It's going down
- Thread starter RU4Real
- Start date
how quickly you shifted from talking down to me demanding facts, to swinging to another level of tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. If Brown wanted Hobbs out, he can do that easily with his BOG role.
You have said many times that you would rather Rutgers was in the ACC. Do you still feel that way?
they dont have to put RU the school through a scandal to remove the AD..thats the whole point, thats which makes the whole idea a conspiracy theory
That was all on him, but where is the full transcript?
All we have are out of context quote from extremely shadly reporters who are known for making stuff up.
I continually give you opportunities to prove you're not an idiot.
You continually disappoint.
Obviously the donors in questions didn't fabricate the softball story.
It's not outside the realm of possibility that someone spoon-fed it, along with all of the legal docs, to nj.com. As I have already pointed out, the legal filings occurred more than 4 months ago. Why do you think they're just now picking up the story?
This sort of thing - using the media as a propaganda tool - is commonplace. It's not even something that stretches the bounds of reality, in the least little bit.
is the AAC the ACC?
and yes I would rather be in the ACC actually given what I think are the things working against this school in support across the board...fans, interest, donors, money, institutional support, demographics of the state. I believe our ceiling is higher in the ACC across the board in sports, in the Big 10 some of them are limited right off the bat
again why would donors including Greg Brown who sits on the BOG put the school through a scandal with dirt dug up on it that will linger in order to remove Hobbs when Brown could get it done through the BOG
so you are saying within the realm of possibilities, seems like a backtrack from your big boom post that led this off...seems like you hear a few things and come up with a wild conspiracy theory
The point is that you are a hypocrite. Not only a hypocrite but the leaps you are taking here with this theory are beyond massive.
They fire him, that's one set of optics.
He resigns in disgrace, it's entirely another.
*sigh*...
they can easily fire him...hes been here 4 years, whats his contract look like? Its pretty justifiable to say the football program is a dumpster fire and thats because of Hobbs
and they didnt make Hobbs mouth off, which really worsened his standing
and they didnt make Hobbs mouth off, which really worsened his standing
Unless is it just one or two major boosters who lack authority and have limited influence over their peers.
I would hope the school does an investigation before we start firing people. So far we have one side of the story.
Maybe we need the testimony from a Colonel in dress uniform, who was on the call, to confirm?
Nobody knows what was said to Hobbs before he allegedly made his f'ing scum statement. Maybe the reporter said something highly inflammatory to him, and he lost it. But that's why I would not call a reporter and engage them. Prepare a statement, and send it to them. If they call you, simply state that "I provided a statement and have no further comment." Would record that call too.
if thats true then they dont really have the money to remove Hobbs in the first place
There is a difference between having a list of candidates and having those candidates properly vetted.
C'mon. What are the optics in the BOG canning Hobbs. He bungled firing Ash at the end of last season only to fire him 4 games into this season. His management of the football program has resulted in a ton of lost revenue. The only optics in a straight firing of Hobbs is that Rutgers needs to get this football hire right, and the BOG doesn't have confidence that Hobbs is the guy to do it.
There is no reason for the people with actual authority to fire Hobbs to create this turmoil to fire him. They can just fire him. It only makes sense if you have someone with limited authority unable to sway others with authority (like Zoff with Mulcahy's firing), or someone with no authority unable to sway enough others with influence and authority.
Acc teams take all of their sports seriously too. Check out the last 25 NCAA lax champions.
Because he hasn't earned that right.
Not taking any leaps whatsoever. @RU4Real made a post. I posted that I heard similar things, but that none of this may pan out, just like Flood's purported firing. Others have agreed that Barry Alvarez being at the Nov. 6 150th celebration at the State Theatre while our own AD is not there is quite odd. I have taken no leaps. Just putting pieces out there for consideration.
I thought we buried the hatchet and were going to be buddies. Should I save a Christmas card for someone else?
No, they didn't.
But there's a lot we don't know about that exchange. For example, we don't know the specific line of questioning that caused him to go off.
Think about it for a moment. If a reporter calls Pat and says, "We're planning on running a story about the lawsuit filed several months ago concerning the softball coach and allegations of player abuse, do you have any comment?", why would that trigger Pat into a "profanity-laced tirade"?
I think there's a better chance that they asked him about something else. Something that isn't explicitly mentioned in the article.
As for firing him vs. ginning up some kind of controversy, that's an easy one. It plays into the larger strategy.
Brown is on the BoG. The expectation is that Amy Towers will also be on the BoG. The plan is to spin up an independent entity to have oversight with regard to athletics, similar to that at other competitive schools - see the University of Florida's "University Athletics Association". This entity would have complete control over all aspects of the athletic program, with a dotted line to the BoG, but would be independent of the Office of the President.
Another athletics controversy at RU sharpens the narrative into something like, "There have been too many problems under the current operating model and, with Big 10 membership, athletics is too important to be managed in the traditional mode, going forward."
We need the BOG to carve out an athletics section for itself, if this is our time fine, but i dont think they need to create a scandal to justify it..thats silly, Brown can make the argument that Hobbs ****** up hiring and we cant do that anymore so we need to carve out our own control here...
Good points. Fact is, its hard not to find a University not experiencing record donations. Look at the stock market chart over the last ten years, the rich have become extremely rich.
I said it the day he fired Ash and McNulty, Hobbs is an extremely low IQ football guy and should be nowhere near this hire. Glad people with real power see it. Nothing against the guy. he's done some really good things here. You just can't have an AD who doesn't understand football, it drives the whole bus.
Maybe, maybe not. You say it's easy for the BoG to just fire the guy, I'm saying maybe it's not as simple as you think. What is simple, from their perspective, is creating a set of circumstances that sweetens the pot.
This is right out of the corporate playbook. It's precisely the sort of thing you might expect from a couple of serious CEO types.
Not necessarily. If Rutgers has 10 boosters in the $1MM plus category (i.e., they have donated $1MM or more in the past), and 2 want Hobbs gone, 3 don't care, and 5 want him to stay, then the 2 who want him gone might start this scandal. Even though they have the money for Hobbs' buyout, they don't have enough influence to get Hobbs fired without scandal.
The thing is, they don't seem to have real power. If they had real power, they could just fire Hobbs.
It only stretches bounds of reality at Rutgers, because as you said, this is next level stuff for us.
Uva won the NCAA lacrosse championship that year. Rutgers went 5-9 that year losing to teams like St. John's, who we never lost to in our history.
BM couldn't even fully fund the scholarship limit. There was a better way to do it.
Didn't hurt to bounce the SHU/Willard story off as lead in the College Sports section.
Actually, I don't thing the BOG can fire Hobbs directly. Barchi would be the one to fire Hobbs. And him doing it is no more difficult than it was to fire Ash.
So if key members of the BOG want Hobbs gone, they go to Barchi and say, "Bob, we have to get this next football hire right, and Pat is not the guy to do it. You have to fire him." The result is Barchi fires Hobbs. From everything we know about Barchi, he might not like it but he is not going to fight a directive from the BOG. Maybe he says he really likes Hobbs and doesn't think it is fair to toss him, so he's going to move Hobbs into the Special Advisor for Important Stuff position. Either way, Hobbs is no longer AD by the end of the week. And there is no scandal.