FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

No argument about Coach Thorne as the obvious (and only) selection as the Cards' greatest-ever football coach.  If, like 70 did, you're putting this in the context of 'who is the greatest coach' irrespective of the sport, then with all due respect to Coach Thorne's accomplishments, the conversation in Naperville the CCIW begins and ends with Al Carius.

Fixed it for you.

Al Carius is the greatest coach in CCIW history, irrespective of sport.

As far as North Park football is concerned, the history of the sport at NPU is so terrible that it's more a matter of identifying the least-bad coach than the greatest coach. That would probably be Norm Rathje, who coaxed North Park's last winning season out of the Vikings back in 1968 (5-3-1), helming the now-legendary 104-32 win over North Central and a historic 48-42 win over eventual CCIW champion Augustana, which was quarterbacked by future NFL MVP Ken Anderson. During his tenure at NPC, Rathje coached a couple of future pro football players in WR Paul Zaeske (Houston Oilers) and LB Chuck Burgoon (Minnesota Vikings), plus QB/P Bruce Swanson, who saw time on the reserve lists (known back then as the "taxi squads") of the Dallas Cowboys, Detroit Lions, and Kansas City Chiefs. Rathje managed to finish his North Park stint with a .500 record; he was only NPC's coach for two seasons, 1967 and 1968.

You could make an argument in favor of Harold Swanson, who coached the very successful teams that North Park put on the field when the school first transitioned to a four-year institution. Under Swanson's leadership, in 1958 the Vikings went 7-1 and in 1959 they went 6-1-1. However, North Park was not yet a member of the CCIW at that point; the Vikings played an independent schedule against the likes of Olivet, Eureka, Bethel, Lakeland, Concordia (IL), Rose-Hulman (then called Rose Polytechnic Institute), Benedictine (then called St. Procopius College), and Illinois-Chicago (then called the University of Illinois at Navy Pier). The fact that there were no CCIW schools on the schedule is historically significant, as far as I can tell, because I'm pretty sure that that's an indicator that the strength of schedule back then was inferior to what the Park would face once it commenced playing a CCIW schedule in football in the 1962-63 school year.

But I might actually opt for North Park's first-ever football coach, Edward "Dutch" Sternaman, out of historical significance if nothing else. Only serious Chicago Bears fans know this, but Dutch Sternaman, though now largely forgotten, was George Halas's partner in the early days of the Bears. He and Halas, both former University of Illinois football stars under legendary coach Bob Zuppke, were hired by A.E. Staley in 1920 to organize (and play for) the company football team of Staley's starch-manufacturing plant in Decatur. That year, the company team became a charter member of the American Professional Football Association (now the NFL), which was organized in a meeting attended by Halas in a Hupmobile auto showroom in Canton, Ohio. Halas and Sternaman moved the Decatur Staleys to Chicago the next year, buying out Old Man Staley's ownership of the team for $100. Halas and Sternaman were co-coaches of the Staleys (who changed their name to the Bears in 1922), and each played end (on both offense and defense, of course) on opposite sides of the line. Sternaman's younger brother Joey was the team's quarterback.

The Halas/Sternaman partnership survived the lean early years of the league -- the team managed to avoid folding only because it was able to sign another former Illini star, Harold "Red" Grange, and utilize him on a barnstorming tour in 1925 that raised the money necessary for the team to meet payroll -- and continued on into the Great Depression. Sternaman lost quite a bit of money in the Depression and sold out his share of the team to Halas following the Bears' 1932 championship season. Two years later, Sternaman, now working as a Chicago public schoolteacher, was hired by North Park Junior College to organize and run its first-ever football team. The Vikings actually had some moderate success in the '30s, finishing with winning records in 1937 and 1938 while playing such other local jucos as Morton, Wright, and Wilson (now Truman College), as well as such perennial foes as St. Procopius/Benedictine and Concordia (IL).

So, while Sternamen's record as North Park's coach was modest, his significance as both the first-ever coach of the program and as one of the crucial figures of the early history of both the Chicago Bears and the National Football League make him significant enough to mention alongside the likewise-modest likes of Harold Swanson and Norm Rathje.

