[NU Sports] Now THAT was a game!

[Beamsley, Jeff]

Dennis,
 
Just because you choose to repeat your claims in a louder fashion doesn't make them any more convincing.
 
We clearly disagree.
 
In the absence of any facts, that would suggest a standoff which is where this appeared to be heading.
 
Fortunately your brief unsuccessful foray into the land of facts gave me an idea. 
 
I spent a little time compiling NU's football record in the modern era. 
 
I've defined the modern era beginning with GB's breakout year of 1995 because NU football changed that year. 
 
>From the time of Ara until GB, coaches, players, students, faculty, and administration thought exactly as you do. The only way to be competitive in the BT was to recruit the same types of players that the perennial powers in the BT recruited. NU coaches also believed, as you do, that they were handicapped by our admission policy and our commitment to graduate all our kids with real degrees. So, not surprisingly, they all failed and NU football became a national joke. 
 
GB changed all that. He turned NU's perceived weakness into a recruiting advantage. He specifically recruited a particular kind of kid. They were smart, under sized, under appreciated, over achievers. They came in with a chip on their shoulder because other programs passed them over. He used that chip to motivate them to greatness. He put NU football back on the map. Every NU coach since has used that same formula to build a surprising record of success.
 
Email doesn't handle tables very well, so you'll have to trust that I've done my math correctly.
 
Our overall record in the BT during the modern era is 57-63 or 48%. There were certainly some lean years, but even given that, we have winning records against half the league (Minny, Indiana, Illinois, Wisky, and Iowa). We are also clearly competitive with MSU (45%) and Purdue (40%). We have only been dominated by the same three teams that have dominated the conference UoM (33%), PSU (27%), and OSU (10%). 
 
Here's a little more detail by coach.
 
>From 1995-1998 GB had a 50% or better record against every BT team but PSU and OSU. Unfortunately, the manner of his exit resulted in an ofer the BT in 1998 and seriously damaged the program.
 
As a result, I don't think it fair to count 1999 for RW because recruiting tanked, GB's players were disillusioned, and RW brought in a very different "tough-love" style. Even with that and Wheeler's death which slowed the program again, RW rebuilt football to a point where we were competitive with half the league. 
 
Unfortunately, RW's passing forced us to start over again and 2006 was another lost year. Since then Fitz exceeded RW's mark with a 50% or better record against six teams (Minny, Purdue, Indiana, Ill, Wisky, and Iowa). We still have work to do against UoM (33%), MSU (25%), PSU (0%), and OSU(0%) but the program is on the upswing in visibility, attitude, and recruiting.
 
Looked at in this fashion, NU football has overcome two very disruptive coaching changes and in each case rebounded in short order to become competitive in the league. Unfortunately, Wheeler's passing affected RW's ability to take the team to the next level. If you take these "lost" years out of the equation, NU's winning percentage jumps to 64% with winning records against seven and competitive records against everyone else but OSU. 
 
Fitz is poised to take us to the next level. He has recruited even better than RW and isn't burdened with Wheeler's legacy.  There is every reason to expect his teams to improve on his already impressive record. 
 
I think on this small point we agree. The team will get better because Fitz will recruit better players. Where we disagree is your view that we will never be competitive with the likes of OSU without some change to our admission standards.
 
You are right that we have only won one game from OSU in the modern era. Is that evidence of some unique Northwestern weakness, or just OSU's overall dominance of the league?
 
During the modern era OSU has a winning record against every team in the BT and an overall BT winning percentage of 78%. We have a better record against OSU than Minny, Iowa, and Indiana. MSU has just one more win than us. Purdue and Ill have two. Wisconsin has one of the best percentages against OSU with 4 wins (40%). But Northwestern beat Wisconsin as many times in the modern era as OSU.
 
So what does all this say about Northwestern?
 
First of all, if OSU is Goliath in this tale, they beat everyone, not just us.  Admission standards don't appear to be a factor in who has success against OSU.  No one does.  
 
If they are the yardstick against which all others teams in the BT are measured, Northwestern with all of it's perceived weaknesses and lost years still managed to be in the middle of the pack. 
 
So it's not just NU.  Everyone in this league including those that can recruit the same sorts of players as OSU are all trying to figure out how to beat them.  No one has figured it out yet.  But I think at this point, Fitz has as good a chance as anyone else in this league to beat OSU.
 
Your claims that "the other guy, who doesn't have those weaknesses and also plays within a team concept, will almost always defeat you." and "The hard-working, more talented team will beat the hard-working, less talented team nine times out of ten." simply don't hold up to the facts.
 
