PonyFans.com

Dunno if this has been mentioned, but it seemed pretty interesting to me. This is from the Oct 13 issue of Sports Illustrated about Northern Illinois:

For this vitality the school can thank (former Indiana defensive coordinator Joe) Novak. He was 51 when he took over a program that hadn't had a winning season in six years. "I wanted to be a head coach," says Novak, who had worked at Northern under Bill Mallory from 1980 through '83. "I was resigned to never getting another chance if I didn't take this one." He brought a heaping dose of old-school attitude.

...

Run the ball, stop the run, follow rules. "Old-fashioned and dull," says Novak.

...

He chose to build the program gradually with high school recruits, instead of trying for the quick turnaround with junior college players. He tightened team discipline, insisting on 100% classroom attendance and a punishing conditioning program. Twenty-six scholarship players quit on were thrown off the team in the first year, and the tangible effects of the new regime were abysmal: Novak's first three teams went 3-30 and endured a 23-game losing streak that lasted into the middle of the 1998 season.

...

Groth (the AD) was patient, and slowly the Huskies climbed to respectability, from 2-9 in 1998 ... to consecutive 6-5 seasons in '00 and '01 and 8-4 last year.

Smoo Power - thanks for the interesting post.

Some PonyFans posters are going to be confused when they read about how the 12th ranked (AP) team in the nation was built with high school recruits, not JUCOS.

NIU's undefeated football team was built with discipline, motivated kids and patience.

SMU currently has every resource it needs to become a consistent winner in the future.

That's a great post, SP. I am as frustrated by this season as anyone. But articles like this continue to give me hope. We all want instant results, and maybe the success of this year's recruiting class gave us to high of expectations for results on the field this year. But if NIU can do it, there's no reason SMU can't.

"Run the ball, stop the run, follow rules. "Old-fashioned and dull," says Novak."

If we need to run the ball, why are we doing it in a one back offense?

it was also built on non-qualifiers-pick your poison. A quick search on the internet shows that an official NIU education PDF describes quite clearly a program referred to as the Chance Program where NIU allows the admission of both partial qualifiers and non-qualifiers. There are thousands of students every year admitted to NIU under this program. A NCAA certification report for the students entering between 1994-1998 shows a mean GPA average of 2.68 for football players and an average rating of 20-22 ACT for ALL ATHLETES(18) is the NCAA minimum although I believe subject to a sliding scale. Other info in the NCAA Certification report shows admission standards of athletes for Football at a substantially lower standard than athletes in generally so obviously they comprise a substantial portion of those under the 20-22 mean average for all athletes. Do you people really think these MAC schools are suddenly competing because of good coaching? Please-they are competing because the Big 10 doesn't allow non-qualifiers and severely restricted partial qualifiers. Most of the MAC schools are state schools so these kids can pay their way for one year and then become immediately eligible. Also, Fresno's Football program recruited very few JC players although they have had several but that have had just about the lowest academic standards in the country. Dig a little deeper folks. I really enjoy these games when I get to demonstrate how little you Pollyannas know about how a successul Division 1A program is built.

<small>[ 10-13-2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Stallion ]</small>

Agreed Stallion, but at the same time, aren't we getting better recruits than NIU?

I also did a search of Northern Illinois. Apparently they will accept anyone. Their academic standing is equivalent to a lowly community college. It is no better than an Eastfield and just as cheap to attend.

And this is the model some of you want us to follow because accepting a handful of JCs is slumming? Get Real.

I wish more of you would accept the fact that Stallion’s basic premise is the truth.

I was born in Chicago and have lived in Illinois. I can tell you without a doubt that NIU is an academic joke. It would be like Southwest Texas State here. Take that for what its worth. There is nothing wrong with a few Jucos, these guys don't carry the plague.

My point was not that they could build a program with or without jucos. I am sure they took non-qualifiers before Novak arrived but the fact was that they were a losing team and they remained that way for for 3 years after his arrival.

What was Novak's record the first few years? Comparable to Bennett's current run. But the most intriguing piece of information in that article was the highlight of the little receiver that no one recruited. The same one who caught a lot of passes in their recent big time win. My point here is, they're winning now and it seems as if they are beginning to throw the ball. SMU did it against SJSU in the 3rd and results occurred. It's really not hard to teach a defense to stop a run. Literally 10 defensive players can blow an assignment and get pancaked, but if one happens to make the play, the gain is minimal. I don't think rocket science is currently a major on campus, but it seems as if our coaches are pushing for that cause, and they want to call it coaching football 101.

just remember there are players that don't get recruited because they are "sleepers" and players that don't get recruited because they might be or are borderline non-qualifiers, partial qualifiers or academic risks such as Ladanian Tomlinson and Merrill kid at TCU. Big difference-I don't know which category this kid fits into but I hear that all the time used to describe a player who would have been otherwise highly recruited if not for academic issues.

You forget in all this that Novak was probably a good coach and didn't make all the stupid game day mistakes that Bennett has from Day 1. And the worst thing is he has not corrected them.

Don't limit this discussion to just NIU. Half of the MAC is loading up on those "academic risks" that didn't get serious consideration from Big 10 teams because they weren't sure how to get these guys into school, much less keep them eligible. Marshall and Toledo built their programs with those kind of guys and I would bet that a close look at BGSU and Miami (Ohio) would reveal the same type of recruiting. Fresno should be playing with these guys.

Exactly, its been reported several times that the Big 10 was one of the major conferences to want to redefine non-qualifiers and partial qualifiers so that now SAT/ACT scores are taken out of the equation. I think I'm correct in stating that this year there are either qualifiers or non-qualifiers. As long as a recruit meets the core curriculm(which has now added two core courses) and has the required G.P.A. then the recruit is a full qualifier. The SAT/ACT is irrelevant. Maybe someone that knows like Professor X can comment how SMU intends to deal with these changes. For example, are the two additional core courses the same additional core courses that SMU has always required so that now SMU has no additional requirements than the NCAA with regard to core courses or will SMU add additional core courses or does SMU have different core courses than the NCAA. If SMU now is going with the minimum NCAA core requirements it would add something to the debate. This could be to SMU's advantage. However, I believe now that the stigma of recruiting non-qualifiers who don't have good SAT/ACT scores has been erased with the sweep of a pen you will see the BCS schools now go after these same kids that have been relegated to the schools willing to take these academically questionable students. Will SMU take kids that meet the NCAA definition of a full qualifier even if they score horribly on the SAT/ACT. I wouldn't think so but again its something that should be considered in the debate on this board. What really turns my stomach are schools like Fresno St who have horded these kids in the past now proudly announcing in press releases that they will no longer take non-qualifiers when they can't in the first place. From what I know about recruiting I believe there will be a much larger pool of outstanding recruits availiable who either performed poorly on the SAT/ACT or didn't take or retake the SAT/ACT and achieve a qualifying score until too late in the recruiting process. The Debate has changed for all schools but I really don't know where SMU stands from a competitive perspective in the debate. My hunch is that many more of these kids will end up at BCS schools-draining the Junior Colleges of much of their talent and making JC recruiting less important. Of course, JC recruits will also face greater obstacles due to increased core course graduation requirements. When do those go into effect-I thought it was this year but I noticed Tech got 5-7 JC commits in one weekend so now I'm not sure.

<small>[ 10-14-2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Stallion ]</small>