Level playing field? Michigan President: "We are not going to sacrifice the competitive advantage that we have built for more than a century.”

[NickRU714]

Nobody actually wants a level playing field in college athletics.
Everyone wants:
1. Anyone ahead of them pulled down (for example we want OSU and UM limited)
2. Anyone behind them to stay behind (for example we don't want to lift up Temple and UConn)



While acknowledging that college sports are in “dire need of clarity and equitable reform,” Grasso echoed the stance of the Big Ten and the SEC, which do not support the legislation.

“We want what’s best for the Big Ten and for Michigan,” Grasso said. “We are not going to sacrifice the competitive advantage that we have built for more than a century.”

Why can’t college sports be fixed? Look at Michigan’s response to Dusty May leaving

Michigan’s president calling for reform without sacrificing “competitive advantage” is why college sports aren’t getting fixed.

www.nytimes.com

 

[NickRU714]

This is pretty good paragraph from the articlr that perfectly sums it up:

In college sports, the optimal amount of money to spend on a roster is whatever your school and its donors can afford. Any school that pays less lacks the want-to and resources to fully support student-athletes; any school that pays more is contributing to out-of-control spending. Schools with competitive advantages want to preserve those advantages, while the schools at a disadvantage want to rein in the big spenders.

 

[Knight Shift]

This is pretty good paragraph that perfectly sums it up:

In college sports, the optimal amount of money to spend on a roster is whatever your school and its donors can afford. Any school that pays less lacks the want-to and resources to fully support student-athletes; any school that pays more is contributing to out-of-control spending. Schools with competitive advantages want to preserve those advantages, while the schools at a disadvantage want to rein in the big spenders.

Is that paragraph from the article?

And interesting that Michigan was one of two schools dead set against the private equity arrangement that was floated last November. Gee, I wonder why? Might level the playing field for the have nots?

 

[Anon1754923206]

Why should Michigan or Ohio State or Alabama want to sacrifice their so-called competitive advantage that they have built over generations? Seriously ask yourself that question…if you are a fan or work for said organization, you want to maintain that. If RU were in that spot I certainly would NOT want RU to do anything that would jeopardize that status.

 

[patk89]

This is what many critics don't seem to understand. Rutgers has decades of catching up to do. Not an easy task.

 

[RUTGERS95]

Is that paragraph from the article?

And interesting that Michigan was one of two schools dead set against the private equity arrangement that was floated last November. Gee, I wonder why? Might level the playing field for the have nots?

it wasn't the leveling as there was no leveling. the PE would have been tiered where Mich, OSU would get 180mm and everyone less with RU and others getting roughly 100mm. The problem was the transferable rights, no end clause as it could be exercised for more years, no defined structure around what was the 10% amongst others. It was never fair but some liked it as it guaranteed lesser schools a seat at the table for a long time.

that said, Mich is a pure trash program.

 

[Knight Shift]

it wasn't the leveling as there was no leveling. the PE would have been tiered where Mich, OSU would get 180mm and everyone less with RU and others getting roughly 100mm. The problem was the transferable rights, no end clause as it could be exercised for more years, no defined structure around what was the 10% amongst others. It was never fair but some liked it as it guaranteed lesser schools a seat at the table for a long time.

that said, Mich is a pure trash program.

My understanding is that this proposal died, and have not seen any discussion since November 2025? I heard their were tiers, but I did not realize there was such a large difference.

Some interesting links:

"According to ESPN senior writer Dan Wetzel, 16 of the
18 Big Ten members are preparing to favor the deal, due to financial pressures (Wetzel and
Thamel, 2025). As a result, these universities’ athletic departments are taking on massive debts
from facility spending and NIL costs. For several programs across the conference, these rising
costs are already pushing budgets toward dangerous levels. Ohio State and Penn State are two
universities that have already displayed support, as they would qualify for tier-one payouts
estimated between $150 million and $200 million (Sports Business Journal, 2025). As American
sports journalist John Bacon explains, many Big Ten athletic departments are already “deep in
the red,” meaning that this upfront payout is more appealing than just a long-term plan (Bacon,
2025). Overall, in the eyes of the majority of Big Ten schools, the proposal is widely viewed as a
necessary option."

