Greg has one of the lowest win percentages of any active coach
- Thread starter RUTGERS95
- Start date
I liked Flood but was OK with his firing in 2015 due to the record and trend and his off-field issues. He seemed to get a shorter leash than many other coaches at RU though. One thing to keep in mind in 2015 is the schedule was tough, 1 OSU, 4 Mich St, 16 Mich and PSU, Neb and Wisc. The only team listed there that Schiano ever beat was Mich St, and never when they were ranked. It probably wasn't going to be a good season regardless of coach. OOC Wash St was 9-4 and we lost a shootout by 3, and we lost a shootout to Mary by 5. Just some perspective.
I responded to your inaccurate statement that was bolded, you need to stay on point
Last edited:
And the previous coach only had limited success despite the great facilities, which had more to do with hiring DeBoer as the OC and the resulting improvement of Penix, their QB. It all fell apart after DeBoer got the HC job at Washington and took Penix with him.
Absolutely - that’s fine. I’ve said for years Flood is criticized more than he deserved in being bucketed with tenures like Ash. Not fair at all.
But at the same time, the same folks pointing these types of thing out regarding Flood are saying they don’t want to hear any excuses when it comes to Greg. Flood was let go, not because of football results but rather because of a collection of off-field issues that happened under his watch. Perhaps if he had gone 7-5 again instead of 4-8 this might’ve been overlooked, but it’s not like Greg hasn’t been “close” a couple times against OSU and company. It still turned out to be a 4 win season timed with the disaster off field. And again, understand that 7-5 in 2014 was highly likely to have been 6-6 if you replaced one of the non-conference games with another BIG game.
Also of note, Flood deserves credit for bringing in Fridge that one year who not only did wonders for Gary Nova - but strong argument can be made, that he single-handedly lay the foundation for Michael Burton’s NFL career by getting the absolute most from him and showing how he could be used to drastically upgrade blocking in the trenches. That’s a huge thing - but just as AK’s success can’t be mentioned without accknowledging how bad a decision it was to roll previously with GW - it cannot be dismissed either what a disaster the 2013 offense was given the pieces they had and the schedule they played.
Last edited:
And Schianos contract extension through 2030 wasn’t necessary. No other program was interested in him.
It all starts and ends with the QB.
You can be the best alchemist (OC) but you can’t make gold, unless you have gold (QB).
A bit of a pivot, Brendan Sorsby was at Indiana through 2023, and he transferred out after Cignetti was named head coach. He had much better years at Cincinnati than his two at Indiana. Was this on the coach, an injury to Sorsby, or "something else?"
It came out in depositions in Bielema's lawsuit against Arkansas (when they tried to stiff Bret was he was owed in his buyout because they contended he was not trying to find a job), that Bielema interviewed at Rutgers and was likely a candidate if Greg 2.0 did not come to fruition.
"Bielema was a finalist for the Scarlet Knights’ head coaching job and interviewed with athletics director Pat Hobbs before the school wrapped up Schiano’s return, according to a federal lawsuit obtained by NJ Advance Media, filed by Bielema in June against Arkansas’ Razorback Foundation. Bielema coached at Arkansas from 2013-17 and is suing that organization, alleging it breached contract by failing to pay him roughly $7 million in salary he was owed.
NJ Advance Media reported in December that Bielema would have been Rutgers’ top fall-back option had its second chance at a reunion with Schiano failed."
Coaching was a big factor, I'm sure. The elephant in the room here is Cignetti, who turned a program that was 9-27/3-24 the previous 3 seasons into an undefeated National Champion in 2 years while going 27-2.
It’s not an elephant. It’s the field house!!!
No - the overarching point was that it was for the most part, a veteran roster returning from a very solid 9 win team. I did not go back and cross check the roster player for player, but that is not needed in order to substantiate the intended argument which is - stated again - this starting point was nothing remotely like what Greg inherited either tenure. Forget apples and oranges (both fruits) - it’d be like comparing apples and sweat shirts or something.
Cignetti is not a fair comparison in these situations. The man is unicorn when it comes to head coaches.
We can only hope that someone on Greg's new defensive staff is the same type of unicorn.
You are both wrong. It's the Elephant in the Fieldhouse!!!
This is absolutely true, now. Previously, if you didn’t extend a sitting coach after a certain point, future recruiting became impossible. That’s no longer the case and for this reason there should be no reason whatsoever Greg should be considered for extension any time soon unless he takes us to the playoffs and suddenly becomes a target for other job openings.
