Fitzgerald to USC or Texas?
I have seen a few tweets and this article from Chicago regarding potential opennings at USC and Texas and whether Fitzgerald would take one of these two jobs. I think USC is more likely as it is a private school similar to NU. The policitcs of Texas program is tough to handle for a total outsider.
September 9th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^
Pat Fitzgerald is at NU for life.
Book it.
/thread
September 9th, 2013 at 10:39 AM ^
I agree... However, we'll see what happens when Texas (undoubtedly the best job in CFB) offers $4M a year. As of now my bet is Art Briles to the Longhorns and Steve Sarkisian back to USC.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^
they need a local guy, who "gets" Texas.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^
Could be downright frightening with the talent UT could get for his offense. Actually think they are grooming GERG now that he is back as DC....
September 9th, 2013 at 11:56 AM ^
I'm not sure if Texas is the "best" job in CFB, but I agree that they'll need a local guy or a massive name who can weather the storm with his own strength of personality. Fitzgerald doesn't have either.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:03 AM ^
I kind of thought the same thing about Brad Stevens- I thought only Duke could drag him from Butler. I wouldn't bat an eye at any move at this point.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:04 AM ^
THIS /THREAD
September 9th, 2013 at 11:20 AM ^
why would he leave NW right when they are getting good?
September 9th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
Money. More prestigious job. Established history of winning. Football success means everything to USC, not so much at NU.
I agree that it would suck if Pat Fitzgerald left Northwestern next year, but I could see it happening if USC offered him huge money and NU said no to matching the price.
September 9th, 2013 at 1:58 PM ^
September 9th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
Bielema. Of course, Pat is a class act (most of the time) and Bret is an a-hole.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^
Fitzgerald captained NW's Big Ten champs in 1995-96. And is not a complete DB.
September 9th, 2013 at 1:31 PM ^
September 9th, 2013 at 11:48 AM ^
September 9th, 2013 at 10:25 AM ^
But I'd love to see him take either job!
September 9th, 2013 at 10:31 AM ^
September 9th, 2013 at 10:37 AM ^
A stronger B1G only helps Michigan, particularly when its a team from the other division.
September 9th, 2013 at 10:25 AM ^
September 9th, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^
Yeah, Fitzgerald seems like the kind of guy who truly loves his school and wants to lead them to championships. He's not leaving there any time soon.
September 9th, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^
September 9th, 2013 at 10:43 AM ^
I'll never understand this thought process. If Nebraska wasn't competitive last year, Michigan would have been in the BiG championship game. But THANK GOD NEBRASKA's competitive??? Ludicrous. We are very likely to lose to NW at NW this year and you prefer having them good so they can be another program standing in our way?
Makes about as much sense as the guy proclaiming how happy he'll be if Ohio is full strength when they face us so there won't be any excuses, when flat out NO ONE CARES about anything other than who wins or loses.
Do you really think Ohio was disappointed that Michigna was terrible for three years under RichRod because it undermined the Big Ten? Get your head straight man. It would do Michigan well to have as few competitive rivals in the Big Ten as possible, just as it served USC well 6-7 years ago when it was USC/Oregon and no one else.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:00 AM ^
success vs. SEC success in the national title games? I'll take the latter. If Michigan had to share the kind of success LSU, Florida and Bama have had to share recently in NC games, I'd be okay with that.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:05 AM ^
certainly prepared Michigan to win all those Rose Bowls in the 70s and 80s.
Using your logic, it would have been better for Michigan to play 0-8 Illinois on November 8, 1997 instead of 7-0 and #2 Penn State. Good luck moving up to #1 in the polls after beating that Illini tomato can.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:17 AM ^
Four team play off eases the polls prerequisite to a degree. Does everyone have Ohio so far up the polls because they're amazing? No, in large part because they know they have a tomato can schedule with only 2 competitive games - UM and NW keeping them from a perfect season going into the bowls.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:49 AM ^
OSU is so far up in the polls—two weeks into the season—because they went undefeated last year, have a good deal of talent on both sides of the ball, and have Urban Meyer at the helm. Their schedule is just a small part of why they're ranked where they are right now.
September 9th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
So you literally just made my point for me.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:09 AM ^
......um.......ok. When people say "competive" they mean I hope they are good but still get the shit kicked out of them by [insert favorite team here].
A strong B1G means the conference is thought of, nationally, as being a powerhouse which equates to better recruiting, which leads to more primetime games, which leads to more championships etc. etc.
The SEC is not that tough of a conference. They are just aubsurdly top heavy with 'Bama, LSU, Florida and Georgia however, their crappy schools are just as bad or worse as any other conferences (e.g. Kentucky getting beat 2 years in a row by a directional school).
Perception in college athletics is huge as it gets you votes in the media polls and the selection committees. Last year in BBall the B1G teams beat the snot of each other which equated to most having crappy conference records but because the conference was perceived to be tough many of those schools made it to the Dance. So again, a strong B1G is good for everyone. If your conference sucks then you end up like the Big East/American Conference where no one takes your champion seriously.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^
Few things:
1. Never start a post with ummmm, it makes you sound like a buffoon.
2. The Big Ten's competitive perception has been damaged far more due to Michigan's recent swoon and Ohio's tank jobs in back to back NC games than by the fact that the bottom half of the conference isn't competitive.
Does anyone mention Wake Forest or Kentucky in sizing up the SEC? No one cares. All they care about is what's going on at the top.
3. The more polarized a Big 2 Little 10, the less likely Michigan loses key recruits to other BiGs not named Ohio. Case in point: REALITY. Would UM be having near its way with recruits as it is having if the rest of the BiG was stronger? Especially STAEE. If MSU beats us last year and goes 5 straight last year, does that change Lawrence Marshall's mind that the best Michigan players go to Michigan? Possibly.
4. The worse other programs are, especially the ones in our conference, the better that is for Michigan recruiting and winning percentage.
5. Someone mentions how UM performed in the bowl games in the 70s and 80s... REALLY? You're telling me you wouldn't trade endless Big Ten championships with a few sprinkled Rose Bowl wins over years like last year where "Oh thank God the BiG brought in a great quality football power like Nebraska" prevented us from reachign the BiG championship?
Get it straight people - never root for quality in your opponents, or you just may get what you wished for. Losing Fitz to Texas or USC would be great for Michigan.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
the SEC for good reason.
Quality and depth of conference is doing wonders in recruiting for traditional doormats in the SEC like Ol' Miss, Vandy and Kentucky.
September 9th, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
HAh! Yep I'll be honest. I always get Wake Forest and Vanderbilt mixed up.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:56 AM ^
The reason no one brings up how bad Wake Forest is in relation to the SEC is probably becuae they are in the ACC. All snark aside, if we are making the assumptions that Hoke continues recruiting the level we are currently and that said recruting will soon pay dividends, then a strong Nebraska/Northwestern/MSU isn't particularly a threat to us. The last thing any of us should want is to lose out on a playoff spot to a 2-loss SEC squad because our schedule was terrible due to a weak conference.
September 9th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
You talk as though the SEC is only Alabama at the top and KY and a team that isn't even in the SEC at the bottom. Georgia, LSU, TA&M, and Florida would like a word with you. If you think that the SEC's high reputation and the BIG's low rep are due solely to the success or failure of one or two teams at the top you're not paying attention to what virtually everybody mentions when discussing the relative strengths and weaknesses of those two conferences.
But your view also means that you have never criticized Notre Dame for dropping Michigan and keeping MSU, Navy, and Purdue, right?
September 9th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
The SEC being the great conference it is has nothing to do with such a desire among its members that their rivals also be competitive. It has everything to do with a larger trend in demographics and relative variance in key (academics, integrity). But moreover, the SEC is perceived as it is mostly because of how its top teams have performed in the highest profile games, i.e., the NC. If Oregon or Ohio had won a few of those NCs the national perception would be quite different. Yes top to bottom the SEC would, and will always be, the best conference, but no one would be dragging the BiG or Pac Ten through the mud.
A Big Ten with ten 2 or 3 star programs, but with two 5 star programs that competed with the SEC’s elite and occasionally won NCs, would do a lot more for those two teams, and for the Big Ten’s national perception than a Big Ten with 12 3-4 star teams who’s top representatives continuously get spanked in the bowls.
