Schiano is washed. Who should replace him?

[NotInRHouse]

I don't even know how much Knight is doling out for NIL but you know it because you see it all over Oregon athletics in so many ways, it's not hidden. Fervent support like this is seen easily, like what I posted about TT also.

Cuban and other billionaire alums spending on NIL are just assumptions people make but really have no idea in most instances. @kupuna133 mentioned above that Cuban really doesn't plan to support NIL on a level like that, just only setting up an exchange to help athletes get legitimate NIL deals. I took his word for it and just now did a quick look up and yea he invested in a start up called Campus Ink and an article from Jan 2024 says it distributed 1M in NIL to athletes, not just IU athletes mind you. So I see nothing besides assumptions that Cuban bought a team for IU. No one has any idea if or how much money he might have put into NIL at IU.

Maybe I am missing something here- is there a serious suggestion that IU didn't just get a bunch of G4 ringers, or that it did but they came to IU for non fiscal reasons?

 

[NotInRHouse]

Again another assumption. Plank is a founder of UA and has donated money in the past so he must be bankrolling NIL for Maryland. Quick look up and it doesn't sounds like they're rolling it reading this below. Also have seen articles about Willard complaining about lack of NIL before he left. I did see Maryland is raising their NIL support for basketball this year and I'm sure that's in part do the revenue sharing allowed now.

Before revenue sharing, does this sound like a school swimming in it with Plank's UA money? Again it's assumption, rich billionaire alum so he must be funding big bucks but really we don't know. Sometimes yes, sometimes no...we don't know.

From CBS sports article:

"I own the fact that I lost my locker room," Locksley said during an interview with ESPN. "And this is Coach Locks, the locker room king, telling you this landscape, I had to choose between paying young players who were coming in or reward the older players that have been through the fire, three bowl wins, and I tried to do both with limited resources. And that's what you get: a locker room with the haves and have-nots."

Tagovailoa had a $1.5 million offer on the table from an SEC program looking to poach Maryland's top returning player.

Ultimately, Maryland convinced Tagovailoa to stay with a six-figure deal short of the $1.5 million offer elsewhere. (btw this is an example of not always the highest offer getting said player)

I think there's confusion of correlation and causation here.

My point is that NIL is crucial to success, but not a guarantee. Again, our own basketball team is proof of that. Looking at the football top 25, are you saying there are many teams in there not successfully using NIL?

 

[DJ Spanky]

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.

Sorry, I didn't read past this because it's such a crock of shít about Mulcahy. Mulcahy wanted someone like Schiano to come in and run the program, realized that the best way to elevate sports at Rutgers was to support and promote the most visible and revenue generating sport aka football, and put much of the AD's resources towards accomplishing that. He also took to heart much of Schiano's advice towards elevating the Athletic Department as a whole.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I’m not even going to bother to read the 5 pages worth of this.

It was a crummy loss that literally came down to one play - that 3rd down penalty on Bo was a game losing penalty that didn’t impact the play at all.

Despite giving up a kick off return. Despite not getting many PI calls throughout the game on clear holds. Despite a gut wrenching false start on a 32 yard FG attempt right up the gut. Despite a domino onset of injuries. Despite all that. It would’ve been 4th down with 7:44 to go and Iowa punting with us on top 28-24.

After that penalty - we just weren’t resilient enough to recover and we fell apart. Period. You could pick apart every play and come up with things Greg could’ve done differently but it is all Monday night quarterbacking. The coaching put us in the position to win this game. We made some sloppy mistakes that cost us the game. End of story.

How dare you bring facts into this discussion?

Had that penalty not been called, we win the game...and about 1/4 or 1/3 of those posting now would not be, and the rest would say, well, Iowa sucks this year so doesn't count yada yada

 

[kupuna133]

Sorry, I didn't read past this because it's such a crock of shít about Mulcahy. Mulcahy wanted someone like Schiano to come in and run the program, realized that the best way to elevate sports at Rutgers was to support and promote the most visible and revenue generating sport aka football, and put much of the AD's resources towards accomplishing that. He also took to heart much of Schiano's advice towards elevating the Athletic Department as a whole.

I think he mistook Gruninger for Mulcahy. Gruninger was the quintessential cash a check and get a pension guy. Never saw a chicken salad sandwich he didn’t like.