Just because Bielema had a couple years success at Illinois does not mean he’d be some kind of home run at Rutgers by the way. After a year or so of success at Arkansas Bielema came crashing back down to earth - so the jury is still out. Let’s see what happens when he loses his 3 year veteran QB.
Also - success at one place hardly guarantees success elsewhere. Rhule was a prize hire at the time. Hafley was a disaster at BC - doing very well in the NFL.
You keep pointing to one isolated success story as it the success that coach is currently
having as if that proves we can reasonably expect that to become our outcome if we shell out the massive amount of money needed to wipe the slate clean after the season. I also don’t understand how you could suggest Illinois’ situation in 2020 might’ve been worse than Rutgers situation when Ash left. They were 2-6 in the Covid year but likely would’ve been 6-6 if you put 4 OOC cupcakes on the schedule. And it was also Covid so all results need to be taken with a grain of salt anyway since teams were routinely playing with half their rosters. They went to a bowl in 2019. Let me refresh your memory - the program Greg inherited was losing games 78-0 and putting Ruth Chris out of business. We were getting slaughtered by teams like Buffalo!
Again - if we didn’t have to pay a huge amount of money to start over this would be a different discussion. I just don’t see how one can argue it benefits RU to make that investment. The odds of someone else coming in and getting 9 wins by 2030 vs the odds of Greg doing it are not materially higher or higher at all (I have my doubts). But certainly not enough so to shell out what’s required. That changes if it looks like we’re moving back towards Ashland bad. This year is a crossroads for sure.
Dear higher power, you like to continue to beat dead horses in an effort to make some point and/or prop up your man.
You point on Bielema could not be further from the truth and a poor counterpoint. You were partly correct (a year of success), and it was moderate at best. Maybe talk about his success at Wisconsin? 68-24 overall and 37-19 in conference? Thank you for helping make the point that the many an absolutely, hands down superior coach to Greg. It's not even moderately debatable.
Nope, I have pointed to multiple success stories Bielema, Brohm at lowly Purdue and Briles at Baylor, all of which were dumpster fires before they took over.
And try to stay on point. Nobody is suggesting Greg to get fired now. We all agree he gets at least this year, and perhaps if he goes 6-6 with no major miscues or debacles, or better yet, 7-5 he gets another year.
None of this is intended to sound rude. But you keep finding weaker and weaker counterarguments to clutch your pearls and worse yet misstating things that have been posted. Have a good weekend, and Happy Father's Day to you, sir!
Oh yeah, Matt Rhule?
Temple turned around to 10-4/7-1 and 10-3/7-1 in seasons 3 and 4
Baylor- Had them 11-3/8-1 by season 3.
Nebraska- he's treading water but still doing better than Greg in season 3: 19-19/10-17 (not great).
Temple turned around to 10-4/7-1 and 10-3/7-1 in seasons 3 and 4
Baylor- Had them 11-3/8-1 by season 3.
Nebraska- he's treading water but still doing better than Greg in season 3: 19-19/10-17 (not great).
And to your point Bielema has come out and said his biggest regret was taking the Arkansas job. It was not a great “cultural” fit. What worked at Wisconsin was never going to be successful at Arkansas. He alienated his recruiting base and his sryle was alien to many of the existing roster.
The funny part of all this negative Schiano stuff was that Hobbs was dead set not to hire Schiano. Many of the same guys who love to fire coaches because in their simple minds that's the answer to everything were screaming we had to hire him.
Here’s the thing…
At Rutgers it doesn’t have to be a home run to get just about the same results.
Anything more than a single (8-4, winning B1G conference record, resulting in a better bowl) and we are talk of the town.
And it was right there, for the taking.
This whole string is a discussion of how Greg “stands out” as sucking based on his historically poor losing record - is it not? What exactly have I said that is not “on point” with respect to this topic? If by beating a dead horse you mean continuing to insist that context is needed if your going to attempt to compare coaching records straight up, then yeah sure, I’ll die on that hill. Which program the wins/losses were accumulated with, the opponents played, and the status of the program the said coach inherited when he stepped into the role (and even beyond) all matter significantly. There is no coach in the world who would’ve had a winning record early in either of Greg’s stints at RU, so no, it is not appropriate to compare his record to a coach who was only HC for 4 years at RU and inherited a 9 win program (actually 95 is “off point” to nitpick one minor detail regarding exactly how much retention the roster had - it was a seasoned roster returning from a deep team - without question - one that played a softer schedule than the prior season).
At Wisconsin, Bielema inherited a 10-3 team coming off a bowl win over the 7th ranked team in the country. He was also promoted from within a program with a rich history of success which is why I didn’t bring that stint up. It’s not relevant to what I was saying which is that sustained success in a program that has historically struggled is HARD for any coach to achieve. Kansas, for instance, is taking some steps back. Brohm moved on before we could see. Rutgers and NW basketball are the same story. Arkansas was an example of this with Bielema - similar type of program to the Illini in the SEC. We’ll see if he can become a reload type of program. This is a pivotal year for sure.
Finally - where did I talk about him being fired now? You said his schedule is soft and he should be expected to win a minimum of 8 games to return.
I definitely want him fired now lol
The sooner we rip that band-aid off, the faster we can heal and get more normalized in how we judged coaches and manage the program. I get the money aspect, what I cannot wrap my head around is people trying to defend Greg's record. It's truly mind boggling
I’d settle for this…
Bret Bielema - Wikipedia
But as you say, let’s see what happens with the Illini going forward.
Oh dear, more excuses and deflection. Clearly Bret Bielema is a far superior coach. It's not even debatable.
I think that this should be Rutgers coming out song this year.
Every day it's something
Hits me all so cold
Find me sittin' by myself
No excuses, then I know
Going by his Wisconsin record
"Bret Bielema is a far superior coach."
Going by his Arkansas record, that statement very debatable
Going by Greg 2 RU record and what Bert has done at Illinois, Bielema seems to be the one Hobbs should have chosen
.Hobbs really didn't want Schiano, so I can only surmise Bert didn't like what Rutgers was offering and wasn't going to settle for it and Hobbs wouldn't come close to what he wanted so he walked away not wanting to risk his future
by taking a job he felt not enough support was there to help him build winning program.
Schiano walked away from negotiations with Hobbs in Nov, of 2019 seemingly ending any hope for a return , knowing he didn't have any HC options and being a DC somewhere was the best he could hope for .
The only reason he came to an agreement with Hobbs was because the Rutgers fanbase pressured Hobbs to make a deal and Schiano knowing Rutgers was his only hope to be a HC again compromised on some of his demands of what must be dome to improve the program if he would take the job.
Some people feel Bielema should have been hired, I feel he would have taken the job if Hobbs promised him the Rutgers football program would get the support it needed to become a winning program and he didn't want to
be part of a program not committed to doing that
Why Illinois in 2020 and not RU in 2019?
( from a google search)
>Illinois convinced native son Bret Bielema to take the head coaching job in December 2020 by offering a strong financial package—starting at $4.2 million annually on a six-year contract—and a massive $5 million assistant coaching salary pool to build an elite staff. The school also heavily leveraged Bielema's deep Illinois roots, his lifelong fandom for the team, and the promise of complete organizational support to rebuild the program<
In my opinion , if Hobbs offered this to Bert
( google found)
>To lure Greg Schiano back in 2019, Rutgers promised an eight-year, $32 million contract, a $7.7 million annual pool for assistant coaches, construction of a new football facility and indoor practice field, and perks including private jet use for recruiting and a country club members
Why did Greg get that and it wasn't offered to Bert??
Hobbs was between a rock and a hard place with the fanbase making noise like withholding donations and booster demanding he hire Schiano . So while he refused to offer Bielema the support Bert felt he needed to turn the program around Hobbs ,under the immense pressure to hire Greg ,did what it took to start the G2 era .
If the fanbase did the same for Bert,Bielema might be the one we;re complaining about now
"Bret Bielema is a far superior coach."
Going by his Arkansas record, that statement very debatable
Going by Greg 2 RU record and what Bert has done at Illinois, Bielema seems to be the one Hobbs should have chosen
.Hobbs really didn't want Schiano, so I can only surmise Bert didn't like what Rutgers was offering and wasn't going to settle for it and Hobbs wouldn't come close to what he wanted so he walked away not wanting to risk his future
by taking a job he felt not enough support was there to help him build winning program.
Schiano walked away from negotiations with Hobbs in Nov, of 2019 seemingly ending any hope for a return , knowing he didn't have any HC options and being a DC somewhere was the best he could hope for .
The only reason he came to an agreement with Hobbs was because the Rutgers fanbase pressured Hobbs to make a deal and Schiano knowing Rutgers was his only hope to be a HC again compromised on some of his demands of what must be dome to improve the program if he would take the job.
