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

e5fdny said:

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

Click to expand...

Knight Shift said:

Serious question. If still available, and Keli Zinn is still AD and has a chance to hire the head coach, does Brian Kelly get considered?

Click to expand...

RUTGERS95 said:

I would think so. He's a proven winner, odd as fk and a prima Donna but he would add immediate life and relevancy

Click to expand...

RUTGERS95 said:

I would think so. He's a proven winner, odd as fk and a prima Donna but he would add immediate life and relevancy

Click to expand...

RUTGERS95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rutgers Chris said:

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.

Click to expand...

satnom said:

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

Click to expand...

NickRU714 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rutgers Chris said:

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.

Click to expand...

rutgersal_rivals139582 said:

At what point do you acknowledge that the biggest reason we lost to Penn State, Iowa, and Minnesota was that the front 7 was complete trash. We started two ends that didn’t belong on a Big Ten Football Field. Defensive Tackle was dominated at times. Ends couldn’t contain to save their lives. Run fits were atrocious at times and safety play was an abomination at times. Yet you wanted to see adjustments ???!!!! Come on Man! Be serious!! The biggest adjustment we needed to make was get better players.

The Defensive Talent problems still haven’t been fully fixed. We didn’t bring in enough quality transfers. We are hoping that the players will be better disciplined due to better coaching. But that remains to be seen. Our only solace is that we have a solid group of redshirts, but their impact is unknown at this point. Defense will once again be a sieve.

They might look decent the first three games. But when USC comes to town, the defense will be back to being a show.

Click to expand...

Rutgers Chris said:

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.

Click to expand...

RobertG said:

Do you are saying we had a poorly coached defense and that's why we lost last year?

Click to expand...

RUTGERS95 said:

o, d, st

Click to expand...

RUTGERS95 said:

o, d, st

Click to expand...

rutgersal_rivals139582 said:

At what point do you acknowledge that the biggest reason we lost to Penn State, Iowa, and Minnesota was that the front 7 was complete trash. We started two ends that didn’t belong on a Big Ten Football Field. Defensive Tackle was dominated at times. Ends couldn’t contain to save their lives. Run fits were atrocious at times and safety play was an abomination at times. Yet you wanted to see adjustments ???!!!! Come on Man! Be serious!! The biggest adjustment we needed to make was get better players.

The Defensive Talent problems still haven’t been fully fixed. We didn’t bring in enough quality transfers. We are hoping that the players will be better disciplined due to better coaching. But that remains to be seen. Our only solace is that we have a solid group of redshirts, but their impact is unknown at this point. Defense will once again be a sieve.

They might look decent the first three games. But when USC comes to town, the defense will be back to being a show.

Click to expand...

RobertG said:

I really need to make my sarcastic posts more sarcastic.

Click to expand...