September 9th, 2013 at 6:38 PM ^
The old Big East with Miami and a bunch of crap teams was way worse than the Big Ten could ever be, and you never saw Miami get screwed out of a MNC-shot due to poor schedule strength. You also didn't see recruits deciding not to go to Miami because they wanted to play better competition. Granted, Miami usually played FSU and another good team out of conference, but Michigan does that too.
The Pac-12 was pretty weak during the Pete Carrol era; you didn't see that held against USC. Ironically, it was Auburn that went 12-0 in 2004 and was left out of the BCS title game, even though they played in the SEC (granted, Auburn's non-conference schedule was pathetic, but still).
And all that was in the era when you had to be ranked 1 or 2. With a four-team playoff, schedule strength is going to be even less important. On the other hand, a weakened Big Ten means more wins and a better likelihood of going undefeated or losing just one game (and thus getting at least a BCS at-large bid, if not a playoff spot).
September 9th, 2013 at 12:06 PM ^
Let's join the MAC! We'll roll through it every year only to be de-pantsed by an SEC/Pac-12/ACC/etc. school.
September 9th, 2013 at 12:18 PM ^
How does an undermanned NU defensive squad stop a superior athlete like Gardner?
That game is a 50-50 game at this point with UM having better athletes on both sides of the ball.
September 9th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
we barely beat this team at home last year, and they bring back the vast majority of their playmakers, and we now play them on the road, where kooky things seem to happen to us. this game is going to be like 50-48, and turn overs will decide it, and since we are playing at NW, i personally don't have a good feeling for it.
September 9th, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^
True we haven't played well on the road the last few years but NW is barely a road game. You'll have just as many M fans in the crowd (if not more) as NW fans. Northwestern as a pretty good team last year and it was Devin Gardners 2nd start at QB
September 9th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^
...if you want to be the best then you need to beat the best. Otherwise you'll be exposed sooner or later. Having a strong OSU, Northwestern and Big Ten in general is all to Michigan's advantage in the big picture.
September 9th, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^
First off I've watched most of the B1G games this year and we aren't Very likely to lose any games this year.. There is a chance but NO team on our schedule has more than a 50/50 shot.
Second it's all about what you want out of your team. Do you want your team to be a big fish in a little pond? You could possibly make a BCS bowl and then get trounced by a team thats light years better than yours. I like Michigan playing competetive games against good teams and winning a lot more then I like Michigan rolling over low level MAC teams. You get better as a team when you play better competition and I want the wolverines to be the best not a paper tiger
September 10th, 2013 at 7:22 AM ^
You are correct that you will never understand this.
I suspect that you will continue to overstate, however, and tell us that what we care about and don't care about.
September 9th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
didn't we put feelers out for him during our last coach search? I mean "this is michigan" if he had no interest in michigan why would he have interest in USC or UT.
September 9th, 2013 at 10:35 AM ^
I think it's a perception thing. How often do HCs leave for another HC job in the same conference? Asst. --> HC? Sure but I can't recall a HC situation, especially when the guy is an alum of the school he's a HC at. I doubt he'd catch as much flak from the NU community if he left for Texas. Going to Michigan would be a slap in the face to the community IMO (or at least that's how they'd take it).
September 9th, 2013 at 10:44 AM ^
September 9th, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
Here's a big ol' TIFWIW for you:
a business associate of mine grew up with Fitzgerald. He said he never spoke with Fitzgerald personally about it, but word in their circle of friends was that Fitzgerald was offered the job, informed Northwestern of his intentions, and they ponied up more cash and promises on facility upgrades to get him to stay.
September 9th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
September 9th, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^
I can't either, in part because Fitz is a bizarre dork. Dorks are nice guys mind you, and the kind of guys you'd want your daughter to marry. But Fitz's loyalty and allegiance to NW, oblivious to the world ando ther opportunities (USC, Texas, $$$$) reminds me a lot of the kids in high school that played Dungeons & Dragons with great passion, oblivious to the world and other opportunities (like girls) around them. Again nothing wrong with them, just odd young men.
September 9th, 2013 at 11:10 AM ^
You post on a fan blog. He's a former jock LB turned football coach. I sense a dork here and it ain't him.
September 9th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^
Your dorkdar is fully functional.