Confirmed: Ash is back next year

[G- RUnit]

The problem is that he keeps doubling down on it and making it harder to fix.

Unfortunately all ADs are judged on their football hire. He hired an inexperienced guy, he gave a ridiculous extension and now he appears to be extending a bad situation and making it worse by not fixing a colossal mistake.
The Yankee Stadium decision was head scratching as was breaking the UCLA contract for absolutely no reason.
Football is a mess and that’s all on him.

 

[Scarlet Blind_rivals]

2016 Wins- 2
(2-9) Howard (9-4) New Mexico

2017 Wins- 4
(1-10) Morgan St. (7-6) Purdue
(4-8) Maryland (2-10) Illinois

2018 Wins- 1
(3-8) Texas St
.
So 5 wins to losing teams, and 2 winning teams for a combined 28-55.

2016 Losses- 10 (79-51)
(12-2) Wash, (11-3) PSU, (11-2) OSU, (10-3) UM, (6-7) IU, (6-7) Maryland, (3-9) MSU, (8-5) Iowa, (9-4) Minnesota, (3-9) Illinois

2017 Losses- 8 (65-37)
(10-3) Wash, (5-7) EMU, (12-2) OSU, (11-2) PSU, (10-3) MSU, (8-5) UM, (5-7) Indiana, (4-8) Nebraska

2018 Losses- 10 (68-42) <probably 11 (6-5) MSU>
(3-8) Kansas, (9-2) Buffalo, (10-1) UM, (10-1) OSU, (8-3) PSU, (5-6) Indiana, (5-6) Maryland, (7-4) NW, (7-4) Wisc., (4-7) Illinois,

11 losses to losing teams and 18 to winning teams.
So Ash's record is 5-11(.313) vs. under .500 teams and 2-18 (.100) vs over .500 teams. It could change with a few games this weekend and bowl games but you get the idea.

2016 5 losses by over 20 pts
2017 5 losses by over 20 pts
2018 6 losses by over 20 pts

2016 scored 30 pts 3 times
2017 scored 30 pts 3 times
2018 scored 30 pts 1 time

Definitely not a team trending up after year three, mostly due to having less upperclassman each year 2016 40s, 2017 35-40, and 2018 20-25. Next year, we will have 25-30+ Jrs. but ONLY 9 Seniors, most scholarship players in the 2016 class redshirted, 1 true jr. Damon Hayes and 8 redshirt jr this year, so that 2015 class has very little left. If Ash doesn't deliver in 2019, the next coach will benefit from such a upperclassman heavy team in 2020.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

Yes. That's why I posted that, since another poster was questioning Politi's sources. It could be we both heard the same thing from the same deep-pocket donors, or from different donors. But Politi doesn't seem to be off-base in what he heard.

However, that doesn't mean that what we heard is correct. Maybe Hobb's isn't as enamored with Ash as he seems to be when talking with major donors.

I guess that's possible if he wanted to play it close to the vest and not let his true intentions known. If you're looking for change I think the lack of official comment thus far is the sliver of of hope you can hang on. We'll likely find out officially by Sunday/Monday.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

2019 will be make or break for Ash. Most of Flood's players will either be gone or seniors in 2019. No excuses. Can't no longer blame Flood after this season.

 

[Upstream]

I guess that's possible if he wanted to play it close to the vest and not let his true intentions known. If you're looking for change I think the lack of official comment thus far is the sliver of of hope you can hang on. We'll likely find out officially by Sunday/Monday.

At this point, I'll take whatever sliver I can find

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

I guess that's possible if he wanted to play it close to the vest and not let his true intentions known. If you're looking for change I think the lack of official comment thus far is the sliver of of hope you can hang on. We'll likely find out officially by Sunday/Monday.

Maybe, but where is the $10,000,000 coming from again?

No one been able to answer that one.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

Maybe, but where is the $10,000,000 coming from again?

No one been able to answer that one.

I have no idea, as I mentioned above at the beginning of the season I said I don't think he would be fired if he hypothetically went winless this year. Unfortunately, we've come very close to the testing that hypothetical. I've always been in see it to believe it mode.

The ones with connections who mention it seem to think boosters/future conference money will help fund it..I don't know. Really you could say the same next year too though as the number doesn't go down that markedly. Other point is not all 10M is due in a lump sum.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Hobbs has attached his career now to Ash and I look forward to the day when the inexperience, the incompetence and their comically supercilious arrogance is far, far away from our football program.

I am skeptical that anybody other than a few people know what's going to happen w/Ash at the end of the season. And I lean towards thinking Ash can't get things going in the right direction here at RU quickly enough. So I'm okay with firing him, if it makes sense financially, and if we've lined up a replacement with HC experience and a history of winning.