Overall sports-wise? Well, leaving the legendary Ted Hedstrand aside -- since most of his tremendous accomplishments came as the coach of various North Park Academy teams, rather than for NPJC or NPC -- the greatest coach in North Park history would likely be either Hedstrand's protégé Dan McCarrell, who piloted the Vikings to three consecutive national championships in basketball from 1978-80, or McCarrell's protégé and assistant, Bosko Djurickovic, who won two national titles in basketball himself in 1985 and 1987, and won four CCIW titles in baseball as the head coach of the diamond version of the Vikings as well.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg, I realize it is WAY too early to say, but is Coach Conway at least in the discussion?  Maybe make a judgement after his son's have graduated.  (BTW, I forget, do Coach Conway and Mrs. Conway have any more in the pipeline? )

[79jaybird]

That's just like Julie Hall, the current volleyball coach at Elmhurst. I would say she is in the top 5 of best coaches Elmhurst has ever had. 

Coaching is one thing, but recruiting and having the kids talent on the field goes a long way too.

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, I realize it is WAY too early to say, but is Coach Conway at least in the discussion?  Maybe make a judgement after his son's have graduated.  (BTW, I forget, do Coach Conway and Mrs. Conway have any more in the pipeline? )

You're right, Chuck. It is way too early to say. As for other Conway progeny, it's not my place to offer commentary on that subject.

[Gregory Sager]

That's just like Julie Hall, the current volleyball coach at Elmhurst. I would say she is in the top 5 of best coaches Elmhurst has ever had.

Better example than North Park's Mike Conway -- and I say that with no disrespect to Mike. Julie Hall's won a pair of CCIW titles and has taken the 'jays to the Final Four. Mike Conway's only three games into his second season at the helm; i.e., he's still in the early stages of trying to turn NPU football around.

A pair of current NPU coaches, John Born (men's soccer) and Luke Johnson (baseball), are definitely on the top ten list of the school's all-time greatest coaches. In fact, John Born's pretty high up on that list now.

Coaching is one thing, but recruiting and having the kids talent on the field goes a long way too.

Uh, Mark, "recruiting and having the kids' talent on the field" is coaching. In fact, it's the most important part of coaching at the collegiate level.

Man, I get so frustrated by the constant implication by d3boards.com posters that recruiting is something that happens completely apart from what the coach and his/her assistants do for a living. You don't get athletes by having your admissions personnel sprinkle pixie dust, or by sowing magic beans (or, since we're talking football players, dragon's teeth) on the Field Turf. Coaches recruit players, people. It's Task Number One on their list of things to do.

[markerickson]

Hail Bosko!

[CardinalAlum]

Hail Bosko!

"Fi Fi Fo Fum, Bosko is a @#$% bum..."     

One of the more memorable chants from basketball games back in the day when the NCC/NP games used to get really nasty!

[joehakes]

I can't believe my name hasn't come up!   

[AndOne]

Naperville Sun article on NCC Sr. DT Peter Mann who returned to action this season after missing all of last year due to injury:

http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/2014/09/23/north-central-right-peter-mann-job/

[79jaybird]

Greg, I agree that recruiting and putting the (x player) in (x spot) at the (x time) is indeed coaching.  No argument there.   But, wouldn't you say executing and putting (x plan) into action, is on the player him/her self? 

[ExTartanPlayer]

But, wouldn't you say executing and putting (x plan) into action, is on the player him/her self?

This is a chicken-or-egg comment.

If the players aren't putting Plan X into action, it's the coaches' job to find guys that WILL execute Plan X.

[formerd3db]

But, wouldn't you say executing and putting (x plan) into action, is on the player him/her self?

This is a chicken-or-egg comment.

If the players aren't putting Plan X into action, it's the coaches' job to find guys that WILL execute Plan X.

ExTartan:

Just to add further "fire" to the discussion.  With regards to your post above, I am in agreement with you about 99%.  However, I will say that, while rare, it does happen that situations sometimes occur in some years such that no matter who the coaches might play, no one executes Plan X.  That is not the coaches fault.  I can attest to this without question because at Hope for the two-three years recently (i.e. the 3-7 seasons before last year's 7-3 season) at Hope, our players were not able to get the job done. It was most frustrating due to the repeated same mistakes each and every week regardless of who was in. 

