[msqueri]

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.



Northwestern seems to be on a path to Stanford"s.  Following some success, starting in 2019, they have gone 3-9(including a loss to Stanford and wins against UNLV, UMass, & Illinois), 7-2, 3-9(wins against Indiana State, Ohio, & Rutgers) and 1-8 this season with losses to Southern Illinois and Miami of Ohio.  Wouldn't be surprised if they have some of the challenges with the transfer portal and NIL similar to ours.

The main parallel between Stanford and Northwestern is smack-you-in-the-face obvious: head coaches who ascended to the head coach job at a very young age by virtue of being consummate Stanford/Northwestern Men and continuity figures at the times the programs had just achieved major success relative to their historical norms and thus wanted to stay within the family to maintain continuity, and proved well-suited to maintain and build on the successes but could not keep it going indefinitely. It's really, really hard for non-factory programs to win at best in program history levels for more than a few years. Honestly, can anybody think of any examples?

These coaches WANT us to believe that their declines are a result of changes in the college football landscape outside of their control and that but for NIL/transfers they'd still be on top. It's total bullshit. The reality is that they both were born and bred lifers at their institutions who found their bliss at way too young of an age and were in dream jobs they'd have to be pried away from. It's hard to think of very many people in the history of the sport who can be put in a job in their late 30s in Shaw's case and early 30s in Fitzgerald's, become the greatest success their institution has ever known, and then keep at it at the same levels into their late 40s. It's unnatural. The natural thing would have been to, as soon as either man intuited that they were getting stale or had personal life events that detracted from their edge/focus (in Shaw's case his brother's health situation marked a dividing point in his life) or he had peaked for whatever reason, cash in for a chance in the NFL or a factory job or step away for a chance to refresh personally (like Meyer, Petersen, and many others have done). But they were at their alma mater/Shangri-La. They were going down with the ship. And so they have.

Please please please do not buy into the idea our decline is irreversible and a factor of events out of our control. Schools like Stanford and Northwestern may be on the decline because institutions like those can't stay on top forever, but that doesn't mean they'll be on bottom forever either.

[msqueri]

Northwestern figured out a way to not suck. "Mildcats no more!"  Not tOSU or Michigan, maybe, but respectable.



Northwestern seems to be on a path to Stanford"s.  Following some success, starting in 2019, they have gone 3-9(including a loss to Stanford and wins against UNLV, UMass, & Illinois), 7-2, 3-9(wins against Indiana State, Ohio, & Rutgers) and 1-8 this season with losses to Southern Illinois and Miami of Ohio.  Wouldn't be surprised if they have some of the challenges with the transfer portal and NIL similar to ours.

The main parallel between Stanford and Northwestern is smack-you-in-the-face obvious: head coaches who ascended to the head coach job at a very young age by virtue of being consummate Stanford/Northwestern Men and continuity figures at the times the programs had just achieved major success relative to their historical norms and thus wanted to stay within the family to maintain continuity, and proved well-suited to maintain and build on the successes but could not keep it going indefinitely. It's really, really hard for non-factory programs to win at best in program history levels for more than a few years. Honestly, can anybody think of any examples?

These coaches WANT us to believe that their declines are a result of changes in the college football landscape outside of their control and that but for NIL/transfers they'd still be on top. It's total bullshit. The reality is that they both were born and bred lifers at their institutions who found their bliss at way too young of an age and were in dream jobs they'd have to be pried away from. It's hard to think of very many people in the history of the sport who can be put in a job in their late 30s in Shaw's case and early 30s in Fitzgerald's, become the greatest success their institution has ever known, and then keep at it at the same levels into their late 40s. It's unnatural. The natural thing would have been to, as soon as either man intuited that they were getting stale or had personal life events that detracted from their edge/focus (in Shaw's case his brother's health situation marked a dividing point in his life) or he had peaked for whatever reason, cash in for a chance in the NFL or a factory job or step away for a chance to refresh personally (like Meyer, Petersen, and many others have done). But they were at their alma mater/Shangri-La. They were going down with the ship. And so they have.

Please please please do not buy into the idea our decline is irreversible and a factor of events out of our control. Schools like Stanford and Northwestern may be on the decline because institutions like those can't stay on top forever, but that doesn't mean they'll be on bottom forever either.