Just saying what's been reported in multiple stories.
And let's be real, what he's given would be a drop in the bucket at a big time school while here it's a major donation. Says more about the state of Rutgers....
APP: Jeff Towers: Rutgers boosters firmly behind Kyle Flood
- Thread starter rutgersguy1
- Start date
Just saying what's been reported in multiple stories.
And let's be real, what he's given would be a drop in the bucket at a big time school while here it's a major donation. Says more about the state of Rutgers....
Instead of showing blind support for Flood, he should be smart enough to understand what is root cause of under performing from a Athletic and Academic perspective. The root cause is a lack of funds from Trenton. Instead of talking to the Star Liar he should be taking a drive down to Trenton to talk to the leaders down there and tell them what an embarrassment THEY are.
Yes, I've seen the reports.
Cultivating the relationship is important. But not if he's going to hold the entire department hostage.
Caliknight and WhiteBus are former Rutgers football players. Anyone else on these boards a former Rutgers football player?
I'm with ruhudsonfan on this. We want Towers and donors like him in the fold. We should listen to their concerns and let them be heard and take into account what they have to say, always even if they're a little more outspoken than we'd like. However, I don't think we have any donors as of now that should be able to bigfoot whoever our AD is and be giving marching orders. Their thoughts and feelings can be part of the discussion but not the final say. On top of which some of our other posters say he's not even one of our bigger donors just one of the more vocal ones. I'm not sure how true that is but that's out there too.
Just a couple excerpts from an article from everyone's favorite(NOT) reporter and publication.
I understand the allure of the "mega booster." You could argue that the difference between Rutgers and Big Ten rival Maryland is Kevin Plank, the Under Armour CEO who has committed tens of millions of dollars for facility improvements. There is a reason I put Towers fourth on my annual list of the most influential people in New Jersey sports this summer: His level of commitment could be a game-changer for Rutgers facilities.
But even Plank has stopped short of publicly endorsing or criticizing coaches, telling the Baltimore Sun in 2014, "I support our coaches, bar none. I don't make decisions on whether they stay or whether they go."
Towers isn't just guilty of blind loyalty. He's guilty of small thinking. "A 'marquee coach' would demand a salary and buyout amount that the university is unwilling to pay," Towers told Gannett New Jersey. "And a 'superstar-in-the making' would most likely see Rutgers as a stepping-stone to his next job."
What is the message there? That Rutgers should just give Flood a lifetime contract now? It might not be the best head coaching job in the country, but the idea that a Big Ten program couldn't identify and hire a head coach who could produce better results is absurd.
The reality is, Towers isn't speaking for all donors. Some are deeply concerned about the state of the program. "They will lose me if they keep (Flood)," one prominent and, unlike Towers, longtime booster told me on Monday. There is no pro- or anti-Flood consensus, just a lot of opinions from people who should have little or no say in the decision.
Just a couple excerpts from an article from everyone's favorite(NOT) reporter and publication.
I understand the allure of the "mega booster." You could argue that the difference between Rutgers and Big Ten rival Maryland is Kevin Plank, the Under Armour CEO who has committed tens of millions of dollars for facility improvements. There is a reason I put Towers fourth on my annual list of the most influential people in New Jersey sports this summer: His level of commitment could be a game-changer for Rutgers facilities.
But even Plank has stopped short of publicly endorsing or criticizing coaches, telling the Baltimore Sun in 2014, "I support our coaches, bar none. I don't make decisions on whether they stay or whether they go."
Towers isn't just guilty of blind loyalty. He's guilty of small thinking. "A 'marquee coach' would demand a salary and buyout amount that the university is unwilling to pay," Towers told Gannett New Jersey. "And a 'superstar-in-the making' would most likely see Rutgers as a stepping-stone to his next job."
What is the message there? That Rutgers should just give Flood a lifetime contract now? It might not be the best head coaching job in the country, but the idea that a Big Ten program couldn't identify and hire a head coach who could produce better results is absurd.
The reality is, Towers isn't speaking for all donors. Some are deeply concerned about the state of the program. "They will lose me if they keep (Flood)," one prominent and, unlike Towers, longtime booster told me on Monday. There is no pro- or anti-Flood consensus, just a lot of opinions from people who should have little or no say in the decision.
Towers isn't just guilty of blind loyalty. He's guilty of small thinking. "A 'marquee coach' would demand a salary and buyout amount that the university is unwilling to pay," Towers told Gannett New Jersey. "And a 'superstar-in-the making' would most likely see Rutgers as a stepping-stone to his next job."
Agreed!
This statement is incredibly short sited. We do not want someone with these thoughts "Leading" us. We want a marquee coach, we deserve a marquee coach. If you ever speak to a NJ politician you need to tell them that your vote will be dependent on how you vote to fund Rutgers. Not only will you not vote for them you will work to see that they are defeated.
Agreed!
This statement is incredibly short sited. We do not want someone with these thoughts "Leading" us. We want a marquee coach, we deserve a marquee coach. If you ever speak to a NJ politician you need to tell them that your vote will be dependent on how you vote to fund Rutgers. Not only will you not vote for them you will work to see that they are defeated.
1) You really have no idea how much he has donated. If you are able to confirm that he donated $1MM for Fridge's contract, then all you know is that he donated $1MM. You don't know how much more, if any.
2) You don't know that he is creating a false narrative. There are donor events for people who give large amounts. I am not invited to the events for $1MM donors, but Towers and others are. Why would you assume that Towers hasn't talked to other large donors at those events, and knowing who they are, why assume he hasn't kept in contact with them. If he heard from other donors that they want to keep Flood (even if they were just telling Towers what they thought he wanted to hear), then there is no false narrative to his story.
3) He has a right to shoot off his mouth and give his opinion as anyone else, including you and me. The only difference is the press doesn't listen to you or me and doesn't write stories about our opinions.
But the only important issue is how much influence does he have with Rutgers. He obviously didn't have enough influence (http://www.app.com/story/sports/col...rs-rutgers-donor-support-kyle-flood/71808094/) to keep Flood from getting suspended.
(By the way, one of the guys who donated for the recruiting lounge may not be managing the story out in the press. But he is certainly managing the story from his position as chair of the BOG.)
I've observed enough of the guy, his social media and the manner in which his support is thrown to a certain individual, to know that if he had actually written more checks, we would know about it. Doesn't it pique your curiosity that he allowed the department to confirm he donated the mil to fund Fridge's contract, but they are otherwise hush hush about other checks he's actually written? Same with guaranteeing Flood's buy-out?
I don't doubt he's written a few 5 figure checks for Hale Center upgrades and the like.
I do, however, think some sort of confirmation that he is a "mega" donor would be nice, if he is going to be treated as such.
He has verifiable wealth and very publicly interjected himself into the AD. That, more than what he has actually given, appears to be driving the bus around his importance. It seems the AD has him on the line and is continuing to throw chum in the water, because they haven't quite landed him yet.
Lastly, people in the "mega" donor category are not typically wallflowers. At the very least, Dunleavy should have sought comment from some of them to see if Towers does indeed speak for them. The question is rather simple. I would expect the answers to fall in line with, "Yes" "No" or "No Comment." Instead, we're left wondering whether Towers is feeding his own ego, speaking for the administration by proxy, speaking for "the other big donors", speaking for Flood (my guess) or just flat our going rogue.
We all know the media comes to this site for, uh shall we say, inspiration. Where are the follow ups to Greg Brown? Or Dick Hertz? Or Wilma Fingerdo? Or whomever else falls into RU "big donor" category.
If someone is giving money to the program and stipulating that it go to a bad cause (aka coach fludd) is that something we should support? More money is not necessarily the answer if it's used incorrectly.
When you are one of the bigger donors, ummmm yea. You get influence. Rutgers is in no position to be so flippant. What he hell does "hedge fund guy" have to do with anything?
No wonder donations at RU suck. There are probably people with your attitude involved.
Well as far as I know he's not the hedge fund guy, it's his wife that co-founded a hedge fund with her previous husband. Nonetheless, as far as I'm concerned Wall Street money is one area we should be targeting and I'm sure we are. We're right next to NYC, are you freaking kidding, it would be crazy not to do so.
Influence to a degree yes but how much influence to me is a function of how many zeroes are on your check. These kind of guys at the very least should all be heard and part of the discussion as I've said above, regardless of their outspokenness. It takes all kinds, some are quiet and want to be anonymous and some want their name out there. You have to deal with them all.
However, the amount of influence and say you get depends on how much you're actually contributing to the ultimate goals of the AD. As far as I know, we have no donors of that scale at the moment, so we should always welcome opinions and take them into account but not marching orders. When a Phil Knight/Pickens/Ross type shows up at the door then that could be a different story but we don't have that whether it's Brown or Towers or whomever. If we did I'd have expected a lot more improvement to the AD over the last decades.
