NU's Dark Ages ('76-'81)

[GlideCat]

That's exactly right. The motivation for imposing the scholarship limit was because some big schools were warehousing players. I have a vague recollection of the Nebraska coach telling someone that he gave scholarships to any player he thought was being recruited seriously by his big rivals. I think he said that he knew most of those scholarship players would never see the field, but he would rather have them on his bench than on the field playing for for opponents. In those days it was also more difficult for players to transfer, so once a team landed a player, they had less mobility than they do today.

Bear Bryant was famous for that.

 

[docrugby1]

The thing I'll add to Strotz having been a disaster for NU sports and the university in general is that the belief by some was that Strotz was angling for an Ivy League invite (have read about such a notion here and there, but difficult to find a concrete source on that).

What gives credence to that notion, however, was NU scheduling and playing against an Ivy League school in '86 (first time there was a game btwn a B1G and IL school in 33 years), Princeton, which was unusual enough, but it was also an away game.

As bad as the 'Cats were during that time, still crushed the Tigers 37-0.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/28/sports/college-football-princeton-stymied-by-northwestern.html

Followed CFB fairly closely at the time (granted, had to rely on old media), but had no recollection of the match-up.



AB - don't think it was a lower emphasis on EC's as much as it was putting greater weight on certain EC's.

My hometown is Princeton NJ and I ventured to Palmer Stadium for the game. Palmer seated about 45,000 and there may have been 7,500 there

The highlight of the game was the announcement that the Northwestern Marching Band would perform and a single purple beret clad trumpeter appeared at the end of the stadium playing "Go U Northwestern"

 

[NJCat]

My hometown is Princeton NJ and I ventured to Palmer Stadium for the game. Palmer seated about 45,000 and there may have been 7,500 there

The highlight of the game was the announcement that the Northwestern Marching Band would perform and a single purple beret clad trumpeter appeared at the end of the stadium playing "Go U Northwestern"

I was at the game too. All I remember is how wet I got. Miserable day in a gloomy stadium watching a bad NU team beat down a dreadful Princeton team, and wondering what the heck I was doing there. Then making the short trek back to Bridgewater to dry out.

 

[Gladeskat]

Actually spoke to a few NU historians on this topic. Don't remember his name, but there is a guy at the library who knows more than anyone on this topic. He did echo Strotz effect. Another thing he mentioned, that is also overlooked but relevant, were the changes in scholarship number caps in the 70s and how that affected NU. Putting limits on schollies hurt the schools that had poor depth like NU.

No. It's thought to have had the opposite effect, i.e., it spread more talent over to "lesser" football programs. Putting limits on scholies prevented large schools from stockpiling talent and keeping them away from lesser programs.

 

[Gladeskat]

What would the goat eat? Dyche Stadium had that worn-smooth, hard-as-a-rock astroturf back then.

I don't know exactly when you were at NU, but when I was there ('74-'76), the field was Tartan-brand turf and it was well padded. It was probably the best artificial surface in the entire Big Ten.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

Although admittedly, I didn't read every word above, I think no one mentioned that the Little 8 pretty much sucked. I graduates in 84, and although we were surely terrible, including a 42-0 waxing from Utah, there were a lot of crappy teams in the old B1G. Yes we lost to ALL of them during the nadir, but they we're hardly carrying the conference banner.

Also, Dark ages notwithstanding, we are one of the losingest teams in CFB history. There were isolated good years, but we were hardly a perennial power.

Finally, the other big thing to me was depth. Lose a guy like Chuck Kern, give up 500 points.

We had some really good players, just not very many.

 

[pawildcat_rivals209725]

Thanks for all the good insight and theses. It will be put to good use.

I want to echo what many of you said- Northwestern DID have some good teams. 1903, 1926, 1930-31, 1936, 1940, 1948, 1962, and 1970-1971 were all bright spots for the 'Cats and it is safe to say that we have had Wildcat football players, which is to say that they were competitive and fought to do things the right way. In speaking with former students, fans, and some of the players on teams in the 70s and 80s, that was the general consensus. But like much in this world, lack of leadership can really break the dam. Thank goodness for men like Pat Ryan, Morty Shapiro, and of course Phillips and Fitz, to help bring athletics to the point where they SHOULD be (and believe me we still have a ways to go) and where they have a fighting chance to bring their ships to shore, as opposed to be thrown to the waters with a porous boat and palmetto branches for oars.

