A view from the outside: a non-Rutgers fan's perspective
Greg Schiano is a great program CEO. Twice, the guy took over a Rutgers program that was flat on its back and made it respectable. The first time, it was a program with no infrastructure. He got it built, carefully instructing Banquet Circuit Bob Mulcahy, a career politico who was just there to cash a check and earn a pension, how it was done. He elevated Mulcahy in the process and made Rutgers relevant, peaking in late 2006. The second time, the infrastructure was in place and Rutgers was in in the Big Ten, but bottom-feeding as a result of the catastrophic hire of Chris Ash, the worst football coach I've seen in 45 years of watching this sport closely.
Getting from the bottom to middling is much easier than getting from middling to very good, and getting to great is even harder. This is why there are only a handful of programs that are really capable of winning national championships. Think of Penn State. They should be able to win one: They have the infrastructure, the fan base, the institutional support, the recruiting base and ability. But they just can't land the plane. It's almost impossible. But they win 10 or 11 games every year, which is, to be blunt, out of Rutgers' reach if it keeps on repeating its cycle.
Greg Schiano has a lengthy record by which to judge him, and also by which to predict the future. He's not in his sixth year at Rutgers; he's in his eleventh, albeit nonconsecutive. It's easy to say that the program regressed in his absence, which is as obvious as can be. But where was it headed had he never left? His trajectory was downward when he left Rutgers in 2012. After the program's high point, the 2006 win against Louisville, Schiano's Rutgers teams were just 17-21 in the Big East. So where were they headed? Forget the nonconference record; the guy has always scheduled as softly as a program can. Even its power conference games out of conference have always been against low- to mid-teir teams like North Carolina, Michigan State (when it was OoC), Kansas, and Arkansas. I'm lookng at his record in conference, which allows us to view a standard against other teams in the league.
"NIL" was not a factor in his mediocre conference performance the first time, so it's hard to make an absolute case for it now. I'm aware that his "NIL" (which I put in quotation marks since it isn't actually NIL, but that's a story for another day) suppoort from Rutgers is not top their but there are plenty of coaches getting it done without that kind of support. His performance in 2.0 is lagging a bit behind his pace in1.0, but he's also a different guy in a different environment. Yes, the Big Ten is tougher than the (underrated) Big East was twenty years ago, but it's all relative; he's competing against other programs in the same league with the same theoretical advantages. He's not able to sell Rutgers in the same way he did 20 or 25 years ago. He's not a flashy new kid anymore, but a grizzled veteran. This is accentuated by his adherence to old-school, conservative football. He also can't paint Rutgers as the only place he'd ever want to be. That was dashed when he left the first time, and then squeezed them for everything he could to return, even when it was clearly his only option if he ever wanted to be a head coach again.
Greg Schiano has been the primary (perhaps the only?) beneficiary of Rutgers' inability to hire another head fotball coach who was even mildly competent. It is from this that the narrative emerges that "only he can get it done here." That is a laughable notion. Look who you're comparing him to. I would not hire Chris Ash to coach a P.A.L. team. Kyle Flood also lacked the gravitas and intelligence to succeed in that role. Looking way back, Doug Graber was a pretty good head coach, but there was no infrastructure nor institutional around him at all, yet he still produced some pretty interesting and competitive teams. Even when Schiano was hired in 2000, look at the clowns Mulcahy preferred to hire first: Gary Darnell, Glen Mason (a decent coach, but wouldn't have had the youth or energy to build them up from a 1-AA program masquerading as a Big East team into what it became). Schiano pretty much fell into his lap, and he was, no doubt, the right guy for the job. Had he left after 2006, Rutgers would've had a chance to make a good hire (which is different than actually making one), and it would've been interesting to see what would've happened. Instead, his late departure in 2012 forced them to hire from within, and a program already sliding down accelerated its descent, then compounded it with the Ash hire, setting Schiano up to be a conquering hero again. But now that the look of a professional program is back in place, Rutgers is right back where it was 15 years ago: unable to gain any traction as it tries to climb from middling to good/very good.
Competitors from all over hopes Greg Schiano coaches Rutgers forever. Why wouldn't they? Thery can look at the long perspective and understand, based on the record, that as long as he is there, they will never really be a threat in the standings or on the recruiting trail. That leaves New Jersey and the rest of Rutgers' natural footprint available to be picked clean by the top programs. As far as the actual games on the field go, they understand that Rutgers under Schiano will never go down easily, but they remain eminently beatable. What these opposing coaches fear most is Rutgers being in the position to make a strong hire who will actually give the program a chance to take that next step up the ladder, which they simply do not fear as long as he is there.
Greg Schiano probably will be there forever. Or, at least until his buyout becomes tenable. The president and the AD can talk about LSU and championship culture all they want, but there is simply no way they will force a $25 million buyout (or whatever it is). That isn't happening. And by the time 2030 rolls around, with the continued shift in the landscape of the sport, will it be too late? That is right before the time most insiders believe the next big move is 28 or 32 or however many of the sport's biggest brands break off to create their own confederation to negotiate media rights, shaking off the programs from their leagues that simply don't bring value or strengthen their football brand.
is where I'm at with thoughts to Schiano and replacing him. Part of it, admittedly, because we saw when Schiano left after his 1st term as HC. I think many fear the same would happen again. Maybe the new AD gets things together and can fund the hiring of a big-named/experienced (read: expensive) coach.