I accidentally posted this on the insider board. I just thought this was an interesting parallel between the two programs. I have hoped since Wilcox started that we would be using the Wisconsin model. Turns out the Northwestern model is closer. But I would like to get to the Wisconsin model, esp. with respect to some of the skill players on offense they have landed.

1. Both 6-4
2. Both have a couple of wins over Top 25 teams
3. Both are involved in low scoring games
4. Both had games with a Top 10 team they should have won (Wazzu for us, Michigan for them)
5. Both had head scratchers (AZ and UCLA for us, Duke and Akron for them)
6. Both are defensive minded coaches
7. Both have high academics and have to recruit against multiple programs in conference that are generally in the Top 20 if not Top 10 in recruiting

The one difference is that Northwestern happened to lose 3 out of conference, whereas our losses are in-conference, so they are going to the Big 10 championship game, winning the Big 10 West. Congrats to them!

So funny. I am sitting here with my sister-in-law who is a Northwestern alum and we were saying the same thing--we have been texting during each other's games and laughing how our seasons are tracking.

Wow. I wish we were in the Big 10 west instead of the Pac-12 north this year.

One difference is that Wilcox strikes me as cerebral, whereas Fitzgerald seems more like a meathead.

Fitzgerald has actually never lost a game, just ask him.

NW's version of Barsky...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/opinion/northwestern-football-big-ten-concussions.html?

Nice comparison, just want to add that Duke is solid team this year so it wasn't surprising NW lost to them. Akron, not so much. Pat Fitzgerald has been there some time now so their coaching system has been in place. Their offense is still putrid, I can't believe they won their division.

I'm willing to bet that we would win the Big Ten West.

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

One difference is that Wilcox strikes me as cerebral, whereas Fitzgerald seems more like a meathead.

Fitzgerald has actually never lost a game, just ask him.

---

The only time he's ever lost a game is when his sneaky opponent did a good job of keeping their game plan a secret.

I'm an alumnus of both schools but only give a damn about the Bears.

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

One difference is that Wilcox strikes me as cerebral, whereas Fitzgerald seems more like a meathead.

Fitzgerald has actually never lost a game, just ask him.

---

Totally. Wilcox is a likeable guy. Fitzgerald comes across as a d-bag.