I really don't understand why suspending Flood is the worst possible outcome -- I think you're just looking for an excuse to bash Barchi -- but I'm glad we agree that firing him would have been appropriate.
Because this is Rutgers, here is what will happen
- Thread starter Caliknight
- Start date
I don't think he should have been fired, I believe it is better than being suspended. At least it's a decisive move. A fine and warning would have been sufficient.
A lame neutering suspension tells me the administration didn't have the stomach for one of the other options. It's an attorney recommended response to cover their asses. No Balls Barchi. Has a nice ring. After meeting the man, it might be true too, I'm not sure. If that is what passes for the best and brightest, academia leaves a lot to be desired. But we already knew that.
A lame neutering suspension tells me the administration didn't have the stomach for one of the other options. It's an attorney recommended response to cover their asses. No Balls Barchi. Has a nice ring. After meeting the man, it might be true too, I'm not sure. If that is what passes for the best and brightest, academia leaves a lot to be desired. But we already knew that.
No legal backround, some exposure to HR, over my years.
1) Appears Coach could have been terminated for cause. But, that's a black eye for him and RU.
1a) Suspension was a message to bow out - take a buyout, plead the high road.
2) You can coach everything but the game ? is that not, a personal message to anyone who has managed anything ?
3) Implied, Coach - barring a very successful season, issues will be used to terminate with cause.
Yikes, pretty much, everyone I've worked with for 40 plus years, would get the message.
If what I read, Coach can conduct all team practices, meetings etc. except game day - then, I am baffled. Folks on parole, don't get to do their thing, 6 out of 7 days a week.
Bottom line - believe the university has been trying, and showing him, his best way out.
1) Appears Coach could have been terminated for cause. But, that's a black eye for him and RU.
1a) Suspension was a message to bow out - take a buyout, plead the high road.
2) You can coach everything but the game ? is that not, a personal message to anyone who has managed anything ?
3) Implied, Coach - barring a very successful season, issues will be used to terminate with cause.
Yikes, pretty much, everyone I've worked with for 40 plus years, would get the message.
If what I read, Coach can conduct all team practices, meetings etc. except game day - then, I am baffled. Folks on parole, don't get to do their thing, 6 out of 7 days a week.
Bottom line - believe the university has been trying, and showing him, his best way out.
Im thinking they fire Flood at the end of the year. If there weren't multiple player arrests they might fire him now, but the team needs stability at the moment. So they may clean house after the season. Then the issue is does Julie find a competent staff to replace them?
Cali I agree with you 100%.Short of public flogging, this probably the worst possible thing they could have done.When it comes to our athletic department it is always amateur hour.
They hire a head coach with no head coaching experience (of coarse he is going to make some mistakes), he has a rough year they make it public they are going to fire him and bring in a new coach.
They realize 'hey we don't have the money to hire a new coach. oops'- Hindering his chances to actually recruit players . They give him a vote of confidence and even allow him to bring the fridge on board (great move)He has a very good debut in the BIG and it looks like he might make it . He has an infraction with the e-mails (bonehead move) and it takes them six weeks to figure it out. In the interim all the off field antics come to light.
The question though does the punishment fit the crime? I would have had a lot more respect for these guys if they fined him or fired him. To suspend him sends a bad message to any quality coach who would ever consider coming here. .
One other glaring problem we have here is our print media and the failure of our athletic department to curb any of the negative bias they portray. Politti called coach Flood a "rogue coach".
I think Politti is a rogue reporter who tries to create the news instead of reporting it.
The first thing this athletic dept. should do is get people covering this program who actually care about this program.
Well said. Unfortunately, we don't decide who covers the program, but they can and should do a much better job of limiting the SL's exposure to the program. Those clowns will write what they write, but don't help them by allowing access. They aren't needed.