 

[kupuna133]

Sorry, I didn't read past this because it's such a crock of shít about Mulcahy. Mulcahy wanted someone like Schiano to come in and run the program, realized that the best way to elevate sports at Rutgers was to support and promote the most visible and revenue generating sport aka football, and put much of the AD's resources towards accomplishing that. He also took to heart much of Schiano's advice towards elevating the Athletic Department as a whole.

I think he mistook Gruninger for Mulcahy. Gruninger was the quintessential cash a check and get a pension guy. Never saw a chicken salad sandwich he didn’t like.

 

[rutgersguy2]

Maybe I am missing something here- is there a serious suggestion that IU didn't just get a bunch of G4 ringers, or that it did but they came to IU for non fiscal reasons?

They did and and many came from JMU but lots of schools get players from G5. Even we did. G5 schools even get players from the P4.

It doesn’t mean everyone is getting a ton of money. Roster turnover is big at so many places, doesn’t mean cash is flowing all over. JMU players following him to IU isn’t any different than AK following KC here from Minn. So many players follow their coaches to new desfinations, it doesn’t mean they’re all swimming in it. Some might be but most aren’t.

Most are likely to get more money this year and the in the future because revenue sharing with the a school is a much better source for resources than most booster led NIL.

 

[NotInRHouse]

They did and and many came from JMU but lots of schools get players from G5. Even we did. G5 schools even get players from the P4.

It doesn’t mean everyone is getting a ton of money. Roster turnover is big at so many places, doesn’t mean cash is flowing all over. JMU players following him to IU isn’t any different than AK following KC here from Minn. So many players follow their coaches to new desfinations, it doesn’t mean they’re all swimming in it. Some might be but most aren’t.

Most are likely to get more money this year and the in the future because revenue sharing with the a school is a much better source for resources than most booster led NIL.

Ok so your argument is that Indiana is just doing more with revenue sharing than much of the rest of the B1G, and NIL is less relevant than that?

I mean, putting even our own program aside, not sure how we can explain UCLA and Wisconsin. Or SEC programs like UF.

 

[rutgersguy2]

I think there's confusion of correlation and causation here.

My point is that NIL is crucial to success, but not a guarantee. Again, our own basketball team is proof of that. Looking at the football top 25, are you saying there are many teams in there not successfully using NIL?

No I’m saying before this year with revenue sharing, NIL wasn’t flowing all over the place like some think it was and point to it as the big reason for success, specifically at formerly downtrodden schools. Revenue sharing didn’t exist last year fyi.

The downtrodden schools that finally had some success were more likely achieving it through good player identification and coaching and sure maybe some NIL but most likely not to the levels that people attribute.

What TT is trying to do this year in this short term dislocation between unlimited and NIL and revenue sharing cap is more like that but that usually wasn’t the case in the past to the level people think. The way TT has operated this year is more of a unicorn than the norm for your typical f “downtrodden/average” school.

Going forward I kind of wonder even how much of an advantage the big status schools will have if outside the school NIL has to be verified as legitimate. Everything I read lately is saying there’s not much out there for most athletes besides a few handful maybe. Revenue sharing from the school will be the biggest piece. Even the big TT booster said it in the article I mentioned above.

 

[rutgersguy2]

Ok so your argument is that Indiana is just doing more with revenue sharing than much of the rest of the B1G, and NIL is less relevant than that?

I mean, putting even our own program aside, not sure how we can explain UCLA and Wisconsin. Or SEC programs like UF.

No I’m not saying that. Revenue sharing didn’t exist last year when they made their big splash. It was just outside the school NIL. I’m saying that I don’t think the team was bought the way some do here. It was just players mostly following the HC and good identification of talent and the coaching and putting it together. Not to say they didn’t have or use NIL but not to the levels some think.

This year everyone has revenue sharing so it’s a lot more even across the board and the floor is lifted. We, they and everyone can spend into that 13-15M cap for football if they can find the money in their athletic department.

 

[NotInRHouse]

No I’m saying before this year with revenue sharing, NIL wasn’t flowing all over the place like some think it was and point to it as the big reason for success, specifically at formerly downtrodden schools.

The downtrodden schools that finally had some success were more likely achieving it through good player identification and coaching and sure maybe some NIL but most likely not to the levels that people attribute.

What TT is trying to do this year in this short term dislocation between unlimited and NIL and revenue sharing cap is more like that but that usually wasn’t the case in the past to the level people think. The way TT has operated this year is more of a unicorn than the norm for your typical f “downtrodden/average” school.

