But all those questions you ask are bad ideas aimed towards winning games.
Flood thinks Laviano is his best chance to win games. He might be wrong about that, but that is the reason Laviano is playing.
A leader, unfair or perceived as unfair, will lose the team, alumni and support
- Thread starter ru-baby
- Start date
Flood thinks Laviano is his best chance to win games. He might be wrong about that, but that is the reason Laviano is playing.
It is simple. Flood is so stubborn he will let a QB throw 5 Ints and play like crap and lose a close bowl game. If that wasn't enough of an example...how about this one. He will ignore Rutgers Policy even after being told not to and hide his efforts even though it will cost him $50k and three games...for a kid he knows already failed and was involved in a fight under investigation. There's a guy who puts Rutgers winning first (NOT!)
I don't care who starts, but rather who finishes. I guy that makes it out like it is 51-49 who's the better option than won't give #2 another chance..because we all saw in game 1 what we saw. He doesn't want that to expose his decision making. Remember, he can't be wrong if there is no evidence (sound familiar) .
I don't care who starts, but rather who finishes. I guy that makes it out like it is 51-49 who's the better option than won't give #2 another chance..because we all saw in game 1 what we saw. He doesn't want that to expose his decision making. Remember, he can't be wrong if there is no evidence (sound familiar) .
If you're good enough, you play. Who said anything about blame. Unless you think the entire coaching staff is a bunch of idiots or Flood is some micro managing tyrant that ignores everyone (opinions which many of the football experts and know it alls on this board seem to have), it's pretty simple how football is played.
But growing into a job requires fighting through struggles. Going 1-0 says go with the hot hand.
But going 1-0 is also giving the starter the most reps in practice during the week so that he is best prepared to play and win on Saturday.
The whole 1-0 thing is just about focused on the task at hand, the next game.
The idea of not wanting to hurt a QB's psyche by pulling him from a game that he is struggling in is clearly a long term outlook, definitely not one focused purely on short term results.
To be clear, I linked the article that jokingly indicated conspiracy theories. No one here I see has indicated there is a conspiracy-favoritism-yes, but that is a different animal.
I think the post about the out of date contractor who wants to do it "his way" or with "his guys" because that's the way he knows, may be on to something. Do I think he plays favorites at qb? I think you'd have to be dense to conclude otherwise.
Is his judgment on motivation and qb talent evaluation at fault-how could one conclude otherwise. So no one is saying he is losing on purpose, but the end result may be that when you have to do it "your way" with "your guys" in the "method that just has to work". We've all seen those in many areas of work who are afraid to do it any other way than what they know just has to be the way. (i.e. qb's just have to have a long leash because I've heard that--also it has to be true if you have 2 qb's you have none--just has to be true). As a ceo it's all about judgment and not portraying favoritism that is at odds with merit is part of that judgment needed in handling the program.
I think the post about the out of date contractor who wants to do it "his way" or with "his guys" because that's the way he knows, may be on to something. Do I think he plays favorites at qb? I think you'd have to be dense to conclude otherwise.
Is his judgment on motivation and qb talent evaluation at fault-how could one conclude otherwise. So no one is saying he is losing on purpose, but the end result may be that when you have to do it "your way" with "your guys" in the "method that just has to work". We've all seen those in many areas of work who are afraid to do it any other way than what they know just has to be the way. (i.e. qb's just have to have a long leash because I've heard that--also it has to be true if you have 2 qb's you have none--just has to be true). As a ceo it's all about judgment and not portraying favoritism that is at odds with merit is part of that judgment needed in handling the program.
I guess Laviano is "his guy" more the Rettig because Laviano was recruited as a HS kid while Rettig was a transfer. That's the story right? But ff Laviano is his guy, then why even recruit Rettig? Which in itself is a bit of a slap in the face towards Laviano. Why would you bring in another kid with the same eligibility left?
And since we know this all goes back to the Nova era, why was Nova his guy and not Dodd?
And are there other positions besides QB where Flood plays such favoritism?
I'm not buying it. 1 QB philosophy + possible poor talent evaluator = the extent of it.
And since we know this all goes back to the Nova era, why was Nova his guy and not Dodd?
And are there other positions besides QB where Flood plays such favoritism?
I'm not buying it. 1 QB philosophy + possible poor talent evaluator = the extent of it.
You honestly don't think Flood gave Nova opportunities than Dodd?
The line between poor evaluator and favoritism may be a fine one.
It's not just here it's Carino and multiple regular practice observers saying Flood goes with "his guys" so your argument is that they are not seeing it right I guess. We just see the unusual game decisions but not all the data underpinning, but those that do see that are saying it is not at odds with the game data.
The line between poor evaluator and favoritism may be a fine one.
It's not just here it's Carino and multiple regular practice observers saying Flood goes with "his guys" so your argument is that they are not seeing it right I guess. We just see the unusual game decisions but not all the data underpinning, but those that do see that are saying it is not at odds with the game data.
Nova was the better player. People seem to forget that after benching Nova in 2013, Dodd came in and played very uninspiring ball. UConn? Bowl game vs ND?
Do you realize how dumb this idea is? I'm sure Flood probably is in agreement with you; however, if Rettig needs the playbook to be simplified then simplify it. NOBODY can honestly say they've watched the games this year and don't think the playbook has been simplified for Laviano. That is, unless our playbook is designed solely for passes of 10 yards or less...
Today the press is calling the qb decision making "bizarre".
Sure you can attack the press all you want, but Flood is bringing it on himself. The "appearance" of unfairness is more than there. First he sucked the enthusiasm slowly from the program, with a rescue by the excitement of the new conference. Now he is bringing it all on himself again.
Flood is probably swirling the marbles saying -see,when we beat the powerhouse Kansas, that will prove I was right all along!
Sure you can attack the press all you want, but Flood is bringing it on himself. The "appearance" of unfairness is more than there. First he sucked the enthusiasm slowly from the program, with a rescue by the excitement of the new conference. Now he is bringing it all on himself again.
Flood is probably swirling the marbles saying -see,when we beat the powerhouse Kansas, that will prove I was right all along!
Yes . . . From the day he was handed the keys to the program he has mishandled the QBs. You can win a game and mishandle the QBs at the same time.
It is hard not to feel deep sadness while watching Flood being allowed to destroy the program. Sort of like the building is on fire and the fire department has been ordered to stand down as your home burns.
Let's dispel once last myth about Flood, he is a not a nice guy. Nice guys don't blow off compliance meetings and the advice of the his support staff--no that is the behavior of someone who has contempt for others.
Nice guys don't recruit players like Rettig (and presumably promise him a fair shake) and then bizarrely refuse to make a change no matter what. For those who think the rest of the staff supports Flood's QB decision--what makes you think he listens to anyone but himself and what he scribbles on his pad?
And for those who applaud Flood;s concern about Laviano's confidence, what about Rettig's? What about the team's confidence? What about as ru-baby asks alumni and fan support, as well as the confidence of recruits and their families? And what about concern for the receivers that Laviano is hanging out to dry with his high airballs?
Let's dispel once last myth about Flood, he is a not a nice guy. Nice guys don't blow off compliance meetings and the advice of the his support staff--no that is the behavior of someone who has contempt for others.
Nice guys don't recruit players like Rettig (and presumably promise him a fair shake) and then bizarrely refuse to make a change no matter what. For those who think the rest of the staff supports Flood's QB decision--what makes you think he listens to anyone but himself and what he scribbles on his pad?
And for those who applaud Flood;s concern about Laviano's confidence, what about Rettig's? What about the team's confidence? What about as ru-baby asks alumni and fan support, as well as the confidence of recruits and their families? And what about concern for the receivers that Laviano is hanging out to dry with his high airballs?
Last edited:
Let me get this straight... Skipping meetings and not taking the advice of your underlings makes you not nice person? That is what you are going with? Really?? That nice guys who work as coaches don't recruit multiple players at a position, and then decide who gets to play??
I've always thought a better indicator of character was that people who are nice don't disingenuously attack the character of others, but what do I know.
I didn't write that Rettig was guaranteed a starting job, I wrote that he was guaranteed a fair shake. You may think he got one but most of us disagree.
It was not mere advice he ignored, he ignored an admonition that he was breaking RU policy. And yes, true leaders recognize that they are a part of not above a larger community. They help shape but except if there is a good reason to do so they don't blow off the will of the community. And no I'm not arguing that Flood should poll us or the press on his QB choice but it takes an unusual obstinance to not be influenced by the outcry and consider that he might be wrong. As others have argued on this thread, Flood's ego is too big to admit that he can possibly be wrong.
Research has shown that it is not the worst doctors who are sued for malpractice but it is the doctors who won't admit and communicate their errors. The analogy to coaches is that the most unpopular ones are the ones who stubbornly won't question their course.
No sir, it is you that is being disingenuous. Flood through his deeds has attacked his own character, not I.
Last edited:
Dodd should have ABSOLUTELY started the season after the bowl game win. Nova could also have been used. It was a joke that they were both not used.
Nova absolutely should have played last year except when hurt. He was more seasoned and the best choice.
All not relevant to whether Rettig should get a shot after what we have seen so far from CL. And Kansas game makes no difference in the assessment, or of this topic of Flood's culture he has created.
Nova absolutely should have played last year except when hurt. He was more seasoned and the best choice.
All not relevant to whether Rettig should get a shot after what we have seen so far from CL. And Kansas game makes no difference in the assessment, or of this topic of Flood's culture he has created.
That whole charade Flood pulled before the Norfolk game & at half time showed that the game was rigged in favor of Laviano. Knew Flood didn't have it & this was going to be a train after the 6 or so pics Nova threw vs, I believe, Kent State & then Flood uncatagorically stated that Nova was his starter for the next year. Couldn't invest as much emotionally anymore & dumped my season tickets for that & some other reasons.
Last edited:
I have no idea what you are talking about. You said that these instances dispelled the notion he was a nice person. I don't see what any of this has to do with that. Whether he exercises good judgment is a separate question altogether.
If only the decision to stick with Nova proved out with something like an 8-5 season in our first year in the B1G.
Looking at the way Flood handled his press conference responsibilities after all the drama started, I'm willing to entertain the notion that he performs incredibly well under stress.
There is a direct link between character and making good decisions. Breaking rules when directly warned not to, an inability to listen and breaking promises (I'm assuming Rettig was promised a real shot at the job) are character flaws and those flaws lead to poor decision-making.
Again, you said these things proved he's not a nice person. They do not. One can have character flaws and still be "nice." It may seem silly to you, but really don't think there is need to take shots like this at the man. He receives enough criticism here that is well founded. There is no need for ill-founded attacks on a man who is still at the head of our program. He clearly showed poor judgment with the professor contact, but what he did was not so horrible. It certainly doesn't make him less of a nice person.
Second you admit you are assuming Rettig was promised a "real shot" at the job, whatever that means, but you are also assuming he wasn't given one. Remember, there is no truth to the fact the Rettig wasn't given a fair shot at starting... It's all just a theory based on certain people's opinion that he is better than Laviano. I would also point out that we only have one professional assessment of who is better... Flood's. Negative assumptions don't justify a character attack.
Come down off your high for just a second a realize that we were 3-5 in the B1G with 4 of the losses being of the major ass-whopping variety. last season was no great shakes
