APP: Greg Schiano Part II is a bad idea, so who gets the job come December?

[mildone]

Yeah, I kind of agree with you. I have different reasons that I'm leaning towards Butch Jones, but the lack of championships for Greg is not one. My only concerns with Greg is does he have the fire to redo a job that he did almost 20 years ago? I'm not sure if he has the fire to go do that a second time and deal with the many ups-and-downs that will inevitably arise. Will he be able to overcome us going 1-11 or 2-10 the first couple of years? That said, he has the charisma and brand to give us some immediate boost in fan support and recruiting.

I would definitely be okay with a return of GS, because he at least gives us a chance to climb out of this hole. My preference, again, is Butch Jones. I think he will have the drive to get us on the right path. Even if he doesn't ultimately get us across the finish line, I think he gets the program back on track with recruiting and fan support.

Jones looks better on paper and his resume doesn't require a ton of explanation like Schiano's does.

But I'd want to do a detailed analysis of Jones recruiting success before extending an offer. Because the next coach has to be firing on all cylinders: recruiting (both players and assistants), game-day coaching, and player development in order to make much of a change.

I'm glad I'm not Hobbs because the odds of anybody we hire being unable to get past 5 wins in his first 3-4 seasons seems very low to me. And nobody is going to be satisfied with that.

 

[cohwx]

Jones looks better on paper and his resume doesn't require a ton of explanation like Schiano's does.

But I'd want to do a detailed analysis of Jones recruiting success before extending an offer. Because the next coach has to be firing on all cylinders: recruiting (both players and assistants), game-day coaching, and player development in order to make much of a change.

I'm glad I'm not Hobbs because the odds of anybody we hire being unable to get past 5 wins in his first 3-4 seasons seems very low to me. And nobody is going to be satisfied with that.

I don't know - given where we are at today, 5 wins in year 3 sounds pretty damn appealing. I think people get that. Sure there will be complainers no matter what, but I think as long as we show actual progress on the field (even if it doesn't result in many wins for a few years), people will accept it.

 

[mildone]

Whoever comes here, RU will still be very bad the first 2 seasons,
If it is Greg S., people will be calling for his head.
If it is another coach, people will be calling for Hobbs head (along with the coach)
Not sure if RU faithful will have the patience to go through another rebuild.


I predict a LOT of Fire ______ (insert name) the next 2 years

Yep. And this is the reality that it seems many, if not most, of the folks on this forum are avoiding.

Hobbs has low odds of success with this next hire.

If Ash was showing an over trend towards improvement, he'd still be here, even without winning a ton of games. The fan-base would be apoplectic. But that's moot because, in the end, there was no noticeable improvement of any kind.

It's going to be the same way for the next coach. The fan-base will rant and rave no matter who we hire. But if the new coach shows a trend towards improvement (which has to include some off seasons along the way), that coach will probably be retained over the increasingly impatient objections of the fan-base. It's almost certainly going to take longer than anybody wants for RU football to reach a bowl game once, let along regularly.

The only exception to this likely reality is would be convincing Meyer (I know, ridiculous) or someone closer to that level to come here. Doing that would probably buy a little extra patience among much of the fan-base for Hobbs. Because recruiting would pick up instantly since the coach's name itself could help combat RUFB's reputation, nationally, among recruits and their families.

I'm glad I'm not Hobbs. His job depends on how reasonable the BOG and next president are about the difficulty of our situation in football.

 

[mildone]

If I read one more time, "Schiano couldn't beat WV", I'll go crazy. Who cares? He lost 84-7 in his first year and turned it around from there into something better than respectable. That's what matters now. He filled the stadium. He had enough success to warrant expanding it.

Championships? Are people thick? Do they know where we are right now? On the verge of getting beat 84-7. Circle Penn State. Franklin is a sadist. Schiano will out recruit Franklin. Kid-> NFL = Schiano, not Franklin.

Schiano couldn't beat WV. :WideSmile:

 

[RU1993]

Schiano never won the Big East that even Connecticut was able to win once. How would he ever win the Big Ten?

He won't, we will continue to lose to Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan St, and Penn St, yearly. and he won't be able to schedule 4 cupcakes a year.

 

[RU1993]

Unfortunately, I don't have details because this is second hand info. I was introduced to the person who made the comment the other day, but he said it to someone I'm close to when I was out of earshot. I didn't have the opportunity to ask him to elaborate. I wish I did 'cause I'm curious too. He's close enough to the program for the comment to get my attention, though.

For the most of these rumors, the tact I'm taking is to assume that there are only a handful of people who really know what's going on because things can change in a hurry. The rest, I'm treating as entertainment, in a weird, twisted kinda way. lol

was this person also the whistle blower that the dem's are hanging their impeachment investigation on.

 

[chase07470]

Schiano couldn't beat WV. :WideSmile:

Good! Hopefully he comes here, never beats Oho State but plays PSU, Michigan and MSU the way he played Cincinati, Pitt and Syracuse!

 

[retired711]

If I remember correctly, it took some years for Schiano to bring the program to respectability. I know many here complained about the delay. But we ended up giving Schiano the time, and he accomplished a lot. The same may be true of the next coach. I'm sure that coach will demand a long-term contract to give him some job security while the rebuild goes on.

 

[Knight Shift]

.

If I remember correctly, it took some years for Schiano to bring the program to respectability. I know many here complained about the delay. But we ended up giving Schiano the time, and he accomplished a lot. The same may be true of the next coach. I'm sure that coach will demand a long-term contract to give him some job security while the rebuild goes on.

Seems what you are saying is that Ash should have been given more time. :Sly:

 

[megadrone]

I'd love to get to the point that we are complaining about not winning the conference vs. not winning a conference game.

Schiano can get us to the former (I believe); if he is hired it would sit well with most people. Hopefully he is a better on-field coach than he was during his tenure here. Even if he isn't let's just recruit some linemen so we actually stand a chance on most Saturdays. Schiano CAN do that.

 

[lilphilw]

We need someone who can rebuild Rutgers to being respectable, not winning the Big Ten. The people who can turn things around AND win the Big Ten/go to the Rose Bowl would never come here unless they're getting paid $10M a year. I'll take a coach who can get us to bowl games consistently instead of some reach that is high risk high reward. I think Schiano is the best coach to accomplish our realistic goals.

 

[retired711]

.

Seems what you are saying is that Ash should have been given more time. :Sly:

Thanks for the joke! No, I feel that Ash proved that he could not do the job. The greatest evidence is the failure of his recruits. There was nothing indicating that we were going to do better in the foreseeable future.

 

[mildone]

I don't know - given where we are at today, 5 wins in year 3 sounds pretty damn appealing. I think people get that. Sure there will be complainers no matter what, but I think as long as we show actual progress on the field (even if it doesn't result in many wins for a few years), people will accept it.

What about this for the first 10 seasons: 3, 4, 5, 3, 6, 3, 5, 4, 5, 5? It's way better than today. But is it what we're aiming for?

 

[cohwx]

What about this for the first 10 seasons: 3, 4, 5, 3, 6, 3, 5, 4, 5, 5? It's way better than today. But is it what we're aiming for?

Well, no, I don't think most of us would consider that a really acceptable 10 year progression. If your scenario played out, I think you'd have to make a decision at year 4, but based not only on the actual record but the way the team is performing, how recruiting is going, etc. Are we still losing by 50, 60, 70 points to OSU, PSU, etc? Are we getting shutout in every conference game? Or are we playing tough and losing close, hard-fought games against those top teams?

I'm saying that people will accept that the next 2-3 years are gonna largely suck unless we get extremely lucky or hire Urban, but that progress should be evident by year 3 at the latest. And that progress may not really be reflected in the WL record.