Going forward I kind of wonder even how much of an advantage the big status schools will have if outside the school NIL has to be verified as legitimate. Everything I read lately is saying there’s not much out there for most athletes besides a few handful maybe. Revenue sharing from the school will be the biggest piece. Even the big TT booster said it in the article I mentioned above.

So you really think IU is employing just great coaching and maximizing revenue distribution?

I really don't think so, but I guess we're going to see, because if you are correct I would imagine the IU staff will be the first call Clemson and UF make. At least I would if I were AD.

 

[Shelby65]

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.

This nails it from the first word to the last. Summary: if the goal is to be .500 or better in conference, he never should have been hired in the first place and he’s been stealing salary like black holes swallow matter and light ever since.

 

[rutgersguy2]

So you really think IU is employing just great coaching and maximizing revenue distribution?

I really don't think so, but I guess we're going to see, because if you are correct I would imagine the IU staff will be the first call Clemson and UF make. At least I would if I were AD.

CC has a 13M buyout to hire him. It goes down as the years go by. I wouldn’t want to pay that plus my fired staff…a lot of dead money when athletic departments are trying to find money to pay players.

 

[Knight Shift]

I’m not even going to bother to read the 5 pages worth of this.

It was a crummy loss that literally came down to one play - that 3rd down penalty on Bo was a game losing penalty that didn’t impact the play at all.

Despite giving up a kick off return. Despite not getting many PI calls throughout the game on clear holds. Despite a gut wrenching false start on a 32 yard FG attempt right up the gut. Despite a domino onset of injuries. Despite all that. It would’ve been 4th down with 7:44 to go and Iowa punting with us on top 28-24.

After that penalty - we just weren’t resilient enough to recover and we fell apart. Period. You could pick apart every play and come up with things Greg could’ve done differently but it is all Monday night quarterbacking. The coaching put us in the position to win this game. We made some sloppy mistakes that cost us the game. End of story.

One play? Are you serious?
Kickoff return for 103 yards.
Two missed field goals.
Many missed tackles and assignments.
Blaming the refs is a loser's position.

 

[Shelby65]

Ok so your argument is that Indiana is just doing more with revenue sharing than much of the rest of the B1G, and NIL is less relevant than that?

I mean, putting even our own program aside, not sure how we can explain UCLA and Wisconsin. Or SEC programs like UF.

Indiana hired a coach who has won before. What has Schiano ever won, or even done in any role post-2010 that merited hiring him again ? Answer: nothing.

 

[FRA10Thunderbolt]

…and he probably thought he stood a chance to be the Tennessee coach… the best thing that happened to him was the fan base revolting to spare him from an embarrassing firing one year out… Although he would’ve probably pocketed some decent cash

He's not pocketing decent cash at Rutgers? LOL

 

[JL23]

Love Greg and all he's done for the school, but as I've said countless times before, his ceiling of consistent wins per year is 8, and that's a stretch

Hell of a man, Christian, father figure, role model and ambassador for the university
Tremendous builder of programs, talent evaluator and defensive mind

But as a head coach, he'll never get us to an elite level

 

[SHUSource]

Sorry, I didn't read past this because it's such a crock of shít about Mulcahy. Mulcahy wanted someone like Schiano to come in and run the program, realized that the best way to elevate sports at Rutgers was to support and promote the most visible and revenue generating sport aka football, and put much of the AD's resources towards accomplishing that. He also took to heart much of Schiano's advice towards elevating the Athletic Department as a whole.

I considered omitting this for fear of the larger point being lost, but I chose to leave it because it's correct. It was pretty well documented at the time that Mulcahy was chasing those retreads and was rebuffed before he looked toward Schiano, and even then, it was largely after the blitz of columns about Schiano in the Star-Ledger, which still carried some weight a quarter century ago. And it was, as I've said, the right hire. I think Mulcahy even drew on Schiano's convincing attitude toward success there and his own energy for the job grew. But it was always Schiano directing him what to do, even with respect to other Rutgers programs, because he figureed it would help float his own program. Schiano is a terrific program CEO.

 

[SHUSource]

I think he mistook Gruninger for Mulcahy. Gruninger was the quintessential cash a check and get a pension guy. Never saw a chicken salad sandwich he didn’t like.

No. Mulcahy was far from a visionary but I'd still never insult him with that comparison.