I find it ironic (and I am not trying to trample on a man's grave), but Strotz passed away November 4, 1994. The good fortunes of Northwestern football started the following season after Strotz's passing. Some might look at it as a symbolic passing from darkness to light. Food for thought...

Glad we are getting back- Go 'Cats!

The Cats were actually pretty good throughout the '30s into the early '40s (with a couple of down years here and there).

 

[pawildcat_rivals209725]

Although admittedly, I didn't read every word above, I think no one mentioned that the Little 8 pretty much sucked. I graduates in 84, and although we were surely terrible, including a 42-0 waxing from Utah, there were a lot of crappy teams in the old B1G. Yes we lost to ALL of them during the nadir, but they we're hardly carrying the conference banner.

Also, Dark ages notwithstanding, we are one of the losingest teams in CFB history. There were isolated good years, but we were hardly a perennial power.

Finally, the other big thing to me was depth. Lose a guy like Chuck Kern, give up 500 points.

We had some really good players, just not very many.

Well, the Dark Ages have a lot to do with us being one of the losingest teams in history. I once counted up seasonal records through the last two good Agase teams ('70-'71) and although we were under .500 in the Big Ten, the team's overall record was close to about .500 at that point. So though the Cats weren't a powerhouse, they wouldn't have been anything close to the losingest team at that point. But little things like 30-some game losing streaks will get you there quickly.

 

[NUCatVet]

Thanks for all the good insight and theses. It will be put to good use.

I want to echo what many of you said- Northwestern DID have some good teams. 1903, 1926, 1930-31, 1936, 1940, 1948, 1962, and 1970-1971 were all bright spots for the 'Cats and it is safe to say that we have had Wildcat football players, which is to say that they were competitive and fought to do things the right way. In speaking with former students, fans, and some of the players on teams in the 70s and 80s, that was the general consensus. But like much in this world, lack of leadership can really break the dam. Thank goodness for men like Pat Ryan, Morty Shapiro, and of course Phillips and Fitz, to help bring athletics to the point where they SHOULD be (and believe me we still have a ways to go) and where they have a fighting chance to bring their ships to shore, as opposed to be thrown to the waters with a porous boat and palmetto branches for oars.

I find it ironic (and I am not trying to trample on a man's grave), but Strotz passed away November 4, 1994. The good fortunes of Northwestern football started the following season after Strotz's passing. Some might look at it as a symbolic passing from darkness to light. Food for thought...

Glad we are getting back- Go 'Cats!

We owe way more to Pat Ryan than most people know about. It was not just the $$$; it was his quiet effective leadership! It’s time for us to earn a Big 10 championship for him.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

Well, the Dark Ages have a lot to do with us being one of the losingest teams in history. I once counted up seasonal records through the last two good Agase teams ('70-'71) and although we were under .500 in the Big Ten, the team's overall record was close to about .500 at that point. So though the Cats weren't a powerhouse, they wouldn't have been anything close to the losingest team at that point. But little things like 30-some game losing streaks will get you there quickly.

I agree with this, even in the larger scope of like 3-79-1 or whatever it was. Regardless, if you somehow adjust those years by adding, say, 2 wins a year (zero wins to two wins, years with 3 wins to five., we are still historically a weak program pre 1995. The particularly bad stretch was an anomaly, and it stigmatizes us to this day, but, at the margin, had we been mediocre instead of putrid, we would hardly be in anyone's all time great or even average programs

 

[GECat2]

I graduated college in 81 and went to Northwestern for Grad School. My college did not have a football team and instantly became a huge fan of the struggling Cats. The only positive during this time is that you could have sex with your girlfriend while parked in the west lot after the game because it would be empty!

 

[GlideCat]

I don't know exactly when you were at NU, but when I was there ('74-'76), the field was Tartan-brand turf and it was well padded. It was probably the best artificial surface in the entire Big Ten.

By 81 it was looking pretty rough. Obviously I was not playing on it so do not have first hand knowledge but I heard second hand complants about it.

 

[NU 71 72 74]

Just two words is all you need to know about the Dark Ages: Bob Strotz.

Ditto. You nailed it.

.02 And, Go Cats !!

 

[kaTNap]

By 81 it was looking pretty rough. Obviously I was not playing on it so do not have first hand knowledge but I heard secind hand complants about it.

I marched on it. The padding was pretty much flat by that time, and it was hard. Iowa's was worse, however - patches everywhere and hard as a rock. And then we marched a Bears game at Soldier, and the padding was so thick it was like marching on a pillow.

 

[pawildcat_rivals209725]

I marched on it. The padding was pretty much flat by that time, and it was hard. Iowa's was worse, however - patches everywhere and hard as a rock. And then we marched a Bears game at Soldier, and the padding was so thick it was like marching on a pillow.

I once covered a small-college playoff game in 1981 at Richmond (Va.) Stadium. Walked out onto the field after the game and couldn't believe how hard that surface was. It almost would have been like getting tackled on concrete. If I'd had a son who wanted to play football, I definitely would have tried to steer him away from that stuff. I guess the surfaces are better now, but I still have reservations about them.

 

[eastbaycat99]

I was at the game too. All I remember is how wet I got. Miserable day in a gloomy stadium watching a bad NU team beat down a dreadful Princeton team, and wondering what the heck I was doing there. Then making the short trek back to Bridgewater to dry out.

I don't think the 1986 team was quite as bad as you remember it. In some ways it epitomized how deep the hole the dark ages created was, and how hard it would be to establish a winning culture. This was the year after Denny Green left, and represented a full complement of his recruiting classes. It finished with a 4-7 record, and could easily have ended up with a winning record as it lost some games that it well could have won (five come to mind). Against Purdue, after narrowly missing what would have been a clinching first down when Mike Greenfield slipped, Purdue blocked a punt and barely made a field goal to win by a point. Peay went for a two point conversion to try to take a lead against Wisconsin with about 3 minutes to go, leading to a Wisky win. Against Duke, the Cats pretty much dominated, but had five drives inside the 25 yield 0 points, losing 16-7 after Duke scored a late touchdown. At MInnesota, NU scored to go ahead 17-0 right before half, and then gave up a return for a touchdown that started a meltdown. Finally, against Iowa, Greenfield had his arm tipped as he passed and the ball was intercepted and returned for the winning touchdown in a 27-20 loss.

Had Green stayed a few more years, I think the drought would have ended earlier. It is hard to tell what the trajectory of the program would have been, but the 1986 team was really pretty competitive.

 

[DkeCat]

No. It's thought to have had the opposite effect, i.e., it spread more talent over to "lesser" football programs. Putting limits on scholies prevented large schools from stockpiling talent and keeping them away from lesser programs.

thought = yes
actually = no

 

[StreamCat]

thought = yes
actually = no

Huh?

 

[Gladeskat]

thought = yes
actually = no

I don't buy the competitive depth hypothesis because it holds for ALL schools, including (particularly) the traditional powers. How is our so-called competitive depth advantage going to overcome a team with huge numbers of players and competitive depth at a higher talent level? All schools should have had competitive depth back then, but the same teams won year after year because their 5th string RB could start for most teams. Ask Hank or Jerry Brown or any other older coach if you have any questions.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I graduated college in 81 and went to Northwestern for Grad School. My college did not have a football team and instantly became a huge fan of the struggling Cats. The only positive during this time is that you could have sex with your girlfriend while parked in the west lot after the game because it would be empty!

I always preferred the stadium. More room to get into position.

 

[GlideCat]

thought = yes
actually = no

The trick is that we are standing in a football landscape right now where Stanford, NU, and to a lesser extent Duke are competitive. Many other non-mainstream programs such as Boise State and TCU have been even more competitive. While the powerhouses have remained largely unchanged, the middle tier of teams has increased, and the bottom feeders (like Illinois ) have decreased in numbers.

This change has been caused by something. The scholarship cap is the most likely.

 

[ChappyCat]