But if Ash is retained for next year, then I will look forward to the team playing much better, to Ash coaching much better, to us maybe going to bowl game, and to Hobbs coming out looking like a genius. Not because I think it's likely. But because I want our program to succeed far more than I want my personal opinions about the coach or AD to be validated in any way.

It seems to me you care more about your opinion being right than you do about winning. Otherwise, why would you look forward to continued failure?

 

[cicero grimes]

Respectfully, Jurich was running a crooked operation. He gave Petrino a HUUUGE extension and payout right before he was canned. In hindsight, every move has the potential to look either brilliant or disastrous. Can understand the angst here, but some of it is just over the top. The last 2 days, the board was pretty much resigned to the notion that Ash was coming back. Don't understand some of the total outrage with the news breaking.

Yes, but the point you were making pertained to the new ad, he has not yet proven himself and his lack of experience could hurt UL the way Hobbs has hurt us.

 

[Upstream]

Maybe, but where is the $10,000,000 coming from again?

No one been able to answer that one.

It is not $10MM. It is $2MM per year for 5 years. And that money is already in the budget, since it is what we pay Ash even if he stays. Hobbs doesn't need to find that money. The money that Ash has to find is the money he will pay the new coach.

 

[TheB1GTerp]

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2018/11/rutgers_chris_ash_return.html

Well there ya go

 

[Upstream]

I am skeptical that anybody other than a few people know what's going to happen w/Ash at the end of the season. And I lean towards thinking Ash can't get things going in the right direction here at RU quickly enough. So I'm okay with firing him, if it makes sense financially, and if we've lined up a replacement with HC experience and a history of winning.

But if Ash is retained for next year, then I will look forward to the team playing much better, to Ash coaching much better, to us maybe going to bowl game, and to Hobbs coming out looking like a genius. Not because I think it's likely. But because I want our program to succeed far more than I want my personal opinions about the coach or AD to be validated in any way.

It seems to me you care more about your opinion being right than you do about winning. Otherwise, why would you look forward to continued failure?

If Ash stays, I am good with him going on to be successful, Hobbs looking like a genius, and fans like me looking foolish. It is certainly possible. Schiano went 1-11 in his second year, so by that metric Ash is only 1 year behind Schiano (though much further behind by other metrics).

 

[mildone_rivals]

If Ash stays, I am good with him going on to be successful, Hobbs looking like a genius, and fans like me looking foolish. It is certainly possible. Schiano went 1-11 in his second year, so by that metric Ash is only 1 year behind Schiano (though much further behind by other metrics).

I think it's unlikely. But it's certainly what I will hope for.

If Ash is retained, his being able to turn things around and improve over season 2 (let's forget season 3) would be the best possible scenario. RU saves money AND gets to a bowl game so recruiting improves a little. How can that not be good?

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

I agree. But we’ve recruited a top 25 class exactly once in our history. It’s not like it’s something we e done for years which only stopped under Flood/Ash.

Maybe factory schools use it as a metric for retaining/firing coaches. Rutgers will not.

We've never had a competent recruiter and B1G membership at the same time, that's the issue.

Flood was a bad coach and managed an 8 win season in the B1G with that top 25 class.

That's the real hurt here- knowing that we could be at the 6-9 win level with an average coach who is a decent recruiter, but instead we have a coach who is bad at everything.

 

[Knight Shift]

The problem is that he keeps doubling down on it and making it harder to fix.

I see your point. But, less than 5 wins next season, there will be nothing to double down on. There will be one of two reactions from fans and boosters: (1) total outrage and demands to fire both Ash and Hobbs; (2) crickets, because there will be nobody left who cares. It's a bold move and bet by Hobbs to "double down," with the confidence that Ash will get the program moving in the right direction, if that is indeed what he did.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

I would not line my bird cage with that article. Politi is such a tool.

"No matter how many prominent Rutgers supporters told him that he needed to make a change, no matter how many times a well-meaning colleague tried to point out that man he hired to coach the football team was in over his head, Pat Hobbs was defiant."

Name the prominent Rutgers supporters who told him this.

And "defiant?" Doubtful. Probably "resigned" because of the budget. Just wondering if next year really presents a better financial opportunity.

I know you like Hobbs because he was the dean at SHU Law and maybe he's a great law school dean.

But if he keeps a football coach with ONE win in his third year and losses to Kansas and Buffalo, he's a very, very, bad AD who can't raise money nor make intelligent personnel decisions.

This fanbase has never been so united on a HC. We know that Towers wants Ash out, we see Twitter.

If Hobbs was a great fundraiser and wanted Ash gone he'd be gone.

If Ash is HC here Sunday, Hobbs is a failure as AD.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

I've heard from some very-deep-pocket donors last week that they've discussed Ash with Hobbs, and they left with the impression that Hobbs is unwilling to admit that Ash has failed as that would be tantamount to Hobbs admitting he failed in hiring Ash. From what they told me, Hobbs believes that with additional time, Ash will turn it around and be successful.

From what I've been told, rather than the budget being the thing that prevents Hobbs from making a change, it will be the budget and reality of massive losses in revenue that will force Hobbs to make a change.

This is incredibly troubling and in line with the rumors with why we hear why Hobbs didn't give Schiano or others the time of day last go around.

It seems like Hobbs' intransigence is as much of an issue as money. That is sickening.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

What exactly is Hobbs' "body of work"?

If Ash is not fired, he'll have hired a god awful football coach who oversaw 3 B1G wins in 3 years and losses to EMU, Buffalo and Kansas.

Surely no one will be foolish to argue Hobbs is a yuge fundraiser- considering he couldn't raise money to replace Ash.

So what do we have...Pickiell, for whom the jury is still out? Is that someone another AD could not have hired? And finally firing the god awful men's soccer coach who was making 143k a year? Wow big spender!

Football drives the bus. Rutgers is in the Big Ten, not the Big East. Piscataway is not South Orange. This is the big time. This is not hiring law professors. This is an athletic department funded by a football program, the very first one, who generates revenue based on people showing up 7 times a year who for the better part of the 21st century had some expectation of seeing something worthwhile.

When you're at a Big Ten school and you hire someone like Ash and refuse to fire them, you have failed as an AD, period, end of story.

 

[Ru-baby]

And that money is already in the budget, since it is what we pay Ash even if he stays. Hobbs doesn't need to find that money.

Not sure why this fact escapes so many and they foolishly say "where are we going to get 10 million from".

Perhaps this should be pinned so we dont have so many silly posts about the financial issue. It's the new coaching money that is unaccounted for.

 

[megadrone]

Not sure why this fact escapes so many and they foolishly say "where are we going to get 10 million from".

Perhaps this should be pinned so we dont have so many silly posts about the financial issue. It's the new coaching money that is unaccounted for.

More that you have to find a new coach, new staff AND it has to be a better hire than the previous one. All of which adds up to $$$ while working on a mantra of get expenses down.

Hobbs would still have to get Barchi's approval and Barchi appears to have a one-track mind about the subsidy.

 

[Upstream]

More that you have to find a new coach, new staff AND it has to be a better hire than the previous one. All of which adds up to $$$ while working on a mantra of get expenses down.

Hobbs would still have to get Barchi's approval and Barchi appears to have a one-track mind about the subsidy.

Are you saying that Barchi is telling Hobbs that he is prohibited from firing an underperforming coach, or are you saying that Barchi is telling Hobbs that he has to live within his budget.

There is zero evidence that Barchi is telling Hobbs that he can't fire an underperforming coach, whether that coach is Ash, the soccer coach, or any other coach.

As far as living within his budget, every executive has that constraint. There isn't a bottomless pool of money. That's the reason that organizations have budgets.

Firing an underperforming coach doesn't seem to be the type of unusual or extraordinary event that requires a budget bailout. You're talking about finding approximately a 2-4% budget variance. Certainly not an impossible task, but made more difficult due to expected declines in ticket revenues. Nonetheless, Hobbs should have planned his budget in such a way that he could cover the variance. At the very worst, he may need to request an additional loan from the University, but even that seems unlikely. (Hell, even when I was in my 30's running a product line, I was able to manage 10%+ budget variances without running to my boss for bailouts.)

 

[Wolv RU]

Maybe, but where is the $10,000,000 coming from again?

No one been able to answer that one.

Everyone has answered it repeatedly. There is no $10 million. That is a sunk cost. It is not due all at once. Ash gets paid the same amount through Feb. 2023 whether he coaches or not. Plus, it would be nowhere near that as Ash could make close to $1 million elsewhere (like Ohio State for example) if let go.

 

[megadrone]

I'm saying that Hobbs has to live within his budget. Barchi's top goal has always been getting the subsidy down.

Everything is speculation, though, until Hobbs has his end of season press conference.

 

[miketd1]

 

[Michstfr]

With all due respect even with this season's troubles anyone who actually thought short of a scandal that Ash was getting fired was delusional.

Zero shot that was ever happening.

 

[Upstream]

I'm saying that Hobbs has to live within his budget. Barchi's top goal has always been getting the subsidy down.

Why wouldn't he have to live within his budget? That's the way it is in the real world when you sit at the big boy table.

 

[RU4Real]

Why wouldn't he have to live within his budget? That's the way it is in the real world when you sit at the big boy table.

the 2017 reporting year included $21 million in direct institutional support as well as $14 million in loans to the athletic department from the "university bank." That's not living within his budget.

 

[Upstream]

the 2017 reporting year included $21 million in direct institutional subsidy as well as $14 million in loans to the athletic department from the "university bank." That's not living within his budget.

The institutional support and loans weren't budgeted?

 

[RU4Real]

The institutional support and loans weren't budgeted?

Only after the fact because the NCAA requires that the athletic department budget be balanced.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Not sure why this fact escapes so many and they foolishly say "where are we going to get 10 million from".

Perhaps this should be pinned so we dont have so many silly posts about the financial issue. It's the new coaching money that is unaccounted for.

same difference, ok where is that money coming from?

 

[miker183]

Money aside this is disappointing, because we have gotten worse, not better.

They say the team is stronger/faster, but then someone needs to teach them how to block. Really felt like we were destroyed on the lines this year.

 

[Upstream]

Only after the fact because the NCAA requires that the athletic department budget be balanced.

C'mon, you're being intentionally difficult here. You know that the institutional support and loan amounts are budgeted. They've already been forecasted through 2021 and beyond, and in each year's annual budget, they are set.

If you're trying to say that departments don't always hit their budget numbers, or that there are variances, okay. But that really isn't germane to the point that Hobbs, like all executives, is expected to live within his budget, and if he has an additional expense (like replacing a coach) he is expected to find the money within his budget. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, if he does need to go to the university for additional funds to cover the variance, he should expect that to take the form of a loan against future revenue.

 

[RU4Real]

C'mon, you're being intentionally difficult here. You know that the institutional support and loan amounts are budgeted. They've already been forecasted through 2021 and beyond, and in each year's annual budget, they are set.

If you're trying to say that departments don't always hit their budget numbers, or that there are variances, okay. But that really isn't germane to the point that Hobbs, like all executives, is expected to live within his budget, and if he has an additional expense (like replacing a coach) he is expected to find the money within his budget. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, if he does need to go to the university for additional funds to cover the variance, he should expect that to take the form of a loan against future revenue.

Institutional support and loans can't be forecasted several years out, with any degree of accuracy.

You can forecast expenses, but can't reliably forecast revenue. You don't know what ticket sales are going to be 2 and 3 years hence (we've spent an exhaustive amount of time on that, haven't we?) and you don't know, reliably, what donations are going to look like. So if institutional support and loans are the gap closers on the balance sheet, then it stands to reason those amounts aren't locked in until the end of the fiscal year.

 

[bac2therac]

Hobbs raising money was incredible..however a deeper dig probably says much of that was political as was his hire. If he wanted Ash gone, he could raise the money, if multiple posters who I trust on the boards have said that donors ARE willing to step up but Hobbs doesnt want to hear it, then this is all I need to know. Why would Barchi need to approve something that the AD can raise on his own, you wouldnt need a AD then whats the point. There are too many people here posting that Hobbs believes in Ash and that is going to put him on the hot seat

 

[ru66]

wait till the Gary and Barbara Rodkin Center is built

 

[Upstream]

Institutional support and loans can't be forecasted several years out, with any degree of accuracy.

You can forecast expenses, but can't reliably forecast revenue. You don't know what ticket sales are going to be 2 and 3 years hence (we've spent an exhaustive amount of time on that, haven't we?) and you don't know, reliably, what donations are going to look like. So if institutional support and loans are the gap closers on the balance sheet, then it stands to reason those amounts aren't locked in until the end of the fiscal year.

How is that different than any business that has to forecast sales and revenue. Yet, budget owners still need to live within their budget. Sure, budgets are missed, but that doesn't mean you aren't held accountable to the budget.

I don't get to just go out and decide I want to go over budget by $5 million because I want to launch an unplanned trade promotion. If I think the $5MM is a good expenditure, I find the money within my budget. Only after that, do I go to my management and ask them to find the money out of a different budget ... and I need to be prepared for them to say no.

 

[RU4Real]

How is that different than any business that has to forecast sales and revenue. Yet, budget owners still need to live within their budget. Sure, budgets are missed, but that doesn't mean you aren't held accountable to the budget.

I don't get to just go out and decide I want to go over budget by $5 million because I want to launch an unplanned trade promotion. If I think the $5MM is a good expenditure, I find the money within my budget. Only after that, do I go to my management and ask them to find the money out of a different budget ... and I need to be prepared for them to say no.