Over 15 years we are consistently beating teams that, in your estimation, we shouldn't. It can't just be, as you suggested, that they took NU for granted every year. Iowa and Wisconsin certainly haven't taken us for granted, yet we still beat them. Illinois gets better recruits than us every year, sends more kids to the NFL than us, beats OSU more than us, is our bitter in-state rival, and we OWN them. 
 
As others have posted, we have a remarkable record of winning close games. 
 
I haven't looked at performance against the spread lately but I recall at one point we also had a remarkable record of underdog wins. 
 
There is something going on here that is beyond the simple equation of talent reflected in Rivals recruit ratings.
 
Something is driving the success of this program in ways that defy conventional wisdom.
 
It is something that Pat Fitzgerald clearly understands. That's why he's here and having the success he has had. 
 
It is something that you just seem unwilling to admit.
 
That's too bad.
 
I guess it will remain your loss.
 
Jeff



The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.


From: nwu-sports-bounces at tssi.com on behalf of Dennis W. Brandt
Sent: Mon 11/23/2009 3:39 PM
To: nwu-sports at tssi.com
Subject: Re: [NU Sports] Now THAT was a game!



Re: Jeff Beamsley's response

> The same thing is true here at Northwestern.  We don't have to become
> Ohio State in order to beat them.

But you have to become as talented as Ohio State if you are to defeat them more than once every three decades (and only then when our better year coincides with one of their rare down years).  It is no coincidence that our Big Ten championships in '95 and '00 came in years in which we did not play them.

> Competition isn't only about raw ability, otherwise why play the game?  You can just have
> everyone pull out their Rivals ratings, add them up, and the group with
> the higher score gets the W.  I understand that this is a difficult
> concept for you to gasp, but it is not theoretical.  You only have to
> look at the results.  At least in the case of Northwestern, Goliath does
> not win 98% of the time.

And you don't seem to grasp that there isn't one bit of sense in your statement.  In the last 45 years, we have defeated Ohio State twice (and otherwise usually get slaughtered), Notre Dame once, and Michigan five times, so Goliath does usually win.  OK, it ain't the hyperbolic 98%, but it's way more than 50%.

> I suggest that the secret to NU's success is our belief that team play
> can overcome individual weakness.

To some extent, yes, but the other guy, who doesn't have those weaknesses and also plays within a team concept, will almost always defeat you.  When some of those great teams do lose, it often because they took the other team for granted.

> As far as your compliment - "well coached, pretty good players working
> their hearts out"; it has a hint of condescension, particularly in the
> context of this discussion about "talent".  Perhaps that was unintended,
> but the subtext I read was "pretty good players but you're still no Ohio
> State".  I disagree.  The way this team is playing right now, if Ohio
> State were on the schedule next week, we'd beat them too.

I rarely say things I don't intend, and describing my statement as condescending demonstrates an elitist attitude.  Fact:  We haven't been even close to being Ohio State in talent in the 45 years I've watched NU football.  If you find the truth condescending, condescend away.  This year's Northwestern team is well coached, they do work their hearts out, and their talent level is "pretty good," which means they are a hell of lot better than most of the teams they've fielded over the years.  They are a bunch of kids to be admired, but they certainly are not a great football team.

> To that end, what Fitz IS saying is that the '95 season is his
> expectation for every team every year.  It just depends on how hard the
> players and staff are willing to work and how much of themselves are
> they willing to invest in becoming a team that believes it can win. 

I have no doubt that Fitz expects his teams to win every year.  It's some on this board whose attitudes toward the means to that end that I question.  It is silly to suggest that the likes of Ohio State, Penn State, Florida, Texas, etc. are poorly coached and that Northwestern somehow has a patent on hard work the others don't understand.  The hard-working, more talented team will beat the hard-working, less talented team nine times out of ten.

> National Championships are catching lightening in a bottle for everyone.

But we've never gotten so much as a sip out of the bottle except for '95, and we blew that with a loss to second-tier Miami and a weak pass rush that did nothing to stop USC's passing attack.  It was a wonderful ride in '95, but, as they used to say on That Was the Week That Was, "It's over.  Let it go."

> You can bet that winning a NC is one of the goals of OSU every year, why is it any less realistic for NU?

Because we yet lack the talent even to dream of such a thing happening.  If we are ever to reach that lofty perch - and I'm certain Fitz is and will continue to make every effort to do just that - he must raise the depth and level of talent above what it is now and maintain it year in, year out, a fact that is certainly clearer to him than us.  BUT, if the university ties one hand tied behind his back, that will be virtually impossible.  Perhaps Fitz can steal the few top prospects from Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, etc. and cobble together a national power that can whoop up on Florida, more power to him, but that is not realistic expection ongoing, if ever can be.  If anyone can, it's Fitz.

Talent:  If you want to win, you got to have it.  If you don't, you lose.
_______________________________________________
nwu-sports site list
nwu-sports at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports