56 - 33 in 7 years
- Thread starter SBP
- Start date
We don’t have to be world beaters to have the excitement back on the banks. I’d settle for going 4-5 in the B1G most years and going bowling most years, and occasionally having a breakout year where we go 6-3 or possibly 7-2 (10-2 overall) and getting a prestigious bowl game. Greg can accomplish that for us, no doubt.
I would take 16-19 in B1G play as well, that is not my point, he was 16-19 in the BE conference, I am concerned what he would do in the most powerful division in all of college football. After the alleged breakout year of 2006 he should have been cleaning up in a weak BE conference, not struggling at 16-19, that is my concern.
I looked at Schiano's record from 2005-2011, pulling the massey ranking of each opponent for the year we played them:
01-20: 1-6 (14%)
21-40: 5-12 (29%)
41-60: 10-9 (53%)
61-80: 12-3 (80%)
81-100: 10-1 (91%)
101+: 10-2 (83%)
FCS: 8-0 (100%)
Overall: 56-33
Of those 89 games, only 7 were played against teams in the Top 20 (8%) and just 24 were in the Top 40 (27%). 28 of the 56 wins were against teams ranked 80+.
Looking at our actual schedule and results over the last 4 years:
01-20: 0-14 (0%)
21-40: 1-8 (11%)
41-60: 0-3 (0%)
61-80: 4-6 (40%)
81-100: 1-4 (20%)
100+: 2-2 (50%)
FCS: 3-0 (100%)
Overall: 11-36
14 of our 47 games were against teams in the Top 20 (30%) and 23 of our 47 were in the Top 40 (49%). Only 12 games were against teams ranked 80+.
Using Schiano's 2005-11 percentages vs. our 2015-18 schedule difficulty, may have managed 25.1 wins against that schedule (largely by winning more games against teams ranked 61+)... which would have been an average of 6.3 wins per season, and a return to bowling.
Looking at the B1G conference to find the average massey rankings for the last 4 years.
East
3.8 - Ohio State
15.8 - Michigan
21.3 - Penn State
37.5 - Michigan State
64.5 - Indiana
72.3 - Maryland
106.8 - Rutgers
West
15.3 - Wisconsin
22.0 - Iowa
25.0 - Northwestern
49.0 - Minnesota
51.5 - Nebraska
76.0 - Purdue
87.8 - Illinois
My expectation for Schiano would be that he'd schedule the easiest OOC teams possible to get to 3 wins, then beat the lowest cross-divisional matchup to get to 4, then get 2 of 3 vs. Maryland/Indiana and the 2nd lowest cross-divisional matchup. That'd get to 6 wins consistently, bowl eligibility, and the extra practice time every year... and then try to build back toward knocking off the top 4 in our division or the top cross-divisional team we face.
01-20: 1-6 (14%)
21-40: 5-12 (29%)
41-60: 10-9 (53%)
61-80: 12-3 (80%)
81-100: 10-1 (91%)
101+: 10-2 (83%)
FCS: 8-0 (100%)
Overall: 56-33
Of those 89 games, only 7 were played against teams in the Top 20 (8%) and just 24 were in the Top 40 (27%). 28 of the 56 wins were against teams ranked 80+.
Looking at our actual schedule and results over the last 4 years:
01-20: 0-14 (0%)
21-40: 1-8 (11%)
41-60: 0-3 (0%)
61-80: 4-6 (40%)
81-100: 1-4 (20%)
100+: 2-2 (50%)
FCS: 3-0 (100%)
Overall: 11-36
14 of our 47 games were against teams in the Top 20 (30%) and 23 of our 47 were in the Top 40 (49%). Only 12 games were against teams ranked 80+.
Using Schiano's 2005-11 percentages vs. our 2015-18 schedule difficulty, may have managed 25.1 wins against that schedule (largely by winning more games against teams ranked 61+)... which would have been an average of 6.3 wins per season, and a return to bowling.