The point is that they didn't forecast $21M in institutional support and $14M in loans. They had an actual revenue shortfall against budgeted revenue which made increased subsidization necessary to balance the budget at the end of the year.

In 2015 institutional support was $12M. In 2016 it was $17M. In 2017 it was $21M. They're going in the wrong direction, particularly when you consider that the B1G share has increased, year over year.

 

[Upstream]

The point is that they didn't forecast $21M in institutional support and $14M in loans. They had an actual revenue shortfall against budgeted revenue which made increased subsidization necessary to balance the budget at the end of the year.

In 2015 institutional support was $12M. In 2016 it was $17M. In 2017 it was $21M. They're going in the wrong direction, particularly when you consider that the B1G share has increased, year over year.

Except they did budget it. According to the reports published by the Star-Ledger, in FY2017 (ending June 2018), the budget for institutional support was $11.2MM and the budget for the loan was $5.5 million. In FY2018 it is $10.2MM and $2.8MM, and in FY2019 it is forecasted at $9.3MM and $1.3MM.

Now if the actual for FY2017 was a total of $21MM, instead of the budgeted $16.7MM, then Hobbs missed his budget. And if he missed his budget by $4MM last year, that just makes it harder to ask for more money.

The onus is still on Hobbs to manage his budget.

 

[Wolv RU]

How is that different than any business that has to forecast sales and revenue. Yet, budget owners still need to live within their budget. Sure, budgets are missed, but that doesn't mean you aren't held accountable to the budget.

I don't get to just go out and decide I want to go over budget by $5 million because I want to launch an unplanned trade promotion. If I think the $5MM is a good expenditure, I find the money within my budget. Only after that, do I go to my management and ask them to find the money out of a different budget ... and I need to be prepared for them to say no.

Here's the revenue for this FY:

2019
Direct institutional support: $7.246 million
Direct institutional support for Title IX efforts: $2.010 million
Ticket sales: $13.663 million
Contributions: $10.978 million
Student fees: $12.240 million
NCAA Distributions (estimate): $1.751 million
Big Ten Conference support: $27.042 million
Other: $19.440 million

Here's next two years:

2020
Direct institutional support: $6.205 million
Direct institutional support for Title IX efforts: $2.051 million
Ticket sales: $14.073 million
Contributions: $11.248 million
Student fees: $12.485 million
NCAA Distributions (estimate): $1.769 million
Big Ten Conference support: $29.444 million
Other: $19.812 million

2021
Direct institutional support: $0
Direct institutional support for Title IX efforts: $2.093 million
Ticket sales: $14.495 million
Contributions: $11.525 million
Student fees: $12.734 million
NCAA Distributions (estimate): $1.770 million
Big Ten Conference support: $44.489 million
Other: $18.091 million

There's no chance they are hitting any of those ticket or contribution numbers based on what was previously released. But it is important to note that Rutgers is already receiving $27 million from the Big Ten THIS Fiscal Year. This is up from $9 million just a few years ago.

Also, the direct institutional support is indeed already budgeted.

 

[Wolv RU]

Here's the expenses:

This year (FY 2019) and the next two years:

2019
Salaries and fringe benefits: $41.502 million
Student aid: $14.715 million
Sport and game-day expenses: $16.816 million
Debt service (external): $6.77 million
Debt service (internal): $997,000
Other (including $1.3 million loan & operating expenses): 12.368 million
Total expenditures: $93.169 million

2020
Salaries and fringe benefits: $43.343 million
Student aid: $15,157 million
Sport and game-day expenses: $17.275 million
Debt service (external): $7.162 million
Debt service (internal): $1.107 million
Other (including $1.3 million loan & operating expenses): $12.209 million
Total expenditures: $96.252 million

2021
Salaries and fringe benefits: $47.971 million
Student aid: $15.612 million
Sport and game-day expenses: $17.746 million
Debt service (external): $7.288 million
Debt service (internal): $4.878 million
Other (including $1.3 million loan & operating expenses): $11.058 million
Total expenditures: $104.553 million

Notably, the year Hobbs arrived (FY 2016), the expenses were:

Salaries and fringe benefits: $24.453 million
Student aid: $14.512 million
Sport and game-day expenses: $16.379 million
Debt service (external): $5.311 million
Debt service (internal): $350,824
Other (including $6.1 million loan, settlements & operating expenses): $22.969 million
Total expenditures: $83.974 million

Hobbs presided over salary/benefit increase from $24 million to $41 million this year and can't find money to fix his mistake?? Seems unfathomable.

It is a near certainty here that if Ash stays, it's only because Hobbs thinks he's the right guy to lead the program.