Many folks do not remember that we were a darn good football team in the early '70s under Alex Agase. We finished 2nd in the Big Ten one year and beat OSU. Purdue hired Agase for more money. Our unwillingness to retain Agase was a signal that times were changing.
President Robert Strotz believed that success in athletics diminished the academic stature of the school, and intentionally sought to destroy NU's sports programs. He completely failed to appreciate the unique character of NU, combining Big Ten athletics, a fun-loving lakeshore campus, and a top-notch academic program. In the 1960s, NU was known as the "North Shore Country Club", a school for smart rich young men and women. As late as the mid-'70s, I had a professor tell me that the current students were all "kiss-asses" (he used a stronger word indicative of greater sexual contact than kissing") who wanted good grades and unseamly strove for success. He found it all very dirty. He said that young men should spend their spring afternoons on Deering Meadow, throwing footballs and moving on pretty coeds. That attitude still had remnants at NU in the '70s, and Strotz wanted to change it . Strotz had both the Greek system and intercollegiate athletics in his sights. He hoped to remake NU into the U of C. We had horrible facilities, low coaching salaries, and miniscule recruiting budgets during his tenure. On occasion, I would work out with frat brothers who were on the football or baseball teams. They all shared a weight room under Dyche that was not much better than that in Patton. I never saw a weight or conditioning coach there.
By the early '80s, alumni pressure and unrest on the Board of Trustees produced a change in the school's orientation to athletics. Strotz was forced to hire a new AD - Doug Single from Stanford, a bright, dynamic, and charismatic young man who impressed both the Chicago media and NU's female students in equal measure. He brought with him, Dennis Green. I met both men in the fall of 1981. Shortly thereafter, Dennis asked a few of us, as dedicated "fans", to help him by starting a booster club. It became the Gridiron Network. We had two functions - to raise sufficient funds to buy things for the program that the school's budget could not afford and to maintain pressure on the administration to improve athletics. Our first purchase was screens for the practice field, so that opposing scouts could not watch the practices. We were more successful in applying pressure than in raising $$$. Darryl Zupancic led an effort for a new weight room and football office building. He traveled, at his own expense, to 30 different schools, many small academic schools, and took pictures and conducted interviews at each. He put together a program for the Trustees that indicated just how terrible our facilities were relative even to Ivy League and Div.II institutions. The Trustees approved the football building that still stands west of McGaw Hall - it should always have been named for Darryl.
Single soon ran into problems and was replaced by a little guy named Bruce Corrie, whom many of us consider whimpy, pompous, and ineffective - not a good combination. He hated the Gridiron Network, perceiving it as a challenge to his authority, and refashioned it under the umbrella of the Wildcat Club. According to Athlketic Department gossip, Corrie is best remembered for stealing newspapers from outside his office in the early morning hours for over a year after he was fired. (The mighty shall have their revenge!)
Dennis loved NU and its alums, but he received little support and left for a better offer. He was replaced by Francis Peay, one of our assistant coaches, in what I think was Strotz's final year as President. Francis was as gentlemanly a man as I have ever met - kind, gracious, soft-spoken, but all wrapped up in a big bear-like physique. Francis won an recently unprecedented 4 or so games in his first year, and the new President, Arnie Weber, had to retain him over his better judgment. Francis ultimately failed to build on his initial success, giving Weber, who truly wanted to rebuild athletics and was hired to do so by the Trustees, the chance to bring in Gary Barnett, whom he had known and respected at Univ. of Colorado. The rest you know.

Aging Booster, can you email me at [email protected]. Thanks!

 

[Catreporter]

same teams won year after year because their 5th string RB could start for most teams. A

That's not hyperbole, Glades. I remember Keith Byars being the 4th team RB for Ohio State in one of the years they crushed us(1980?).

 

[DkeCat]

I don't buy the competitive depth hypothesis because it holds for ALL schools, including (particularly) the traditional powers. How is our so-called competitive depth advantage going to overcome a team with huge numbers of players and competitive depth at a higher talent level? All schools should have had competitive depth back then, but the same teams won year after year because their 5th string RB could start for most teams. Ask Hank or Jerry Brown or any other older coach if you have any questions.

Your post gave me a headache. Mostly because I didn't understand it and that was the most times I have seen the word "competitive depth" repeated that often in any four line paragraph. Or (likely) I am slow and in new dad haze. Let me lay it out differently.

You are ND. Your starting 22 is amazing. The talent for your top 85 is amazing. Beyond the top 85 may also be good (but depth charts, playing time, etc, evens out the number of those 5* and 4*s on your roster - at some point, decent players just don't want to be the 14th string backup, so there is a limit to what you can hoard). One guy goes down, you can replace him with the next stud on the list. As a result, you are probably not playing those players numbered 85+ on your roster.

So where do the 85+ players at ND go when there are scholarship limits? To the next tier of schools (for the sake of simplicity, lets assume NU is here).

Now, there are a finite amount of 5* and 4* players in the US. And the next tier of schools (that aren't the blue bloods) is much larger. So the players disperse among these teams. So each team will get a few more 5* and 4* players than they had prior.

The issue is when a guy goes down at NU. Say its a starter and maybe even one of those 5* or 4* players. When you had a roster full of 200 players, you had a better chance of finding some serviceable scrub to plug the hole. When it's down to 85, you have a hell of a lot smaller pool to pull from. Not an issue with ND (who has a top-to-bottom amazing roster), but an issue for NU. And when NU swings and whiffs on any of those 85, it hits them a hell of a lot harder than ND.

But wait! There's more! don't take my word for it - take the word of a bunch of nerds in lab coats who wrote this paper http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1010.2692&rep=rep1&type=pdf . They refer to the "stylized fact" you are working off of (i.e. the assertion that limiting scholarships helps competition) as wrong using, well, math. Meaning all those stories about 5th string running backs being studs are interesting stories, but have no impact on competitive landscape.

Flash forward today - as another poster mentioned the rise of NU, Stanford, Duke, etc. I would counter that A) it took those schools a hell of a long time to get good post scholarship restrictions (way longer than an expected cycle), and their rise to success is more due to idiosyncratic things, not systemic and B) particularly with 30-40 new teams since restrictions came in, I would argue there is still a massive bottom tier (again proved out in the article).

Finally - you mentioned talking to Coach Brown or Coach Hank. Ironic because those coaches were around and received a copy of the bigger report where these findings were sited. (vague on this part - will post more details on the rock later this week).

 

[Gladeskat]

Cool! I'll read up and comment on this later.

 

[jjjjjjj_rivals298916]

I wasn't there, but it's always seemed to me that the Dark Ages began with the 69-0 loss to Michigan in 1975. Also seems like it didn't really end until Barnett started in 1992--that year he won three Big Ten games for the first time since 1973.

The Dark Ages obviously had their roots in decisions made years earlier, but it must have been quite a shock when they kicked in. From 1970 through early 1975, NU was 21-22 in the conference (including 2-0 in those first two Big Ten games). That compares favorably to Barnett's and Walker's overall conference records and is equivalent to Fitz's. But from the Michigan game in '75 through the end of Peay in 1991, we were 18-122-2. We were so bad for so long.

 

[StreamCat]

That's not hyperbole, Glades. I remember Keith Byars being the 4th team RB for Ohio State in one of the years they crushed us(1980?).

I talked with an old NFL SCOUT. He told me those days were tough because he had find a way to look at guy sitting on the bench at some schools.

 

[Gladeskat]

I wasn't there, but it's always seemed to me that the Dark Ages began with the 69-0 loss to Michigan in 1975. Also seems like it didn't really end until Barnett started in 1992--that year he won three Big Ten games for the first time since 1973.

The Dark Ages obviously had their roots in decisions made years earlier, but it must have been quite a shock when they kicked in. From 1970 through early 1975, NU was 21-22 in the conference (including 2-0 in those first two Big Ten games). That compares favorably to Barnett's and Walker's overall conference records and is equivalent to Fitz's. But from the Michigan game in '75 through the end of Peay in 1991, we were 18-122-2. We were so bad for so long.

I agree that that game was a turning point, followed by several horrible close losses the remainder of that season. That NU team was much better than that Michigan score indicated (Michigan executed extremely well that day), and I felt that should have been a 5-6 or 6-5 team, but the Michigan loss followed by close losses to Wisconsin and Iowa took something away from us that we never quite got back...and never would afterward because of the depletion of talent. That season was very frustrating and bizarre season.

 

[ashley0623_rivals]

I find it ironic (and I am not trying to trample on a man's grave), but Strotz passed away November 4, 1994. The good fortunes of Northwestern football started the following season after Strotz's passing. Some might look at it as a symbolic passing from darkness to light. Food for thought...

Reminds me of Bill Wirtz’ death and the Blackhawks’ immediate resurrection.


The @Princeton game and how it was even scheduled is just fascinating. Almost as bizarre as @TexasPanAmerican 10 or so years ago.

 

[GlideCat]

Flash forward today - as another poster mentioned the rise of NU, Stanford, Duke, etc. I would counter that A) it took those schools a hell of a long time to get good post scholarship restrictions (way longer than an expected cycle), and their rise to success is more due to idiosyncratic things, not systemic and B) particularly with 30-40 new teams since restrictions came in, I would argue there is still a massive bottom tier (again proved out i

Occam's Razor - We have a large number of schools which were previously not very competitive but now are. We have the fact that the rise in these schools occurred after scholarship limits (some more quickly, some more slowly).