That was not the coaches fault at all (some people will most likely disagree with that, however, I'm telling you that was absolutely not the case whatsoever-no way. Yes, again, a rare occurrence, but it does and did happen).  The coaches were/are excellent coaches and doing everything possible that anyone could think of to motivate, encourage, challenge, support, etc., etc. the players, all to no avail.  Most continued to make the same mistakes over and over again each week, despite repeated coaching, rehashing, reviewing of the game plans and in the daily practice session.  Of course, we had a few stellar individual players those years whose performances were tops.  Yet overall, the talent pool was poor-we simply did not have what I would call college level talent, even at the small college level.  Many of the players were just not good enough, unfortunately.  No amount of coaching or coaching talent will help that.

Again, another interesting discussion you all are having-thanks.  Always enjoy those. 

   

[Gregory Sager]

I can't believe my name hasn't come up!   

Left plenty of room in the top ten for you, Joe.

But, wouldn't you say executing and putting (x plan) into action, is on the player him/her self?

This is a chicken-or-egg comment.

If the players aren't putting Plan X into action, it's the coaches' job to find guys that WILL execute Plan X.

ExTartan:

Just to add further "fire" to the discussion.  With regards to your post above, I am in agreement with you about 99%.  However, I will say that, while rare, it does happen that situations sometimes occur in some years such that no matter who the coaches might play, no one executes Plan X.  That is not the coaches fault.  I can attest to this without question because at Hope for the two-three years recently (i.e. the 3-7 seasons before last year's 7-3 season) at Hope, our players were not able to get the job done. It was most frustrating due to the repeated same mistakes each and every week regardless of who was in. 

That was not the coaches fault at all (some people will most likely disagree with that, however, I'm telling you that was absolutely not the case whatsoever-no way. Yes, again, a rare occurrence, but it does and did happen).  The coaches were/are excellent coaches and doing everything possible that anyone could think of to motivate, encourage, challenge, support, etc., etc. the players, all to no avail.  Most continued to make the same mistakes over and over again each week, despite repeated coaching, rehashing, reviewing of the game plans and in the daily practice session.  Of course, we had a few stellar individual players those years whose performances were tops.  Yet overall, the talent pool was poor-we simply did not have what I would call college level talent, even at the small college level.  Many of the players were just not good enough, unfortunately.  No amount of coaching or coaching talent will help that.

I disagree, because your argument puts us right back at square one: Recruiting. Your reasoning for the inability of the players to execute Plan X -- "Many of the players were just not good enough, unfortunately" -- indicates a personnel issue. And who is responsible for the lack of personnel who have the ability to execute Plan X? The coaches. You claim that "no amount of coaching or coaching talent will help that," but the facts deem otherwise. One of the most important talents a college football coach can have is salesmanship and the ability to close a deal. Recruiting, as I've already said, is a key aspect of what college coaching is all about, and if a coach is unable to land the players whose mental and physical abilities make them capable of executing Plan X, then that's his fault. He failed to put the personnel on his roster who could do what he needed to get done on the football field. And that's on him.

And, yes, I realize that there are any number of things that tie a coach's hands when it comes to recruiting. Believe me, after watching my alma mater's football teams for three and a half dismal decades now, I know all about what sort of obstacles can stand between even a coach who is adept at recruiting and his goal of landing players who are competent (or have the potential to be competent) within his league. After all, it's not as though NPU has deliberately hired a long string of dummies and screw-ups to run the school's football program. Nevertheless, when you shake hands with the AD and you accept the job he's just offered to you, you are then committed to winning football games. That's one of the main ways that success or failure are measured at this level (not the only one, of course, since admissions numbers and graduation rates are important at the D3 level as well). If you don't win games, you're probably not going to last long -- even if circumstances beyond your control make it well-nigh impossible to put together a decent football team by your league's standards. C'est la vie.

[formerd3db]

I can't believe my name hasn't come up!   

Left plenty of room in the top ten for you, Joe.

But, wouldn't you say executing and putting (x plan) into action, is on the player him/her self?

This is a chicken-or-egg comment.

If the players aren't putting Plan X into action, it's the coaches' job to find guys that WILL execute Plan X.

ExTartan:

Just to add further "fire" to the discussion.  With regards to your post above, I am in agreement with you about 99%.  However, I will say that, while rare, it does happen that situations sometimes occur in some years such that no matter who the coaches might play, no one executes Plan X.  That is not the coaches fault.  I can attest to this without question because at Hope for the two-three years recently (i.e. the 3-7 seasons before last year's 7-3 season) at Hope, our players were not able to get the job done. It was most frustrating due to the repeated same mistakes each and every week regardless of who was in. 

That was not the coaches fault at all (some people will most likely disagree with that, however, I'm telling you that was absolutely not the case whatsoever-no way. Yes, again, a rare occurrence, but it does and did happen).  The coaches were/are excellent coaches and doing everything possible that anyone could think of to motivate, encourage, challenge, support, etc., etc. the players, all to no avail.  Most continued to make the same mistakes over and over again each week, despite repeated coaching, rehashing, reviewing of the game plans and in the daily practice session.  Of course, we had a few stellar individual players those years whose performances were tops.  Yet overall, the talent pool was poor-we simply did not have what I would call college level talent, even at the small college level.  Many of the players were just not good enough, unfortunately.  No amount of coaching or coaching talent will help that.

I disagree, because your argument puts us right back at square one: Recruiting. Your reasoning for the inability of the players to execute Plan X -- "Many of the players were just not good enough, unfortunately" -- indicates a personnel issue. And who is responsible for the lack of personnel who have the ability to execute Plan X? The coaches. You claim that "no amount of coaching or coaching talent will help that," but the facts deem otherwise. One of the most important talents a college football coach can have is salesmanship and the ability to close a deal. Recruiting, as I've already said, is a key aspect of what college coaching is all about, and if a coach is unable to land the players whose mental and physical abilities make them capable of executing Plan X, then that's his fault. He failed to put the personnel on his roster who could do what he needed to get done on the football field. And that's on him.

And, yes, I realize that there are any number of things that tie a coach's hands when it comes to recruiting. Believe me, after watching my alma mater's football teams for three and a half dismal decades now, I know all about what sort of obstacles can stand between even a coach who is adept at recruiting and his goal of landing players who are competent (or have the potential to be competent) within his league. After all, it's not as though NPU has deliberately hired a long string of dummies and screw-ups to run the school's football program. Nevertheless, when you shake hands with the AD and you accept the job he's just offered to you, you are then committed to winning football games. That's one of the main ways that success or failure are measured at this level (not the only one, of course, since admissions numbers and graduation rates are important at the D3 level as well). If you don't win games, you're probably not going to last long -- even if circumstances beyond your control make it well-nigh impossible to put together a decent football team by your league's standards. C'est la vie.

I totally disagree with you on this one.  You are correct that that recruiting is the bottom line here, which was the original premise of the discussion.  You are also a smart guy Gregory, however, with all due respect, you don't know anything about the situation at Hope with regards to the recruiting and admissions aspects and how that has translated to the, let's say "challenges", performance and talent level in recent years there.  I am also sure our head coach is no less committed to winning games than yours is when they both "shook the hands of their respective ADs in accepting the job.  No one likes to lose game a large percentage of the time, however, depending on the school, that is not always going to translate 100% of the time in getting the head coach fired, even after several years.

Moreover, I distinctly noted the caveat in my post that this is a rare situation, but it does happen.  It may not be that way at your NPU, however, you or anyone can't say that situation doesn't or can't exist because you are simply not there and do not know or understand the specifics of what the underlying parameters are at Hope.  Likewise, I apply the same to myself with regard to your school's situation because I obviously don't know, am not there and you are, knowing the "behind the scenes" philosophy, framework and decisions of those who have the authority to make the decisions at NPU.  So, to use that old cliché/saying..."we agree to disagree" on this one.

[Gregory Sager]

I totally disagree with you on this one.  You are correct that that recruiting is the bottom line here, which was the original premise of the discussion.  You are also a smart guy Gregory, however, with all due respect, you don't know anything about the situation at Hope with regards to the recruiting and admissions aspects and how that has translated to the, let's say "challenges", performance and talent level in recent years there.

You're forgetting that I am an alumnus of a school that has not had a winning football season since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House, and which only last year managed to snap an 89-game conference losing streak. You're right that I am not privy to the inside scoop as to Hope's recent travails. But those travails, whatever they may have been, are dwarfed by North Park's. Heck, the fact that Hope snapped out of that three-season funk from 2008 thru 2010 is all the proof you need. In fact, those are the only three years in recent memory in which Hope's finished underwater -- and yet those 3-7 seasons would've been cause for rejoicing at NPU, as last year's 3-7 mark certainly was at Foster & Kedzie.

In other words, whatever bad stuff you knew about at Hope in 2008, 2009, and 2010, I could show you much, much worse.

I am also sure our head coach is no less committed to winning games than yours is when they both "shook the hands of their respective ADs in accepting the job.

I didn't say that he wasn't.

No one likes to lose game a large percentage of the time, however, depending on the school, that is not always going to translate 100% of the time in getting the head coach fired, even after several years.

No, maybe not in and of itself every time. But there's a spillover effect, even for coaches who work at schools whose administrators have a lot of forebearance when it comes to losing. Season after season of losing makes recruiting harder and harder, because, above everything else, student-athletes tend to want to enroll at a school where they're going to win, or where they have a reasonable chance of winning in the future. The more losing seasons in a row you pile up, the harder it gets to convince kids to take a chance on your school. And the harder it gets to convince kids to take a chance on your school, the more likely you are to fail to keep up your recruiting numbers -- which, at an awful lot of D3 schools, will cost a football coach his job because he's not bringing in enough students.

Moreover, I distinctly noted the caveat in my post that this is a rare situation, but it does happen.

I don't think it's all that rare. A slide in recruiting can lead to a slide in quality, just as inferior practice or film instruction can lead to a slide in quality. It happens all the time. It's a key reason why some programs that used to rule the roost no longer do so [cough Augustana cough]. Sooner or later, a program in decline gets to that point where it runs out of players who can step up and handle Plan X at first one position. Then another. Then another. And so on.

It may not be that way at your NPU, however, you or anyone can't say that situation doesn't or can't exist because you are simply not there and do not know or understand the specifics of what the underlying parameters are at Hope.

I'm saying that this applies to everybody. Recruiting is the lifeblood of college sports. If you can recruit well, you've already pointed your car down the road toward success, even if you're an X's-and-O's dunderhead, or a poor instructor in practices, or a poor administrator, or some combination thereof. Having the horses doesn't automatically make you a winner, but it's the necessary first step to becoming one. If you can't recruit ... well, sorry, Charlie, but your program's going nowhere. Now, that doesn't mean that all programs start off on an even footing when it comes to recruiting. In fact, the opposite is very much the case. There are any number of ways in which a school can be advantaged when it comes to recruiting, and there's any number of ways that a school can be disadvantaged when it comes to recruiting. I've gone on record several times in this room citing NPU's inherent, coach-proof disadvantages vis-a-vis football recruiting. There may have been a window at the end of the last decade when Hope had some sort of institutional hiccup that made recruiting harder for the Dutch, too (on top of which I think that there's some validity to the complaints of MIAA fans that their league is dinged by the heavy presence of scholarship football programs in their state). But stating that doesn't detract from my main point. It's a coach's job to put competent (or potentially competent) players in depth at each position on his roster. If he fails in that regard, it's on his shoulders -- even if he's got valid excuses. It's not always fair, but coaching is still a bottom-line business, even at this level (although, as I said, wins and losses aren't necessarily the only bottom line).

Likewise, I apply the same to myself with regard to your school's situation because I obviously don't know, am not there and you are, knowing the "behind the scenes" philosophy, framework and decisions of those who have the authority to make the decisions at NPU.  So, to use that old cliché/saying..."we agree to disagree" on this one.

Yes, but it's not really something that necessarily has to do with philosophies, frameworks, and/or decisions. Again, whether they tie a coach's hands or not, the coach is still responsible for his program's success -- even if that success is merely measured in his ability to keep bringing in forty new kids a year to keep the administration happy for bean-counting purposes.