While Rutgers was in favor of the plan, nobody signed off on the tiered plan-it was a preliminary proposal. And I can see why Rutgers, one of the poorest of the B1G schools was interested in the financial lifeline. Time will tell what Rutgers would "settle for" if this ever goes forward.

"However, on the other side of this proposal, the University of Michigan and the University of Southern California (USC), two highly financially stable universities, view this situation from a very different level. For these two schools, the issue is not securing short-term gains but avoiding a decision that could dismantle decades of financial independence. Furthermore, Michigan’s Board of Regents has repeatedly pleaded that selling a share of the conference’s future revenue could solve a short-term problem but create a much larger one over time."

I see USC and Michigan as saying, "we're fine, F everyone else, that's their problem." Well, F them.

But I agree with the second bolded point-kicking the financial can down the road.

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2026/01/07/a-potential-new-era-for-big-ten-revenue-and-private-equity/

As Big Ten inches toward $2.4B private equity deal, a resistance has formed that may delay or nix the project entirely

Could two of the league’s biggest brands stop or delay the Big Ten's massive impending private equity deal? Could the other 16 agree to a portion of the deal without them?

sports.yahoo.com

 

[RUTGERS95]

My understanding is that this proposal died, and have not seen any discussion since November 2025? I heard their were tiers, but I did not realize there was such a large difference.

Some interesting links:

"According to ESPN senior writer Dan Wetzel, 16 of the
18 Big Ten members are preparing to favor the deal, due to financial pressures (Wetzel and
Thamel, 2025). As a result, these universities’ athletic departments are taking on massive debts
from facility spending and NIL costs. For several programs across the conference, these rising
costs are already pushing budgets toward dangerous levels. Ohio State and Penn State are two
universities that have already displayed support, as they would qualify for tier-one payouts
estimated between $150 million and $200 million (Sports Business Journal, 2025). As American
sports journalist John Bacon explains, many Big Ten athletic departments are already “deep in
the red,” meaning that this upfront payout is more appealing than just a long-term plan (Bacon,
2025). Overall, in the eyes of the majority of Big Ten schools, the proposal is widely viewed as a
necessary option."

While Rutgers was in favor of the plan, nobody signed off on the tiered plan-it was a preliminary proposal. And I can see why Rutgers, one of the poorest of the B1G schools was interested in the financial lifeline. Time will tell what Rutgers would "settle for" if this ever goes forward.

"However, on the other side of this proposal, the University of Michigan and the University of Southern California (USC), two highly financially stable universities, view this situation from a very different level. For these two schools, the issue is not securing short-term gains but avoiding a decision that could dismantle decades of financial independence. Furthermore, Michigan’s Board of Regents has repeatedly pleaded that selling a share of the conference’s future revenue could solve a short-term problem but create a much larger one over time."

I see USC and Michigan as saying, "we're fine, F everyone else, that's their problem." Well, F them.

But I agree with the second bolded point-kicking the financial can down the road.

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2026/01/07/a-potential-new-era-for-big-ten-revenue-and-private-equity/

As Big Ten inches toward $2.4B private equity deal, a resistance has formed that may delay or nix the project entirely

Could two of the league’s biggest brands stop or delay the Big Ten's massive impending private equity deal? Could the other 16 agree to a portion of the deal without them?

sports.yahoo.com

the payouts would be tiered with Rutgers in the lowest. the proposal would have had a permanent caste system in the BIG.

There is a lot out on there that has come to light. you can find it all in fact, I think the roundtable has the full discussion

it was an awful deal

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

Grasso said the quiet part out loud.

 

[bac2therac]

Why should Michigan or Ohio State or Alabama want to sacrifice their so-called competitive advantage that they have built over generations? Seriously ask yourself that question…if you are a fan or work for said organization, you want to maintain that. If RU were in that spot I certainly would NOT want RU to do anything that would jeopardize that status.

Bingo

 

[RUinPinehurst]

This is what many critics don't seem to understand. Rutgers has decades of catching up to do. Not an easy task.

Never going to happen. To "catch up," you need the will to do so and the resources to do so. Sadly, RU falls short on both.

 

[Caliknight]

The Michigan President is right. They aren’t putting guardrails on their sports because Purdue sucks. That’s Mandami thinking.

 

[Anon1754923206]

That’s Mandami thinking.

Scary…

 

[e5fdny]

This is what many critics don't seem to understand. Rutgers has decades of catching up to do. Not an easy task.

It’s the takeaway…

We are not going to sacrifice the competitive advantage that we have built for more than a century.”

I’ll just change the bold in your post @patk89 a little bit…

Rutgers HAD decades to not just keep up but join the party we started.

The problem was no one, in Old Queens, the Barn and then the RAC, could figure out which direction we wanted to go.

It’s like driving a train without an engineer or a conductor.

 

[Anon1754923206]

It’s like driving a train without an engineer or a conductor.

Or a functioning locomotive

 

[rutgersal_rivals139582]

This is what many critics don't seem to understand. Rutgers has decades of catching up to do. Not an easy task.

We should have at least some people with the willingness to start somewhere, but the sheer will simply isn’t present.

 

[rutgersal_rivals139582]

This is pretty good paragraph from the articlr that perfectly sums it up:

In college sports, the optimal amount of money to spend on a roster is whatever your school and its donors can afford. Any school that pays less lacks the want-to and resources to fully support student-athletes; any school that pays more is contributing to out-of-control spending. Schools with competitive advantages want to preserve those advantages, while the schools at a disadvantage want to rein in the big spenders.

Wow, Nick! You love to mock my posts which say, in order to be more successful, we need more money, and here you are posting essentially the same thing. Very surprised to see this post from you.

Spending is never going to be reined in. So we either choose to be a Have or a Have Not. Thus far, we have been a have not, which is why our recruiting class is towards the bottom of the Big Ten.

Michigans competitive advantage is the ability to raise millions from boosters who prioritize college football success.

 

[satnom]

Why should Michigan or Ohio State or Alabama want to sacrifice their so-called competitive advantage that they have built over generations? Seriously ask yourself that question…if you are a fan or work for said organization, you want to maintain that. If RU were in that spot I certainly would NOT want RU to do anything that would jeopardize that status.

Because ultimately there will be 5-10 schools that will only be able to compete with each other.

Just think if the AFC West and the NFC North Divisions wanted to branch off from the rest of the NFL and have their own competitive advantages. Good luck trying to maximize your media rights off that limited group.

If Mich and Bama were soccer nations the World Cup would be played amongst the same five historical European champions.

Michigan needs to grow the f@ck up and realize there’s no college football if a structure is not built where most schools are playing by the same rules with enforcement that has teeth. Schools like Mich need to give up some of its advantage by limiting outside donors or they’ll literally be playing in a league of their own.

GO RU

 

[satnom]

it wasn't the leveling as there was no leveling. the PE would have been tiered where Mich, OSU would get 180mm and everyone less with RU and others getting roughly 100mm. The problem was the transferable rights, no end clause as it could be exercised for more years, no defined structure around what was the 10% amongst others. It was never fair but some liked it as it guaranteed lesser schools a seat at the table for a long time.

that said, Mich is a pure trash program.

In a way glad that this deal didn’t go through when you look at a school like Indiana which was relegated to lower tier before the 16-0 season can now say “Hold on a minute. We’re at the BIG Boy table now.”

I’m hoping this for RU because high level success on the Banks with football and basketball in particular will attract a lot of financial interest in an area that wants and has the resources to support winners.

As Tate said, RU simply has to “WIN”.

GO RU

 

[RUTGERS95]

In a way glad that this deal didn’t go through when you look at a school like Indiana which was relegated to lower tier oayoutbefore the 16-0 season can now say “Hold on a minute. We’re at the BIG Boy table now.”

I’m hoping this for RU because high level success on the Banks with football and basketball in particular will attract a lot of financial interest in an area that wants and has the resources to support winners.

As Tate said, RU simply has to “WIN”.

GO RU

agree, we must win

problem is we're stuck with a coach that can't win and saddled with a bad contract that makes moves hard.

 

[e5fdny]

Or a functioning locomotive

That was there, the institution itself. But nobody knew how to drive or take care of it.