Influence to a degree yes but how much influence to me is a function of how many zeroes are on your check. These kind of guys at the very least should all be heard and part of the discussion as I've said above, regardless of their outspokenness. It takes all kinds, some are quiet and want to be anonymous and some want their name out there. You have to deal with them all.
However, the amount of influence and say you get depends on how much you're actually contributing to the ultimate goals of the AD. As far as I know, we have no donors of that scale at the moment, so we should always welcome opinions and take them into account but not marching orders. When a Phil Knight/Pickens/Ross type shows up at the door then that could be a different story but we don't have that whether it's Brown or Towers or whomever. If we did I'd have expected a lot more improvement to the AD over the last decades.
Well that's easy to say but not always easy to do. Various factions to ameliorate and frankly RU never has been a place where I see it as easy to get all the boats rowing in the same direction. Everyone has always got their own agendas and not always looking out for the greater good and I'm sure that might be the case among donors too. Hopefully she has a soft enough touch to keep as many on board with the ultimate vision of the AD.
I'm just scared that politi was the voice of reason today on NJ.com. Up is down, East is West.
The problem is this is his scond down year in four years, and his up years werent all that up.
So you don't believe fans and alumni should have a say over the fate of the program? You believe only those with the means to write big checks should have a voice--even if their motives may be suspect? Who do you think all of this is done for in the end? I'll give you a hint: THE FANS. Without fans it's an intramural flag football team.
There's a difference between "voice" and "vote".
"Fans" don't have a say regarding a coaching staff. Boosters definitely do.
The difference, here, is that mega-boosters at other schools are fans of the team. This particular "mega-booster" at Rutgers is a fan of Kyle Flood.
That's the disconnect.
Fans absolutely have a vote over the coaching staff. If enough of them are unhappy with it they will stop going to games, stop watching on TV and stop buying team/university gear. Unless those boosters are going to make up for the loss with more checks they will eventually be overruled. You ignore the fans at your own peril.
You are using the wrong tense. Threw in 3 g's two weeks ago in the masters league!
I think everyone needs to be honest with the vernacular. You should clearly state that in California, "masters" means "girls".
Friends of mine whose kids are getting recruited by our competition...not a peep out of Rutgers coaches. There could be a very good reason for this (not a good fit, not fitting the style of play, etc.). Or it could be that the current staff favors under the radar kids. Or anything else.
Nah, girls means girls out here. Much more so than back east, if you know what I mean.
Most of these guys are east coast transplants, many of whom played in college. Then there is the random west coast guy who picked up the sport late. Half the dudes still do some sort of physical activity. Then there is the other half. 40lbs. overweight, and can barely run for 10 seconds. I feel like Mike Jordan in his prime.
My own guess is that Towers is protecting Flood because he is concerned a new coach will not grant him the same access.
Towers is almost certainly not speaking for the admin; I would imagine he is pissing off Barchi and Herman. When the time comes that Towers is no longer a big fish (either because of increased conference revenues or new donors) he will go elsewhere and the admin will be happy to show him the door. No administrator likes receiving implied threats in public. I've been around enough administrators to know that Tower's "defense" makes it more likely (not less) that Flood goes.
Early in my career I wrote an op-ed critical of the CEO of the major bank in the city I was working at. The CEO called my college president and threatened to cut-off donations if I wasn’t “stopped.” My president called me in to tell me the story, have a good laugh and tell me to keep up the good work. He wasn’t intimidated by the CEO.
Last edited:
Actually, more like this:
There are several differences. GS inherited the worst program in the BCS. Flood inherited one in top half and took it the bottom quarter while creating a terrible off the field atmosphere.
The problems with Flood have been there from the beginning. The penalties. The defense when Smith left- worst in America in 2013- and the offense without Fridge. The OL has never been fixed- and it was the one losing season we had since 2005 under GS when Flood led that OL to worst in America status.
There's a very easy to see pattern here. I would trade that for struggles against the spread in a conference like the B1G loaded with traditional offenses.
GS inherited the worst program in the BCS. Flood inherited one in top half and took it the bottom quarter while creating a terrible off the field atmosphere.
////
True. People here crediting lood's "record" seem to forget that the first year's team with Khaseem Greene , Beauharnis etc on D was stacked and practically ran itself. That was the big winning year and Flood had very little to do with it.
The direction has nosed down since then and one would have to bury their head not to see the trend lines in many areas.
////
True. People here crediting lood's "record" seem to forget that the first year's team with Khaseem Greene , Beauharnis etc on D was stacked and practically ran itself. That was the big winning year and Flood had very little to do with it.
The direction has nosed down since then and one would have to bury their head not to see the trend lines in many areas.