Option 1. The two are related as cause and effect. This is backed up by the fact that the middle tier of college football has grown through bottom tier schools moving up while growth in the bottom tier has only increased due to lower division schools moving to Division 1.

Option 2. The two are not related. The theory is that their collective rise was due to idiosyncratic and coincidental things that are not defined. The proof is a large amount of incomprehensible math.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

I marched on it. The padding was pretty much flat by that time, and it was hard. Iowa's was worse, however - patches everywhere and hard as a rock. And then we marched a Bears game at Soldier, and the padding was so thick it was like marching on a pillow.

I played on it for the IM championship around 1982 (lost - no t shirt), and it was hard as, well, concrete. Hurt like eff when you hit the ground

 

[DaCat]

I played on it for the IM championship around 1982 (lost - no t shirt), and it was hard as, well, concrete. Hurt like eff when you hit the ground

We played the 1980 IM football championship at Long Field (won - got my t shirt ).

I wonder if they'll play IM's at Taj Fitz going forward...? We used to play our games on the Lakefill or Long Field.

 

[DkeCat]

Occam's Razor - We have a large number of schools which were previously not very competitive but now are. We have the fact that the rise in these schools occurred after scholarship limits (some more quickly, some more slowly).

Option 1. The two are related as cause and effect. This is backed up by the fact that the middle tier of college football has grown through bottom tier schools moving up while growth in the bottom tier has only increased due to lower division schools moving to Division 1.

Option 2. The two are not related. The theory is that their collective rise was due to idiosyncratic and coincidental things that are not defined. The proof is a large amount of incomprehensible math.

Lets look at some of the schools you mentioned. Duke was a powerhouse in the 50s and early 60s. After schollie limits came in the 70's, Duke didn't make a bowl game until 1989. Stanford was a team that was consistently ranked in the 60s and 70s, until the scholarship limits kicked in, and spent the 80s, 90s and most of the 00's as a below .500 team. They were ranked in the end of season top-25 exactly three times from schollie limits to 2009. We know NUs story. Does this sound like three teams that got a kick from limiting scholarships?

If you are saying that the effect of scholarship limitations takes 15-20 years to kick in - well, can't help on that one.

Also, not how Occams razor works. That applies when two hypothesis fit equally, the less complex one is preferred. Regardless, the issue is you are assuming correlation = causation, and it's a bit of a weak correlation as well.

The two hypothesis don't fit equally because there is no fact that "that the middle tier of college football has grown through bottom tier schools moving up while growth in the bottom tier has only increased due to lower division schools moving to Division 1" - this has been disproven, you can read that in the paper.

And yes, I do think it is very much idiosyncratic (e.g., one-off) things that have had a greater effect. Coach Barnett actually knowing how to recruit and coach a team on the field. Harbaugh coming in and, while not a great coach, getting teams and teams of 5th stars. A brilliant mind like David Cutcliffe. Trying to put the simplest answer on something as complex as college football performance is a bit like saying, well, Thorson took a bunch of sacks today, so it much have been the OLs fault.

Not trying to come across an a-hole - honestly think this is good discussion.

 

[GlideCat]

Lets look at some of the schools you mentioned. Duke was a powerhouse in the 50s and early 60s. After schollie limits came in the 70's, Duke didn't make a bowl game until 1989. Stanford was a team that was consistently ranked in the 60s and 70s, until the scholarship limits kicked in, and spent the 80s, 90s and most of the 00's as a below .500 team. They were ranked in the end of season top-25 exactly three times from schollie limits to 2009. We know NUs story. Does this sound like three teams that got a kick from limiting scholarships?

If you are saying that the effect of scholarship limitations takes 15-20 years to kick in - well, can't help on that one.

Also, not how Occams razor works. That applies when two hypothesis fit equally, the less complex one is preferred. Regardless, the issue is you are assuming correlation = causation, and it's a bit of a weak correlation as well.

The two hypothesis don't fit equally because there is no fact that "that the middle tier of college football has grown through bottom tier schools moving up while growth in the bottom tier has only increased due to lower division schools moving to Division 1" - this has been disproven, you can read that in the paper.