Looking at the B1G conference to find the average massey rankings for the last 4 years.
East
3.8 - Ohio State
15.8 - Michigan
21.3 - Penn State
37.5 - Michigan State
64.5 - Indiana
72.3 - Maryland
106.8 - Rutgers
West
15.3 - Wisconsin
22.0 - Iowa
25.0 - Northwestern
49.0 - Minnesota
51.5 - Nebraska
76.0 - Purdue
87.8 - Illinois
My expectation for Schiano would be that he'd schedule the easiest OOC teams possible to get to 3 wins, then beat the lowest cross-divisional matchup to get to 4, then get 2 of 3 vs. Maryland/Indiana and the 2nd lowest cross-divisional matchup. That'd get to 6 wins consistently, bowl eligibility, and the extra practice time every year... and then try to build back toward knocking off the top 4 in our division or the top cross-divisional team we face.
Last edited:
Cmon man....STOP!
This Program Was left in great shape for Flood. A 9-4 team with almost everyone coming back and the school’s best recruiting class ever
And Flood started the next year with a completely different staff except him and Robb smith 9-1 and an invite to the big ten confrence
He left this place in great shape and the school...for many reasons including the hires they made...destroyed it.
The good news is the structure is still in place for the next coach to succeed. It just needs leadership and a new culture
its bizarre the running down agenda that some posters have here of Schiano. Being a huge Schiano critic and being a fan since I was 8 year old in the 70s, I have seen everything with RU. Despite some blips here or there with Graber and Burns, the only success RU has had in big time football is under Schiano. People look like fools when they start analyzing his first few years as an indictment of him yet ignoring what came after and when he left it wasnt falling off. Schiano never won a championship..that is true, but so...so...RU has a terrible history. People here forget perception. Schiano did a yeomens job. I believe that he is one of the few that can understand what it takes to win here. Some would rather search for a needle in the haystack who is out there yet its a 99% chance we land another Ash type to bury the program for decades
Pat royally ****ed up his first hire. He has one shot to make it right or RU will become the Northwestern from the 70s and 80s of the Big 10 and no one will give a shit anymore
Pat royally ****ed up his first hire. He has one shot to make it right or RU will become the Northwestern from the 70s and 80s of the Big 10 and no one will give a shit anymore
"Built to last", for those who were not personally familiar with the narrative (as stated previously, I was - firsthand) meant:
- Branding recognizable in New Jersey among fans and, particularly, among junior athletes (Pop Warner, etc.
- Recruit familiarity and a passion among NJ high school players and coaches for all things Rutgers
- Baseline program support elements in place - locker room, weight room, practice facilities, training table and academic supports
Flood had good success with Schiano's players and was, in reality, a pretty decent Xs & Os guy. So, per Schiano's original formula for success, the continuation of that success should have been a no-brainer because he left in place all of the elements for upper-tier athletes to continue to want to come here and all any of his successors had to do was be able to coach them.
As we know, this didn't happen.
In analyzing why, the reason appears to be largely correlated with the fact that the strength of those cornerstone elements wasn't actually there. If you look at Schiano's recruiting classes it becomes apparent that he never actually achieved a high degree of penetration into the upper crust of NJ blue chippers. As has been stated previously, he was not well thought of by some of the more influential NJ parochial coaches. His recruiting successes, taken as a whole, were every year comprised of a mix of a couple of good NJ kids, a few good Florida kids and a bunch of "diamonds in the rough", some of which he and his staff were able to develop.
He also got super-lucky. If not for Terry Shea's magnanimous treatment of Nate Leonard, there is no Brian Leonard. If not for Paul Pasqualone being shit-canned at 'Cuse, there is no Ray RIce, et al. The reality of the '06 team is that, from a recruiting perspective, he was the beneficiary of significant good fortune.
So, no. The program was not "built to last". That was marketing schtick. Greg Schiano didn't perform a miracle. He was an aggressive guy with a strong (and frequently disagreeable) personality who got lucky - and then got unlucky. And when it started to become apparent that his luck was running out, he executed a timely departure for the worst job in the NFL, a job at which no one has ever been successful and which no one else really wanted.
We can do better. We should do better. We should insist on better.
Of the coaches that have publicly (media) been discussed my first choice is Butch Jones.
He won two conference championships at Central Michigan.
He won two conference championships at Cincinnati.
Formerly a graduate assistant at Rutgers.
His 2011 Cincinnati team won the Big East championship and the Big East team academic award.
actually the issue was the Flood hire in itself...it was a huge mistake because it set in motion the chain of events to where we are now. RU is paying a coach $2.4 million and then hires a line coach for $700K. He was way in over his head. He did well because those were Schiano recruits, His xs and os were not good, you seem to forget what happened his first year and his 2nd year. He could not close the deal with his recruiting and then it totally fell apart and he embarassed himself and the school with his ridiculous in private meeting in Princeton...not to mention the bad apples on the team.
The program was built to last if Mr Pernetti and the BOG took things seriously enough with respect to replacing Schiano. It was Rutgers being Rutgers and it poisoned the program
Not a fake fan, had to do something didn't finish my thought, he got regularly outcoached by better head coaches. Randy Edsall, outcoaching him in 2 of the last 4 years 2008-2011, should say something about his abilities. I just never fell in love with the micromanager whose ceiling was 7-9 wins a year. He always lost to WVU, always lost to the 1st or 2nd best team in league, if WVU wasn't there, and had a WTF loss. 2006 being the exception, and even then he didn't win the BE because his 2 losses were in conference. He was King of the non conference scheduling going 5-0 or 4-1 every year.
2005 (11 regular season games)
7-5 4-3 3-1 non 0-1 bowl
2006 (12) 11-2 5-2 5-0 non 1-0 bowl
2007 (12) 8-5 4-3 4-1 non 1-0 bowl
2008 (12) 8-5 5-2 2-3 non 1-0 bowl
2009 (12) 9-4 3-4 5-0 non 1-0 bowl
2010 (12) 4-8 1-6 3-2 non Eric Legrand year :(
2012 (12). 9-4 4-3 4-1 non 1-0 bowl
Most years he was 5-0 or 4-1, except 2008 lost 1st 3 games, ranked Fresno, bad loss to UNC 12-44 and lost to Navy started season 1-5, finished strong. Now, he can only schedule 3 non conference games, 3-0 or 2-1 and 9 conference games the best I can see him do is maybe 4-5 or 5-4 in any year, ceiling is 6-3. There are way too many good coaches in league with more experience.
Greg has changed and grown as he's gotten older - like many of us. Do those changes make him a better or worse HC? Only one way to find out. LOL
The worshipers live in dream land. B10 coaches would run the score up on Greg for the next 3 yrs, and make him look like a lost soul. And they very capable - hell Purdue, Iowa, Maryland - carved him up when he was coaching a stacked OSU defense. Wanting Greg back, is like only wanting a participation trophy at the tournament. We need go after a GOOD coach. This is the B10.. He won't be able to trick people with the cupcake schedule
I want you to be critical of his track record in the same way you were of Schiano. Jones always followed Kelly, and so was his success tied to Kelly's hard work? Also, Jones' success had some help in the form of multiple 4 and 5 stars on the roster. See, both candidates have faults that can cause people to question their value. My point is you can't treat one with disdain and the other with kid gloves. Try looking at this without any bias involved.
FYI: I was on the team when Jones was here as a GA. I had no problem with him, but a lot of guys on the team hated him. He has a way of rubbing people the wrong way. I take that as a person who pushes players beyond their comfort zone. Those type of players usually has success.
2012: 9-4, a WTF loss to Kent St. and losses to Pitt, L'ville and VT (Russell Athletic Bowl and admittedly a shitty game) to end the season.
2013: 6-6, lost to #9 ND at shitty Yankee Stadium. The best thing about that day was the off-the-hook @AreYouNUTS party.
2014: 7-5, including the beat down of UN(o)C(lasses) in the Whatever the Hell That Game in Detroit Was Called.
2015: 4-7, first year in the B1G with predictable results but we did manage to beat Indiana. It's also worth pointing out that our B1G losses were, overall, the closest losses in any season since.
There's lots of ways to spin all this. But in light of the recent history with Ash, I think the notion that Flood "trashed the program" is revisionist history. Looking back, objectively, the consensus at the time was that he wasn't meeting expectations and appeared "lost" at times.
Kent State..not pulling Nova in that game..., the Pitt game which was a total turd, RU could have won the BE by beating them, instead a total no show the Va Tech bowl game which RU led 10-0 but inexplicably despite RU dominating the game defensively, the play calling was anemic. A solid season that quickly exposed Flood
there were a few games where RU immediately got down big...some of them they actually came back and won but why so unprepared to start games.
2013...an uttter disaster of a season despite finishing 6-6....last second miracle to beat Temple, thrashed by Houston, Cincy, UCF. Just won of the worst pass defenses around, people just threw their hands up in the air....the kicker was that Julie wanted him gone and we could have had Hermann or Narduzzi but hey we needed to hire a guy with head coaching experience..silly donors what did you pay for a couple years later. Once again the BOG refusal to take athletics seriously and show Julie the money once again torpedoed the program
2014...Flood's best year IMO...he fought for his job didnt he. Yet still the bad xs and os..see Penn State were there.
2015....sorry a total failure. suspended at the beginning of the season
Im not getting into Ash because he was horrible for this program....but the BOG and Pernetti hiring Flood directly led to a situation that put Rutgers from a solid program with a good reputation to a stinking turd by the time he left.
lol...
I totally forgot about the suspension.
At the end of the day, I think Flood's biggest failure was his inability to control the locker room. His last couple of years it seemed apparent that the inmates were running the asylum. That's not permissible under any circumstances. The only way to manage 100+ 18-22 year old kids is for them to absolutely understand that they are not in charge.
With a somewhat stronger personality, I think he's a good coach, overall. Maybe Saban is helping out in that regard, I don't know.
That was a GREAT party! When 2 other bars on the block open up a tad early to accommodate the overflow AND offer the specials THAT is a good one lol! Thx!
Don’t forget he was an asset at Halloween, players always knew where to go for wigs and mustaches
I really enjoyed hanging out with the great Mike Stephens that day. Best baseball quarterback in history, IMO. :)
this.
And the first one in Phoenix although his only Bowl loss was a hell of a game. Was proud to witness our Scarlet Knights running out of the tunnel before the game.
I was at that last Johnny Major coached PITT game against Rutgers in PITT Stadium.
You guys won... Almost broke my neck walking down the Ice covered steps in a Sleet Storm in that Stadium.
The foundation was built to last and still in fine shape.
But the building on top of it was allowed to fall into disrepair.
Greg's foundation was making Rutgers a program that was expected to compete with the best.
That is still true and why Rutgers is still considered a program that can be a good one under the right leadership.
The leadership after him didn't destroy the foundation Schiano put in to build the program on, the building on that foundation stoped and became a fire hazard because of poor maintenance and the leadership put in charge after Greg left.
I’m a little plugged into the coaching community - apparently he’s had a lot of assistants that didn’t want to work with him and the word within the community is to stay away from his staff.
If you look up his coaching tree, most of the guys haven’t accomplished much.
Yes you do get older and wiser but some things don't change much even with age IMO. Personality wise I think you are what you are after a certain point in life and don't expect much change.
If you're introvert you're introvert, if you're arrogant you're arrogant, if you're jovial you're jovial, if you're outgoing you're outgoing.....etc...
I remember Pete Carroll in the NFL thought of as too much players coach too happy go lucky and that was seen as negative during his first stints there then to USC did anything change after failure? Nope still same happy go lucky jovial guy and still same in Seattle.
Bill Belichick...gruff mumbler throughout his career did that ever change from earlier to now? I don't think so
I read an article about Dave Aranda all the way back to his high school days introverted hard worker put his nose down grinded it out and that's the same description of him through his time as GA to his time now as highest paid DC in college football.
IMO most people are what they are personality wise after a certain point of life...I think you rarely see major change in personality.
I posted this in the other thread and a couple times on the board. This is for those in such despair with the current circumstances. It can be changed with a good coach.
I've posted these numbers here before.
Duke's record before Cutcliffe.....6-45 overall and 3-33 in conference with 3 straight winless ACC seasons prior to his arrival
WSU's record before Leach.....9-40 overall and 4-32 in conference
ISU's record 3 seasons before Campbell....8-28 overall and 4-23 in conference
Purdue's record before Brohm...9-33 overall and 3-24
Hire a good coach and you can turn things around and some of those turnarounds happened quickly even.
EDIT: should add that these were all offensive coaches
I've posted these numbers here before.
Duke's record before Cutcliffe.....6-45 overall and 3-33 in conference with 3 straight winless ACC seasons prior to his arrival
WSU's record before Leach.....9-40 overall and 4-32 in conference
ISU's record 3 seasons before Campbell....8-28 overall and 4-23 in conference
Purdue's record before Brohm...9-33 overall and 3-24
Hire a good coach and you can turn things around and some of those turnarounds happened quickly even.
EDIT: should add that these were all offensive coaches
Those schools had an AD (& administration) make wise decisions. Rutgers seems to lack that one trait to turn the corner.
If they made such wise decisions they wouldn't have found themselves in the predicament of having those kind of records in the first place. And btw with regards to Duke...the coach before Ted Roof, Carl Franks had just as pathetic a record. The tide can always change with a good hire.
The difference is they learned from their mistakes. Show me where Rutgers has learned from their mistakes?
Duke learned from their mistakes? They hired two coaches in a row that were absolutely terrible.
We can learn by hiring a strong offensive coach and giving him the budget for a strong capable DC. Notice all the coaches mentioned that performed those turn arounds were offensive guys. I’ve been advocating for that for a long time.
You can keep going on this debate. You're not even listening to yourself. Duke did learn and that's why they don't have the same problem as Rutgers. It doesn't matter if it's an offensive guy or defensive guy. They need someone who can change the direction of the program. Btw, Schiano was a defensive guy when he turned around Rutgers. The HC at Northwestern was a defensive guy too. Care to explain that one? Bottom line, your argument is agenda-driven and no matter what you're going to stick to it.
That's the big question, does he still have the drive to bring it all up again? Has he changed enough to trust others instead of trying to micromanage every single detail?
Nope, 2014 was our first year in the Big Ten, with a 3-5 record. Damn, if we had only won that game against the Sandusky Pedophilers!
Yea and those both happened in a different era of college football. And btw I'm actually not against defensive guys...I've said my ideal actually is a defensive HC (like a Stoops or Patterson) but one who won't be confused about offense, has the connections and know how of how to implement it...Alex Grinch is a name I've mentioned plenty here I like but would be a non starter for pretty much everyone because of lack of experience. Elko too but same issue no HC experience for many here. Somehow Hafley bypasses that bar for some and that's only with not even 1 year of DC experience at that. I think he can actually be a good one too but if you rule out the others like Elko/Grinch how does a person like him...beats me?
Duke did learn? What did they learn. If they learned so much how did they hire 2 absolutely miserable coaches in a row. They just kept trying and then landed on someone good and he turned it around. I've said here before you fail try again, you fail you try again...etc...
Similar threads