 

[NickRU714]

Wow, Nick! You love to mock my posts which say, in order to be more successful, we need more money, and here you are posting essentially the same thing. Very surprised to see this post from you.

Spending is never going to be reined in. So we either choose to be a Have or a Have Not. Thus far, we have been a have not, which is why our recruiting class is towards the bottom of the Big Ten.

Michigans competitive advantage is the ability to raise millions from boosters who prioritize college football success.

You thinking this post and your repeated threads are close to the same thing shows how delusional you actually are.

Nobody has ever disagreed with you that Rutgers needs more money to compete with UM or OSU.
Find 1 post.
Despite near weekly threads - we all get it. You are the only one who thinks its some great revelation that needs weekly threads.
My mocking of your posts is that you fail to consider any other possibility of even minimal improvement outside of "more money".
According to you the entire AD and all the coaching staff are operating perfectly.
There is nothing else to be done that could even minimally improve Rutgers atheltics.

This post is just further pointing out that nobody in college atheltics cares about the sacred "level playing field" that so many claim they want.

 

[satnom]

agree, we must win

problem is we're stuck with a coach that can't win and saddled with a bad contract that makes moves hard.

Greg needs a 7-9 win type season for those like me who loves Greg and everything he stands for but needs a breakout where RU can steal a few games regardless of limitations. This type of season says to an alum and supporter like myself that Greg can stay here as long as he wants because he’s putting a product out that is competing in the BIG and making games relevant going into the 4th quarter.

The “Greg no matter what“ supporters are accepting of mediocrity in my opinion and the “Greg Needs to Go Like Yesterday” crowd lIke yourself maybe be placated by a 8-9 win type season for the moment but then move on to another criticism and/or expectation of a 10 win season.

To unite the full support base in the short term, Rutgers needs to raise the performance/results bar.

GO RU

 

[RUTGERS95]

Greg needs a 7-9 win type season for those like me who loves Greg and everything he stands for but needs a breakout where RU can steal a few games regardless of limitations. This type of season says to an alum and supporter like myself that Greg can stay here as long as he wants because he’s putting a product out that is competing in the BIG and making games relevant going into the 4th quarter.

The “Greg no matter what“ supporters are accepting of mediocrity in my opinion and the “Greg Needs to Go Like Yesterday” crowd lIke yourself maybe be placated by a 8-9 win type season for the moment but then move on to another criticism and/or expectation of a 10 win season.

To unite the full support base in the short term, Rutgers needs to raise the performance/results bar.

GO RU

The problem with getting a 8-9 win season is it's the outlier for him. At some point, you have to just look at the body of work and accept it's a bad trade and close it out. He just isn't the answer going forward and he's not uniting the fanbase which is evidenced by fanbase participation and donations. At some point, you have to demand better coaching on Saturdays because nothing else really matters.

 

[Anon1754923206]

The problem with getting a 8-9 win season is it's the outlier for him. At some point, you have to just look at the body of work and accept it's a bad trade and close it out. He just isn't the answer going forward and he's not uniting the fanbase which is evidenced by fanbase participation and donations. At some point, you have to demand better coaching on Saturdays because nothing else really matters.

An 8 to 9 win season means you’re simply somewhere between 7 and 13 in the conference… or thereabouts. If the fabled super conferences ever do happen, I wonder if RU will be in one…many thing it is academic that we would be…I’m not in that camp…

 

[satnom]

The problem with getting a 8-9 win season is it's the outlier for him. At some point, you have to just look at the body of work and accept it's a bad trade and close it out. He just isn't the answer going forward and he's not uniting the fanbase which is evidenced by fanbase participation and donations. At some point, you have to demand better coaching on Saturdays because nothing else really matters.

Iowa, Minn and State Penn games last season hung in the balance late in game and winning plays needed to be made by the offense. Greg takes responsibility for those losses but he had nothing to do with lack of play execution.

Bottom line, this is a results business and Greg has to respond with wins.

GO RU

 

[Rutgers Chris]

Iowa, Minn and State Penn games last season hung in the balance late in game and winning plays needed to be made by the offense. Greg takes responsibility for those losses but he had nothing to do with lack of play execution.

Bottom line, this is a results business and Greg has to respond with wins.

GO RU

Counterpoint, from ChatGPT…
Looking specifically at the 2025 Rutgers team (the season that included losses to Iowa, Minnesota, and Penn State), I think there were several coaching decisions that materially affected those games. Some were schematic, others were game-management related.

Iowa (38-28 loss)

This was probably the most frustrating because Rutgers actually played well enough offensively to win.

1. Failure to adjust to Iowa’s downhill run game

• Iowa increasingly leaned on quarterback runs and gap schemes as the game wore on.
• Rutgers continued playing aggressive pressure looks without consistently fitting the run.
• Iowa controlled the fourth quarter once it realized Rutgers wasn’t changing the picture.

2. Undisciplined situational football

• The defensive holding penalty that erased a third-down stop may have been a player mistake, but repeated late-game penalties become a coaching issue.
• Good teams under Schiano are normally disciplined. In this game they weren’t.

3. Special teams management

• Rutgers left points on the field with kicking issues.
• When you’re playing Iowa, every possession matters. Continuing to rely on a struggling kicking operation arguably cost win probability.

Coaching grade: C

Minnesota (31-28 loss)

This one felt more like a coaching loss than an execution loss.

1. No defensive adjustment after halftime
Minnesota found answers offensively, while Rutgers largely stayed in the same defensive structure.

Schiano even acknowledged afterward that tackling, takeaways and coverage breakdowns had become recurring issues and hinted that defensive changes were coming during the bye week.

2. Communication issues
The botched late-game snap wasn’t just a player error.
Schiano attributed it to crowd noise and communication, but that’s something coaches spend all week preparing for on the road

3. Conservative late-game approach
Rutgers became less aggressive once protecting a lead instead of continuing to attack through the passing game, which had been successful.

Coaching grade: D+

Penn State (40-36 loss)

Ironically, I think this was Schiano’s best coached game of the three.

Offensively

• Excellent game plan.
• Kaliakmanis threw for over 330 yards.
• Raymond ran for nearly 190.
• Rutgers scored 36 points against one of the nation’s better defenses.

The problem wasn’t offense.

1. Defensive philosophy
Penn State repeatedly gashed Rutgers on the ground.

The inability to slow the rushing attack wasn’t just talent—it reflected failure to adapt fronts and fits throughout the game. Rutgers surrendered over 300 rushing yards.

2. No answer for explosive plays
Penn State consistently generated chunk plays after halftime.
Rutgers rarely forced the Nittany Lions to sustain long drives.

3. Late-game management
The offense had to play nearly perfectly because the defense couldn’t generate stops.
That’s more an indictment of defensive coaching than offensive play-calling.

Coaching grade: B-

Bigger Picture

The pattern across all three games wasn’t really offensive coaching.

It was:

• inability to adjust defensively during games
• poor run fits
• inconsistent tackling
• lack of takeaways
• failure to get one critical stop in the fourth quarter

Those weren’t isolated problems—they persisted throughout Big Ten play. Analysts covering the team pointed to defensive collapse and run defense as recurring issues that extended beyond any single game.

 

[RUTGERS95]

Iowa, Minn and State Penn games last season hung in the balance late in game and winning plays needed to be made by the offense. Greg takes responsibility for those losses but he had nothing to do with lack of play execution.

Bottom line, this is a results business and Greg has to respond with wins.

GO RU

surely you jest he's got no culpability?

 

[RUTGERS95]

Counterpoint, from ChatGPT…
Looking specifically at the 2025 Rutgers team (the season that included losses to Iowa, Minnesota, and Penn State), I think there were several coaching decisions that materially affected those games. Some were schematic, others were game-management related.

Iowa (38-28 loss)

This was probably the most frustrating because Rutgers actually played well enough offensively to win.

1. Failure to adjust to Iowa’s downhill run game

• Iowa increasingly leaned on quarterback runs and gap schemes as the game wore on.
• Rutgers continued playing aggressive pressure looks without consistently fitting the run.
• Iowa controlled the fourth quarter once it realized Rutgers wasn’t changing the picture.

2. Undisciplined situational football

• The defensive holding penalty that erased a third-down stop may have been a player mistake, but repeated late-game penalties become a coaching issue.
• Good teams under Schiano are normally disciplined. In this game they weren’t.

3. Special teams management

• Rutgers left points on the field with kicking issues.
• When you’re playing Iowa, every possession matters. Continuing to rely on a struggling kicking operation arguably cost win probability.

Coaching grade: C

Minnesota (31-28 loss)

This one felt more like a coaching loss than an execution loss.

1. No defensive adjustment after halftime
Minnesota found answers offensively, while Rutgers largely stayed in the same defensive structure.

Schiano even acknowledged afterward that tackling, takeaways and coverage breakdowns had become recurring issues and hinted that defensive changes were coming during the bye week.

2. Communication issues
The botched late-game snap wasn’t just a player error.
Schiano attributed it to crowd noise and communication, but that’s something coaches spend all week preparing for on the road

3. Conservative late-game approach
Rutgers became less aggressive once protecting a lead instead of continuing to attack through the passing game, which had been successful.

Coaching grade: D+

Penn State (40-36 loss)

Ironically, I think this was Schiano’s best coached game of the three.

Offensively

• Excellent game plan.
• Kaliakmanis threw for over 330 yards.
• Raymond ran for nearly 190.
• Rutgers scored 36 points against one of the nation’s better defenses.

The problem wasn’t offense.

1. Defensive philosophy
Penn State repeatedly gashed Rutgers on the ground.

The inability to slow the rushing attack wasn’t just talent—it reflected failure to adapt fronts and fits throughout the game. Rutgers surrendered over 300 rushing yards.

2. No answer for explosive plays
Penn State consistently generated chunk plays after halftime.
Rutgers rarely forced the Nittany Lions to sustain long drives.

3. Late-game management
The offense had to play nearly perfectly because the defense couldn’t generate stops.
That’s more an indictment of defensive coaching than offensive play-calling.

Coaching grade: B-

Bigger Picture

The pattern across all three games wasn’t really offensive coaching.

It was:

• inability to adjust defensively during games
• poor run fits
• inconsistent tackling
• lack of takeaways
• failure to get one critical stop in the fourth quarter

Those weren’t isolated problems—they persisted throughout Big Ten play. Analysts covering the team pointed to defensive collapse and run defense as recurring issues that extended beyond any single game.

saved me from having to rehash last year's back and forth on the board. This is the problem with people who want Greg to succeed because they like the man. He's a terrible coach on Saturday's and nothing is changing that

 

[Rutgers Chris]

saved me from having to rehash last year's back and forth on the board. This is the problem with people who want Greg to succeed because they like the man. He's a terrible coach on Saturday's and nothing is changing that

I actually like the guy and have an appreciation for all he’s done for Rutgers. But yes, he’s a below average at best gameday coach. And at some point we are going to have to make a change and need to get over the Ash PTSD to do so.

 

[RUTGERS95]

I actually like the guy and have an appreciation for all he’s done for Rutgers. But yes, he’s a below average at best gameday coach. And at some point we are going to have to make a change and need to get over the Ash PTSD to do so.

I view the appreciation through the lense of an employer. He's done less than what he's been paid to do. He's made a fortune delivering less. All he has done, he was paid to do

 

[satnom]

surely you jest he's got no culpability?

Yes. Defensive staff hires were bad and led to historically bad defense for Greg. 100% on his shoulders. That being said AI responses didn’t pick up that offense missed late game opportunities for winning drives in each of those games.

Again, Greg is the head coach and should get the blame for losses but offense came up short on end of game drives to overcome defensive awfulness.

GO RU

 

[RUTGERS95]

Yes. Defensive staff hires were bad and led to historically bad defense for Greg. 100% on his shoulders. That being said AI responses didn’t pick up that offense missed late game opportunities for winning drives in each of those games.

Again, Greg is the head coach and should get the blame for losses but offense came up short on end of game drives to overcome defensive awfulness.

GO RU

what happened when Greg took over with the easiest part of of the schedule; not any better and worse in some categories.

you guys gotta stop passing the buck off to the DC, it was Greg's kids, his defense etc etc....its all on Greg, stop passing the buck like that. From special teams, to defense to offense inside the 20s, it's all by his design

NOTHING happens on that field that Greg hasn't pre ok'd or is giving the nod during game

 

[satnom]

what happened when Greg took over with the easiest part of of the schedule; not any better and worse in some categories.

you guys gotta stop passing the buck off to the DC, it was Greg's kids, his defense etc etc....its all on Greg, stop passing the buck like that. From special teams, to defense to offense inside the 20s, it's all by his design

NOTHING happens on that field that Greg hasn't pre ok'd or is giving the nod during game

You’re hearing what you want to hear.

Everything, good or bad, falls back on the head coach.

GO RU

 

[RUTGERS95]

You’re hearing what you want to hear.

Everything, good or bad, falls back on the head coach.

GO RU

agree, it all falls on the coach. your post on execution, while accurate, still is a feigned attempt to limit that culpability. that is how I took it. If incorrect, apologies but you know those afflicted by the schianopox, they use that view to limit the backlash toward Greg as somehow, he's less to blame for the shytshow we've been seeing in 2.0

 

[satnom]

agree, it all falls on the coach. your post on execution, while accurate, still is a feigned attempt to limit that culpability. that is how I took it. If incorrect, apologies but you know those afflicted by the schianopox, they use that view to limit the backlash toward Greg as somehow, he's less to blame for the shytshow we've been seeing in 2.0

No apologies needed. Two things can be true at the same time: Greg is a tireless worker, high integrity and builder of men but his record as head coach is mediocre at best with reasons that can be debated.

GO RU

 

[RUTGERS95]

No apologies needed. Two things can be true at the same time: Greg is a tireless worker, high integrity and builder of men but his record as head coach is mediocre at best with reasons that can be debated.

GO RU

agree!!!!!

this year we need to catch that baseball game, I'll buy the beers!

 

[e5fdny]

*Greg needs a 7-9 win type season for those like me who loves Greg and everything he stands for but needs a breakout where RU can steal a few games regardless of limitations. This type of season says to an alum and supporter like myself that Greg can stay here as long as he wants because he’s putting a product out that is competing in the BIG and making games relevant going into the 4th quarter.

The “Greg no matter what“ supporters are accepting of mediocrity in my opinion and the “Greg Needs to Go Like Yesterday” crowd lIke yourself maybe be placated by a 8-9 win type season for the moment #but then move on to another criticism and/or expectation of a 10 win season.

To unite the full support base in the short term, Rutgers needs to raise the performance/results bar.

GO RU

# Because that’s what you should hope happens.

As many have said on here already, progress doesn’t have to be a straight line or exponential growth.

The real world in sports is filled with peaks and valleys. Many fans and alums understand that. But most will also agree we need to be climbing that hill instead of falling down it, or staying midway. Maybe this person needs a sherpa like Flood had with the Fridge.

* The 7 win seasons have already happened in the B1G. Hasn’t and does not move the needle.

+ Should have had at least one 8 win (9 with bowl victory) season by now. And maybe not stay as long as he wants but it does show concrete progress:

- most wins in a B1G season
- an over .500 record in conference

That can be sold as real progress for the program.

 

[RUTGERS95]

# Because that’s what you should hope happens.

As many have said on here already, progress doesn’t have to be a straight line or exponential growth.

The real world in sports is filled with peaks and valleys. Many fans and alums understand that. But most will also agree we need to be climbing that hill instead of falling down it, or staying midway. Maybe this person needs a sherpa like Flood had with the Fridge.

* The 7 win seasons have already happened in the B1G. Hasn’t and does not move the needle.

+ Should have had at least one 8 win (9 with bowl victory) season by now. And maybe not stay as long as he wants but it does show concrete progress:

- most wins in a B1G season
- an over .500 record in conference

That can be sold as real progress for the program.

too bad we couldn't go after Franklin as that would have been a solid hire. alas, no money

 

[e5fdny]

too bad we couldn't go after Franklin as that would have been a solid hire. alas, no money

Money or not, I don’t think someone like that would’ve been considered or thought about under some of our previous leadership.