And yes, I do think it is very much idiosyncratic (e.g., one-off) things that have had a greater effect. Coach Barnett actually knowing how to recruit and coach a team on the field. Harbaugh coming in and, while not a great coach, getting teams and teams of 5th stars. A brilliant mind like David Cutcliffe. Trying to put the simplest answer on something as complex as college football performance is a bit like saying, well, Thorson took a bunch of sacks today, so it much have been the OLs fault.

Not trying to come across an a-hole - honestly think this is good discussion.

You are not coming across as an a-hole at all. This is a very Northwestern-y discussion of football. It includes involved mathematics and discussions of semantics. It is who we are.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

You are not coming across as an a-hole at all. This is a very Northwestern-y discussion of football. It includes involved mathematics and discussions of semantics. It is who we are.

Not me Glide, I never even heard of Occams Razor. Thought it was the shave club offer of the month.

 

[Aging Booster]

Aging Booster, can you email me at [email protected]. Thanks!

Hi Chappy: I just tried to write to you and was informed that the address you provided is not functional. Sorry. Do you have another option?

 

[WestCoastWildcat]

I was at NU from ‘71-‘75 and agree not retaining Coach Agase was the start of the decline of the football program sliding into the Dark Ages. Agase left for Purdue after Strotz failed to commit to the program. Strotz was not popular among NU students at the time. I remember protest marches in front of his house by NU students, many to express their displeasure with him as much as their opposition to the Vietnam War. He definitely put the athletic program on the skids.

As an aside, Dennis Green who passed away a few years ago was a local resident where I reside in Carmel Valley near Torrey Pines State Reserve. Dennis was in the news before he passed away as a passionate and vocal opponent to a massive shopping center project that was being planned for our community. Dennis was featured on the local news appearing at a public hearings decrying the project. He passed away shortly thereafter. RIP Coach Green.

https://www.10news.com/news/one-paseo-returns-to-city-council

 

[ChappyCat]

Hi Chappy: I just tried to write to you and was informed that the address you provided is not functional. Sorry. Do you have another option?

Can you private message me on this site? Or try the email again [email protected]. It should work. You’re the first to say you had issues :/ let me know how it goes.

 

[Catreporter]

The football scholarship limits came in steps. It was set at 105 over a four year period in 1973 (right after Pitt's Majors brought in 72 Frosh) and then reduced to 95 in 1978( right after Pitt's national title). It went down to 85 in 1992, the year Gary Barnett took over at Northwestern and he said at the time that was one reason he thought Northwestern could become competitive again, because I don't believe NU was ever getting to those first two limits.

 

[stpaulcat]

Lets look at some of the schools you mentioned. Duke was a powerhouse in the 50s and early 60s. After schollie limits came in the 70's, Duke didn't make a bowl game until 1989. Stanford was a team that was consistently ranked in the 60s and 70s, until the scholarship limits kicked in, and spent the 80s, 90s and most of the 00's as a below .500 team. They were ranked in the end of season top-25 exactly three times from schollie limits to 2009. We know NUs story. Does this sound like three teams that got a kick from limiting scholarships?

If you are saying that the effect of scholarship limitations takes 15-20 years to kick in - well, can't help on that one.

Also, not how Occams razor works. That applies when two hypothesis fit equally, the less complex one is preferred. Regardless, the issue is you are assuming correlation = causation, and it's a bit of a weak correlation as well.

The two hypothesis don't fit equally because there is no fact that "that the middle tier of college football has grown through bottom tier schools moving up while growth in the bottom tier has only increased due to lower division schools moving to Division 1" - this has been disproven, you can read that in the paper.

And yes, I do think it is very much idiosyncratic (e.g., one-off) things that have had a greater effect. Coach Barnett actually knowing how to recruit and coach a team on the field. Harbaugh coming in and, while not a great coach, getting teams and teams of 5th stars. A brilliant mind like David Cutcliffe. Trying to put the simplest answer on something as complex as college football performance is a bit like saying, well, Thorson took a bunch of sacks today, so it much have been the OLs fault.

Not trying to come across an a-hole - honestly think this is good discussion.

Where did you get your dates for the scholarship cuts? From the N.Y.T. Archives: "The 10 percent cut in football will reduce the annual limit of scholarships per school to 92 from 95 in Division I-A during the 1992-93 academic year, to 88 during the 1993-94 year and to 85 during the 1994-95 year. The cuts in Division I-AA football will also reduce the annual allotments from 95 to 85. In all, most sports will lose an average of two scholarships."