 

[kupuna133]

No. Mulcahy was far from a visionary but I'd still never insult him with that comparison.

I can tell you from someone not relying on articles from the Star Ledger you’re pretty far off. Mulcahy taught Schiano just as much as Schiano taught Mulcahy. They were a complete team. Mulcahy ran **** from day one. He wasn’t looking for someone to tell him what to do. He knew what needed to be done and let professionals be professionals.

 

[DJ Spanky]

I can tell you from someone not relying on articles from the Star Ledger you’re pretty far off. Mulcahy taught Schiano just as much as Schiano taught Mulcahy. They were a complete team. Mulcahy ran **** from day one. He wasn’t looking for someone to tell him what to do. He knew what needed to be done and let professionals be professionals.

Yup, you're spot on. That listing above is a hack job on Mulcahy.

 

[SHUSource]

I can tell you from someone not relying on articles from the Star Ledger you’re pretty far off. Mulcahy taught Schiano just as much as Schiano taught Mulcahy. They were a complete team. Mulcahy ran **** from day one. He wasn’t looking for someone to tell him what to do. He knew what needed to be done and let professionals be professionals.

I only pointed to the Star-Ledger with regard to their campaign to have Rutgers hire Schiano. Aside from my own observations, my larger opinion comes from a few rather knowledgeable people in state politics and someone within Rutgers athletics. In any case, the original post really has very little to do with Bob Mulcahy.

 

[kupuna133]

I only pointed to the Star-Ledger with regard to their campaign to have Rutgers hire Schiano. Aside from my own observations, my larger opinion comes from a few rather knowledgeable people in state politics and someone within Rutgers athletics. In any case, the original post really has very little to do with Bob Mulcahy.

The original post was all about Bob Mulcahy. You said he was only here for a paycheck and pension. The guy literally took a pay cut to come to RU.

 

[SHUSource]

The original post was all about Bob Mulcahy. You said he was only here for a paycheck and pension. The guy literally took a pay cut to come to RU.

My original post was seven paragraphs about Greg Schiano, in which Mulcahy is never mentioned after the first few lines. He is incidental to the point.

 

[kupuna133]

My original post was seven paragraphs about Greg Schiano, in which Mulcahy is never mentioned after the first few lines. He is incidental to the point.

If you say so. You disparaged his memory. Kind of heartless. And as Spanky said most people stopped reading after that nonsense.

 

[SHUSource]

If you say so. You disparaged his memory. Kind of heartless. And as Spanky said most people stopped reading after that nonsense.

It wasn't an uncommon sentiment at the time on this very board. I'm not sure when his resume was whitewashed so as to not permit any recollection of this. But again, it's got nothing to do with the larger point. You can read it or not.

 

[kupuna133]

It wasn't an uncommon sentiment at the time on this very board. I'm not sure when his resume was whitewashed so as to not permit any recollection of this. But again, it's got nothing to do with the larger point. You can read it or not.

No need to. Let the man rest in peace. No need to disparage his character.

 

[DJ Spanky]

It wasn't an uncommon sentiment at the time on this very board.

Wow, I have no recollection of that sentiment whatsoever. By the way, did you work for the Star Ledger around the 2008-2009 timeframe?

 

[MADHAT1]

It wasn't an uncommon sentiment at the time on this very board. I'm not sure when his resume was whitewashed so as to not permit any recollection of this. But again, it's got nothing to do with the larger point. You can read it or not.

The point is you made a mistake about Bob Mulcahy right off the bat when you posted your opinion.
Rutgers was a small time program in the big time when Mulcahy arrived .
He tried to find candidates to help make RU competitive , but for one reason or another couldn't find a taker. One candidate was going to be hired but rumor had it that the candidate let the cat out of the bag before Shea was let go , so Mulcahy dropped the idea of him taking over .

Schiano at first wasn't jumping at the chance to take the position and was advised not to , but came to realize Mulcahy wanted to make Rutgers Football and would spend what it takes to make it so.Schiano handed Mulcahy a lost of things he needed to be done in order for him to take the RU HC position, Mulcahy had Shea's replacement .
Rutgers football started on the road to respectability the day Robert Mulcahy was hired as RU's AD
Most of the negativity surrounding the program was from the Star Ledger that ran hit peices designed to make Mulcahy and Schiano look bad and spendthrifts .
The attacks by that paper were so bad and full of falsehoods that some Rutgers fans took out an d in that rag refuting the lies it was spreading

The begining of your opinion reminded me of that, so when you whined "You can read it or not." I did the" not"

There were some RU fans displeased with Mulcahy, they were fans of other RU sports programs that felt he spent too much money on making the football program better at the expense of the sport they supported most..

I thank you for the effort you put in your message, but starting out with an uniformed one made me feel the rest of what you said might just show more ignorance and it would be foolish to continue reading what you posted .

 

[SHUSource]

The point is you made a mistake about Bob Mulcahy right off the bat when you posted your opinion.
Rutgers was a small time program in the big time when Mulcahy arrived .
He tried to find candidates to help make RU competitive , but for one reason or another couldn't find a taker. One candidate was going to be hired but rumor had it that the candidate let the cat out of the bag before Shea was let go , so Mulcahy dropped the idea of him taking over .

Schiano at first wasn't jumping at the chance to take the position and was advised not to , but came to realize Mulcahy wanted to make Rutgers Football and would spend what it takes to make it so.Schiano handed Mulcahy a lost of things he needed to be done in order for him to take the RU HC position, Mulcahy had Shea's replacement .
Rutgers football started on the road to respectability the day Robert Mulcahy was hired as RU's AD
Most of the negativity surrounding the program was from the Star Ledger that ran hit peices designed to make Mulcahy and Schiano look bad and spendthrifts .
The attacks by that paper were so bad and full of falsehoods that some Rutgers fans took out an d in that rag refuting the lies it was spreading

The begining of your opinion reminded me of that, so when you whined "You can read it or not." I did the" not"

There were some RU fans displeased with Mulcahy, they were fans of other RU sports programs that felt he spent too much money on making the football program better at the expense of the sport they supported most..

I thank you for the effort you put in your message, but starting out with an uniformed one made me feel the rest of what you said might just show more ignorance and it would be foolish to continue reading what you posted .

Respectfully -- and I mean it -- that is a little bit of revisionist history. I think Schiano correctly recognized Mulcahy as someone who knew which levels to pull in Trenton and decided he would be able to direct him properly in order to get what he needed out of him to create the physical infrastructure necessary to elevate the program. Maybe we agree on that, at least essentially. But had Bob hired Darnell or someone like him, it wouldn't have worked, because his top choices were stiffs -- more of the same that had permitted Rutgers to wallow where it was. Unlocking the money was Mulcahy's skill, but Schiano knew how to sell it.

But the idea that the Star-Ledger reporting around Mulcahy's management of the department were designed to make him look bad is silly. If anything, they likely undereported it. Why would I think that? I was working in the comms office at Kean when Josh Margolin was sniffing around, and then digging, about Jim McGreevey's job there, and we were scared, because it was a bad story. Still, the university did a good enough job stonewalling him, and when his big piece came out, it was bad ... but not nearly as bad as the truth. But he could only report what he could confirm. We breathed a big sigh of relief when he actually underreported the story. Offline, he acknowledged that he knew there there was more to it, but he wasn't able to show the work. The guy has integrity, so I'd be inclined to believe he ran what he had receipts for, and probably knew it was worse, but couldn't make the objective case.

 

[kupuna133]

Wow, I have no recollection of that sentiment whatsoever. By the way, did you work for the Star Ledger around the 2008-2009 timeframe?

From his post later in the thread. May not have worked at the star ledger but it sounds like he was deep throat.

 

[Shelby65]

Respectfully -- and I mean it -- that is a little bit of revisionist history. I think Schiano correctly recognized Mulcahy as someone who knew which levels to pull in Trenton and decided he would be able to direct him properly in order to get what he needed out of him to create the physical infrastructure necessary to elevate the program. Maybe we agree on that, at least essentially. But had Bob hired Darnell or someone like him, it wouldn't have worked, because his top choices were stiffs -- more of the same that had permitted Rutgers to wallow where it was. Unlocking the money was Mulcahy's skill, but Schiano knew how to sell it.

But the idea that the Star-Ledger reporting around Mulcahy's management of the department were designed to make him look bad is silly. If anything, they likely undereported it. Why would I think that? I was working in the comms office at Kean when Josh Margolin was sniffing around, and then digging, about Jim McGreevey's job there, and we were scared, because it was a bad story. Still, the university did a good enough job stonewalling him, and when his big piece came out, it was bad ... but not nearly as bad as the truth. But he could only report what he could confirm. We breathed a big sigh of relief when he actually underreported the story. Offline, he acknowledged that he knew there there was more to it, but he wasn't able to show the work. The guy has integrity, so I'd be inclined to believe he ran what he had receipts for, and probably knew it was worse, but couldn't make the objective case.

Schiano is a pathological puppetmaster. Mulcahy was the puppet with the key political contacts. Important, but the soldier following orders, not the general.

And frankly, nobody should f’in care about shitting on his memory or legacy or anyone else’s. He was a public figure, same as Ash, Schiano, Pitino, etc. Fair game.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

One play? Are you serious?
Kickoff return for 103 yards.
Two missed field goals.
Many missed tackles and assignments.
Blaming the refs is a loser's position.

I’m not blaming the refs or ignoring any of these things. I’m saying that even with all of these mistakes - there is still a very good chance that we win the game if Bo doesn’t commit that one penalty. No penalty there means we get the ball back with 7.5 min left to play and a 4 point lead. Could we still lose? Yes. But we would’ve been very well positioned. Even with all the other things going wrong. We did enough things right to win the game, just in the end we made one too many sloppy mistakes. I just don’t see how you pin that on the head coach being washed up.

 

[Knight Shift]

I’m not blaming the refs or ignoring any of these things. I’m saying that even with all of these mistakes - there is still a very good chance that we win the game if Bo doesn’t commit that one penalty. No penalty there means we get the ball back with 7.5 min left to play and a 4 point lead. Could we still lose? Yes. But we would’ve been very well positioned. Even with all the other things going wrong. We did enough things right to win the game, just in the end we made one too many sloppy mistakes. I just don’t see how you pin that on the head coach being washed up.

We can agree to disagree here, the problem is- "Even with all the other things going wrong."
Special teams has been a disaster under 2.0, and he refuses to hire a full time coach to fix it.
The defensive coordinator situation this year is awful. The unit that used to be Rutgers' identity is a shell of its former self.
There is still time to right the ship. Teams can improve over the course of a year. No better time than against Minnesota.

 

[Shelby65]

I’m not blaming the refs or ignoring any of these things. I’m saying that even with all of these mistakes - there is still a very good chance that we win the game if Bo doesn’t commit that one penalty. No penalty there means we get the ball back with 7.5 min left to play and a 4 point lead. Could we still lose? Yes. But we would’ve been very well positioned. Even with all the other things going wrong. We did enough things right to win the game, just in the end we made one too many sloppy mistakes. I just don’t see how you pin that on the head coach being washed up.

If a dog could fly it would be a bird. There are plenty of ‘if’ scenarios that affect the outcomes of games. “If he didn’t ice the kicker”, “if we had last year’s defense”, “if they didn’t return the KO for a TD. Problem is, it’s illogical to continually make excuses for the guy based on a long list of ifs. Good coaches win. “If” excuses aren’t needed by their fans.

 

[RUTGERS95]

no one play makes the game; win or lose.
during the course of a game, any game, there are a ton of little things that should have been done to achieve a win, rarely is anything a one off unless you're calling a timeout unnecessarily.

 

[Shelby65]

no one play makes the game; win or lose.
during the course of a game, any game, there are a ton of little things that should have been done to achieve a win, rarely is anything a one off unless you're calling a timeout unnecessarily ON A 58 YARD FG TRY INTO A 30 MPH WIND ON A COLD, WET DAY….FIFY

 

[RU#1fan]

If a dog could fly it would be a bird. There are plenty of ‘if’ scenarios that affect the outcomes of games. “If he didn’t ice the kicker”, “if we had last year’s defense”, “if they didn’t return the KO for a TD. Problem is, it’s illogical to continually make excuses for the guy based on a long list of ifs. Good coaches win. “If” excuses aren’t needed by their fans.

No one is arguing that Schiano is a bad Coach.

 

[DJ Spanky]

no one play makes the game; win or lose.

Bill Buckner would agree to disagree.

 

[Knight Shift]

Bill Buckner would agree to disagree.

"Despite other mitigating factors – such as that the speedy Wilson may have been safe at first even if Buckner had fielded the ball[2], or that Boston's pitching had already squandered a three-run lead and that Buckner making the play would have merely prolonged the game and not clinched victory for Boston – the play is often known as the "Buckner play" and the loss blamed on the play's eponymous figure."

After the first Iowa TD, I said to my better half- let's beat the traffic. Should have went with my instincts!!!