Some people feel Bielema should have been hired, I feel he would have taken the job if Hobbs promised him the Rutgers football program would get the support it needed to become a winning program and he didn't want to
be part of a program not committed to doing that
Why Illinois in 2020 and not RU in 2019?
( from a google search)
>Illinois convinced native son Bret Bielema to take the head coaching job in December 2020 by offering a strong financial package—starting at $4.2 million annually on a six-year contract—and a massive $5 million assistant coaching salary pool to build an elite staff. The school also heavily leveraged Bielema's deep Illinois roots, his lifelong fandom for the team, and the promise of complete organizational support to rebuild the program<
In my opinion , if Hobbs offered this to Bert
( google found)
>To lure Greg Schiano back in 2019, Rutgers promised an eight-year, $32 million contract, a $7.7 million annual pool for assistant coaches, construction of a new football facility and indoor practice field, and perks including private jet use for recruiting and a country club members
Why did Greg get that and it wasn't offered to Bert??
Hobbs was between a rock and a hard place with the fanbase making noise like withholding donations and booster demanding he hire Schiano . So while he refused to offer Bielema the support Bert felt he needed to turn the program around Hobbs ,under the immense pressure to hire Greg ,did what it took to start the G2 era .
If the fanbase did the same for Bert,Bielema might be the one we;re complaining about now
Did he really walk away? Stories at the time was Hobbs was moving in a different direction. And that’s when the pressure from the fans built.
That would have been a far better hire, but most people thought we were gonna go right back to 2006 and have Louisville like games over and over as soon as we went retread. Better than Ash, but that’s a low bar
Huh? I didn’t make excuses for anyone. You made the excuses for Flood. Remember? A list of them. You can’t have it where his challenges matter but any roadblock Greg may have faced shouldn’t be considered. Not if your comparing them side by side. I wasn’t making “excuses” I was simply pointing this out.
Also - I never once said Greg is a superior coach to Brett or even as good. Bielema is a pretty good coach - not elite, but above average. Greg has been a mediocre one - slightly below average would be a reasonable assessment. The gap between them is not accurately reflected by the difference in their coaching records. Meaning, Greg doesn’t deserve to be bashed as “historically bad” in the way this string presents him - a blanket showcase of his glaring losing record without the context of how bad of a program he took over in both of his tenures (and those tenures at RU being the only ones he’s served as HC).
Last edited:
Bert?
Is Brett Bielema currently seeking employment at Rutgers? Why are you so focused on him. He’s one coach (who isn’t even available). Even if the small pool of coaches you came up with who drastically improved low/mid tier programs (Purdue, Illinois and Baylor) were Urban Meyer comparables - you do realize how much larger the pool of hired coaches that failed to improve the situations they walked into at comparable programs during the same time period is right? That doesn’t mean you never make a change, but when you’d have to spend a ton of money upfront to wipe the slate clean immediately, it only makes sense to do it if it’s highly likely you’ll end up with a materially better program as a result of the change. When your Ash level bad, you eat the money. When you have multiple scandals surrounding your program and you only win 4 games all in the same year, you also move on. Especially without the budget constraints that exist today with having to buy players. But we’re not in those types of situations and that’s why there’s almost no chance Greg is fired unless he fails to surpass 5 wins.
Washington went 9-4 this year, 8-4 in the regular season. They previously spent $315M on football facilities. They have At least 10M in NIL. But we don’t want to talk about that.
Fine I’m done. You and the OP win.
Every win should count the same. Win percentage is win percentage - Greg is the worst coach out there. I think it’s dumb to focus on a metric that treats all wins and losses the same when comparing coaches. But apparently enough of you agree with the OP. So there you have it. Wins and losses are wins and losses. It can’t matter whether you take over a 10-3 team or 2-10 team - once you take over your the coach and all games count the same. Any other view is making excuses for Greg on why his overall record is poor. I have this right, yes?
Actually, Greg really should just go through the motions this year and not bother because even if he went to the playoffs next season his overall record would still suck to the OP’s point. In fact, even if he had won 2-3 more games in each of the past 2 seasons, the above would be true.
But again - you win - my point is complete trash. Wins are wins. Losses are losses. Nothing else matters. Except having to navigate Julie as an AD. That’s the only valid excuse for losing. Am I missing anything?
If win percentage and overall record is not the proper metric. What is? This is D1 athletics. Not high school.