Flood wasn't some coach who came in out of the blue. He was at RU for the RU 1000, the Schiano media ambush of 2008 that cost Bom M his job. Flood was at RU for the Rice fiasco and Pernetti firing. Flood saw the media glee over RU foibles. Flood should have known the risks he was putting program under. Indeed his attempts to dodge scrutiny show he knew he was taking risks. Flood didn't care. He harmed a lot of people. I don't buy idea he did some innocent thing. In discrete terns it was silly. In the broader context of recent RU history it was even more stupid to risk paying so large a price for such a trifle. Its like the people you read about getting killed rushing into the road to get the sunglasses they dropped
The fact that the investigation was made public by the leak was a game changer. Whatever sanctions the admin thought was appropriate would have been done and never made public. It probably would not have been a suspension just so to keep the matter low key.
He did harm a lot of people. He betrayed the whole Rutgers community. He has brought disgrace to this university. He has UNDONE what it took Greg Schiano over ten years to establish. Now Rutgers again is the laughing stock of the entire country. He does not deserve another chance.
I have experience in recommending and defending discipline at hearings. Two principles of discipline are it be progressive and corrective. If this is Flood's first instance of discipline as a 12? year employee, you generally would not hammer him real hard unless the actions were severe. What he did might be permitted at some schools so it is not too bad. The most damaging issue for him is he knowingly violated the policy, so this supports severe discipline. However discipline is not supposed to be punitive but corrective. The guy is being fined, suspended from coaching for three games (25% of season) and has been humiliated with the embarrassing details released publicly. He would have learned his lesson with the fine and simple statement saying he violated policy and is being fined. The suspensions and details just create bad blood and provide fodder for the press, haters and negative recruiters.
For those that want Flood fired for cause, this issue will not be valid after the season, assuming he does not speak to any professors here on out. He would been disciplined and his behavior corrected, so the issue has been resolved. If we win 6 or more games I think he stays, partly because that isn't bad with our schedule and partly due to finances. No bowl and all the issues this year maybe someone comes up with some money but it won't be a big time coach, we will take another chance on an up-and-comer and hope for the best. If it doesn't work out after a few years by that time the full big share will be in place.
For those that want Flood fired for cause, this issue will not be valid after the season, assuming he does not speak to any professors here on out. He would been disciplined and his behavior corrected, so the issue has been resolved. If we win 6 or more games I think he stays, partly because that isn't bad with our schedule and partly due to finances. No bowl and all the issues this year maybe someone comes up with some money but it won't be a big time coach, we will take another chance on an up-and-comer and hope for the best. If it doesn't work out after a few years by that time the full big share will be in place.
Exactly. Did Coach Flood bring this ,yes he did,but again does the punishment fit the crime?The message here is we have 0 tolerance. Message well received. Now you tell me what coach in there right mind in any sport would want to come and coach here? We are part of the most prestigious conference in the country. Located in a hotbed of academic and athletic talent for any and every sport.But we are total amateurs when it comes to athletic management,and we don't have any money so we will continue to hire coaches on the cheap. Right now being in the BIG it is a much bigger spotlight and our administration is still playing checkers when everyone else is playing chess- and it shows.
Some people might call it growing pains, I call it SAME OLD RUTGERS.
And by the way could you increase your donations so we can add some more pots johns for the football games?
Oh come on. A LOT of programs promote from within, including bigger schools than us. We talk all the time about how they hired someone who was cheap, but the reality is Schiano left days before signing day with the best recruiting class we ever had hanging in the balance. Hiring a guy who was already here was not a ridiculous notion.
As for Delaware, in 2002, when Flood went there, they hired K.C. Keeler, who had an amazing record at the Division III level -- as a head coach. That's a pretty good reason to hire him over the Hofstra OL coach, wouldn't you think?
Say what you want about Flood, it was far more logical for Rutgers to hire him when it did then for Delaware to have hired him when they were looking for a coach.
mdh, Rice was fined, suspended and attended anger management courses. Later on when the tapes went public he was fired, and that is why he was able to negotiate a 475K severance package, which I think was about his yearly salary. Difficult to fire for cause after the cause has been addressed and corrected.
Had he been fired initially he would have had a minimal chance for severance. If he took RU to court, RU would not have had to send lawyers, just a video tech to turn on ESPN, and his case would have been dismissed.
Had he been fired initially he would have had a minimal chance for severance. If he took RU to court, RU would not have had to send lawyers, just a video tech to turn on ESPN, and his case would have been dismissed.
