who becomes the starter) and Nick Kreinbrink. Hoffman was really indecisive, but you could see that he had potential. Just wasn't ready yet. By the end of the season, he was in touch with Penn about going to Wharton and that's where he went.

Back in the summer of 1995, everybody thought that losing the projected 4-year starting QB would torpedo 1995, but in actuality, Abramson's departure damaged 1997 and 1998. Barney recruited a replacement, Hoffman, but Gav was too green. The whole team was rebuilding by then, but the talent coming in was unbelievable.

It's B.S. to say Barney "wasn't even believing his own message." That wasn't the problem. Cycling in a young team to replace a Rose Bowl squad was the problem. Doing it without an experienced QB or RB was a problem.
No, not recruiting the right QB in 95 and 96 hurt 98
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoralSpringsCat
You're right. He did take over a trash pile and got it to the Rose Bowl in Year 4. That's maybe the single best coaching job in college football history. But then, after two straight Big Ten titles, they were right back down to 0-8 within two years. That's why I'm bringing up the records. You stated Fitz was a losing Big Ten coach; I wanted to make sure we were all clear that Barnett was a losing Big Ten coach, too, and in fact had a losing record overall. Even after the Big Ten titles, he was a losing coach again in his final two years, when he went 3-13 in conference. Barnett had two magnificent years but was abysmal in the other five. Fitz is a more consistent winner, both in and out of conference. If you want to point out that Fitz hasn't come close to a B1G title, then you also have to point out that he didn't go 0-8, either.

Lou: I don't think it's fair to say "they were both losing coaches" as the basis for comparison. The question is: how much did they improve the program from where it was when they started?

And when you look at it that way, there's simply no debate that GB improved the NU football team from where it was to what it became -- frankly more than any coach of any school in history that anybody her can think of without doing a ton of research to trot out some dude who turned Southwest BumbleF State around in the 20s or whatever. (Maybe there's somebody who did a better job elevating a program than GB did but if that guy exists, I'd like to hear about it...)

Yes, Fitz's teams are better on the whole than Walker's teams were. But not all that much better, and certainly nowhere near the realm of improvement from GB's teams - which were light years better than where they were before him.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT