Those threads that Whitebus is referring to are awful but the over the top melodramatic threads of doom are much worst.
Can we stop with these stupid spin threads?
- Thread starter WhiteBus
- Start date
I agree with your sentiment, but if memory serves you were the guy Whitebus, who was blaming everyone but Ray Rice. Interesting to see you take a 180 here....
Well that makes it sounds like JH too but then I have to ask what were the established compliance controls before she got there? Were the strong enough prior to her arrival and they were flouted or were they so bad that she actually had to institute some of her own and she didn't?
As far as academic improprieties are concerned, it would seem the only issue the NCAA could apply to us would be them.
Since arrests and fighting aren't on that agenda, exactly how would we be penalized, given our issues aren't even in the same stratosphere as UNC....and they got what?
Since arrests and fighting aren't on that agenda, exactly how would we be penalized, given our issues aren't even in the same stratosphere as UNC....and they got what?
Perhaps there wasn't the same commitment to accountability under this combo as there was under the previous combo?
One thing that has been posted by 4Real is it is well known there hasn't been a dedicated compliance officer since 2012.
Just use big organization common sense here. How can a C suite executive (ala HCKF) escape this situation with any result short of termination? If you're first thought isn't, "well, the organization has no documented proof that the executive in question actually attended the underlying training, we can't legally hold them responsible" you're doing it wrong. That particular buck stops with Julie. And if you're next thought isn't they are throwing each other under the bus behind closed doors, you're also doing that one wrong too.
Picking up from here is purely my personal opinion based on two things. First, my organizational behavior experience in a big organizations and hundreds of hours of training in such. Second, connecting dots. This is my theory and no one else's. That out of the way, one of them has to go--HCKF or Julie. That relationship is permanently poisoned and is not salvageable. The only way HCKF survived this is because there must not have been documented proof he took a compliance training course. It's a typical HR nightmare. Employee is confronted with a policy violation and says, "show me where the organization trained me on this issue. AS far as I'm concerned, the support staff telling me I can't contact a prof is a gray area. It's a difference of opinion, not a clear willful violation of university policy."
Continuing with my own personal theory, Caroo's actions speed up the timeline. The BOG and Barchi are worried about a narrative of a rogue program building. Risk Management and Legal see an immediate termination as being a dicey legal proposition (because they can't produce documentation that he took the training). They suspend him 3 games as a way to buy time. As others (who have been right on a lot of these issues have said) a 3 game suspension is practically unprecedented in D1A football. It's either 1 game or termination for a football coach.
Just my .02 on the matter...
Yeah, that becomes a very interesting question. And what about staff in charge of implementing the protocols? Were they new, were they holdovers, were they a mix? Not to absolve JH, but it just seems like RU is one complicated mess.
That makes sense I won't argue it.
Looking at the website, I see we do have some people in the compliance department, a couple directors but no one on the senior associate athletic director level. Also I believe she came in 2013 spring and we haven't had that position filled since 2012 you said. Flood has been here for a long time and Schiano obviously as well, do we have hard copy records of them attending meetings annually during their stays here. Point being has there ever been a strong record of keeping hard copies of these sort of things, including when we had a compliance officer at the Senior AD level, or was this just a continuing of what had been going on all along even before JH got here. So just having a compliance officer at the Senior AD level doesn't make me automatically assume it was taken more seriously before JH unless these protocols of keeping hard copies and making sure coaches attended meetings existed.
Regardless though unlike other crap thrown at her, I would ding her for this because she has to fix it even if it was lax before. I tend to think there is so much wrong with the infrastructure of our athletic department that she spent all her focus and time on those sort of things assuming this wasn't as important and let it slip by the wayside thinking it wouldn't blow up to a big problem like this. But of course this is Rutgers and everything blows up.
Don't we always joke that the big boys will get off free and clear and the little guy will get the book thrown at them so the NCAA can save face? Let's hope we're not considered a little guy in this situation.
Exactly who are the handful of people who have been right all along? I count zero.
I've followed all of this pretty closely and I never saw anything about Flood meeting with the professor. This was called "emailgate" fir a reason.
If Flood had stopped at a simple email, he would likely have gotten a simple reprimand.
It was meeting with the professor, and the machiavellian way he went about it that got him a 3 game suspension, and could have gotten him fired.
I agree with Hudson on his take on the possible issues upcoming. This is basic HR stuff.
And as I mentioned in my earlier post, we have total imbeciles, starting with Barchi, running this place. Horrible, short sighted "leadership". Let me state by no means am I suggesting any improper cover up. Once again, the way to handle this is quickly and internally and take care of the gaps (ie any compliance procedure gaps). Barchi's mishandling of this caused a media circus with a report out in the open and now you have the NCAA involved. As usual we are our own wiorst enemy (some "fans" included). Mind boggling stupidity.
And as I mentioned in my earlier post, we have total imbeciles, starting with Barchi, running this place. Horrible, short sighted "leadership". Let me state by no means am I suggesting any improper cover up. Once again, the way to handle this is quickly and internally and take care of the gaps (ie any compliance procedure gaps). Barchi's mishandling of this caused a media circus with a report out in the open and now you have the NCAA involved. As usual we are our own wiorst enemy (some "fans" included). Mind boggling stupidity.
That's our athletic department. I've seen people, including the mods, be like wow with some of the things she's done in a good way I mean. It's like a situation where you don't know what you don't know because you don't have any experience so you don't know any better what needs to be done.
It's why I have to take with large grains of salt things heard and said by talking with insiders. It's all politics and who knows which side the info is coming from. New people with JH, old guard seeing their fiefdoms and way of life threatened after having served in decades of ineptitude and getting by without consequence. Who knows where the info comes from so I can't take it seriously either way.
I can only judge by what comes out to public and real results like the first athletic structure in decades, the salaries of the HC, staff, increased number of donors, etc..Those are real results free of office politics and innuendo.
I tend to think she's been focused on the meat and potatoes of the AD that something like compliance may have fallen by the wayside. I'm not sure that it wasn't lax before even if there was a compliance officer at the Senior AD level. You'd have to show me that proper protocols and hard copy documentation was in place for Schiano and Flood all along and suddenly stopped for me to think that. However, even if it was lax before it's up to JH to fix it even if she is busy with the meat and potatoes of the AD. So unlike other crap thrown at her which I find stupid, this I would ding her for.
Cool your jets, partner. I never said anyone was 100% right all along. I said some people have been right A LOT.
On this issue, that Prick RU4Real has been right--a lot. Others, who are less outspoken than 4Real, have also been correct.
So, maybe you should follow even more closely going forward.
Huh what??? You definitely have the wrong guy. In fact I got blasted for saying he shouldn't have got paid.
Thank you HUD.
Did not realize the compliance officer bit. Now it makes sense that the report continually references that Flood and his staff should have been aware of these compliance issues "since at least 2012."
So we didn't have the right protocols since that time and/or didn't have a person that their job would be to enforce such things. Floods only defense is he didn't know the rule. Circumstantially we know thats bullshit based on the Princeton thing but it is what it is. Not to mention the fact that it wasn't like we hired him from D3 school of the blind - wasnt he in a compliance meeting at some point over the past decade that discussed this rule?
I'm not even going to ask the thought process behind getting rid of a position for compliance considering we were entering/about to enter the damn BIG at the time.
Flood looks bad. Hermann looks bad. Pernetti looks bad. Ugh.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to slam my head into a toilet until this all goes away.
The NCAA has been "involved" all along--you think we hired a second outside counsel, who happens to be a NCAA specialist based in Kansas, because we couldn't find a 2nd counsel on Broad Street in Newark?
No reason to believe that the NCAA wasn't a party to all of the interviews conducted.
If they want to fire him, just buyout his contract, the numbers are reasonable.
I think it is a stretch to claim that Flood had no knowledge of the Policy, especially considering that Flood provided the investigators documentation which indicated that this was also a Big Ten standard.
This. I don't understand everyone's thinking that you need to build a case against a coach to fire him. If they want to fire Flood, they can fire him for no reason other than using all his timeouts before the 4th quarter of the WSU game.
I agree with that but I wonder if there's not some support for him from some boosters. It's why I don't think the door is completely shut on Flood. Maybe the strong booster support afforded him at least 1 last ditch try to save himself over the course of the season. It's why even if they do fire him, end of the season is earliest IMO but we'll see.
Fans didn't F-up...and prior to the last 3 weeks, there was no sign (outside of Nadir's academic situation) that a calamity of errors/actions by a few (i.e. 7 players and a HC) would be coming down the pike.
I'll agree with you in terms of Flood, the professor, media, and fans. You're way off base with the Caroo issue though. You don't even know if there is a victim. You don't know what happened, or how things played out that night, or Caroo's level of involvement. That's what the court is for, to determine if anyone has been victimized, and who the responsible party is. You seem content to convict LC prior to any discovery. Afford him the same benefit of the doubt as you do the "victim"
I think it is a stretch to claim that Flood had no knowledge of the Policy, especially considering that Flood provided the investigators documentation which indicated that this was also a Big Ten standard.
That's why everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I think a big piece of the puzzle here is what do the rest of our coaches do? The report seemed to infer that Flood never took the compliance training because the timing of it conflicted with summer practice (or something to that effect). I got the impression reading it that the courses were available, the coach had it in his contract that he was responsible for this, and Flood didn't do it. Obviously, we're all reading between the lines here, but that was my take. Which, in my opinion, would point to a Flood issue as opposed to a more systemic Julie issue. We have 22 sports programs within the athletic department. If 21 head coaches took the required training, that's telling to me.
Your logic is sound also. I just have a different spin based on my interpretation of the report. I guess we'll see.
Perfectly solid interpretation. I think 21 of 22 would be telling. However, I could see the 1 being the field hockey coach. Not the "face" of the entire sports program. But I hear what you're saying...
A version of events I've heard is that the training was finally made available during a time that was "in season" for football, and HCKF, perhaps rightly, blew it off as it conflicted with what he deemed was his real job--preparing his football team.
Do you not understand what it means when the President of the University becomes aware of a compliance violation? Numerous posters have explained over and over again that your wishful scenario is just not the way it works in today's world. The compliance department in organizations including Rutgers is somewhat independent. At RU the compliance division reports to the AUDIT COMMITTEE of the BOG. Barchi does not have the authority to call off the dogs once a policy violation is reported. Clearly you have no experience in a compliance environment. What you are suggesting would have been absolutely the wrong and worst thing Barchi could have possibly done. You are pissed off for the wrong reason and at the wrong person. Flood is the culprit here, no one else.
Ahh, that allows for a different interpretation for sure, particularly because of the bolded word.
Then why did he call the suspension ridiculous before the report came out. Me thinks people dont know as much as you think and certainly not the whole story so I find this wild speculation
Fair point...as football coaches generally take a break (even a few days vacation) after spring practices ends in March and Summer Camp that starts in August.
Ask him that, he's a big boy.
What is "wild" speculation?
I'm not going to get into a my source is unimpeachable back and forth with people. That said, I NEVER get into the game of "my source said" on any issue, other than once re: RU to the ACC when I was at Duke, in almost 14 years of being around here. That's not my personal style. So, for me to make multiple posts on the topic, should be an indication as to how confident I am about what I was told.
Can it be wrong? I suppose. As we all know, there are 3 sides to the story. Flood's, RU's and the truth.
That said, if people knew who was responsible for the all the leaks surrounding the Barnwell incident, and more importantly why, their heads would explode ;)
Why isn't the university investigating the leaks, doesn't the school have policies around this as well?
I've been wondering who was responsible for the leaks. One report indicated the leaks were from a disgruntled employee. But I'm wondering whether the leaks were intentional and planned. In a lot of ways, it was easier for the fanbase to digest the report, knowing that something was coming. Imagine the response if no one knew anything about it until the suspension and report with details of secret meetings, and covertly avoiding OPRA.
Man, you're making me feel all sleuthy today.
There's really only one person I can think of that would make my head explode. And if I connect the dots, to your earlier posts, maybe it's not all that surprising if it's the man (or woman) I'm thinking of.
The suspension is ridiculous because it does nothing to help the program.
And yeah, for what it's worth, it wasn't a surprise to either myself or @ruhudsonfan, but rather it was consistent with things we'd been hearing for a couple of days.
The problem with a 3 game suspension is obvious - it sends a message that the university administration has no confidence in Flood's integrity, it puts the team into a state of emotional turmoil and opens up a reasonable and valid conversation that the intent of the administration is to fire him at the end of the season.
To my way of thinking, it's ridiculous because it perfectly exemplifies what we've known for years as "Same Old Rutgers". We are the one school that breaks Ron Swanson's Golden Rule - we always half-ass everything, we never whole-ass anything.
Julie HATES Kyle Flood. Anybody who has even a passing personal relationship with anyone inside the Athletic Department knows this to be a fact. She will stab him in the back every chance she gets. I'm not judging - I'm just saying you have to look at everything that happens through that lens. She's already tried to fire the guy once and failed, embarrassingly. My guess is that the attempt this time is much more carefully architected.
Unfortunately, if Julie has gotten good at anything, it's "being Rutgers". Which is to say that her carefully architected plans, as they come to fruition, will ultimately serve to make the school look stupid once again, because that's how we roll.
Oh, and Hud is right about the other thing too. The NCAA Compliance people are all up in this shit.
I appreciate you taking the time to yell at all of us now in the one thread instead of individual posters.
Thanks for conserving the bandwidth.
I've seen the "Julie hates Kyle Flood" thing more than a few times. My question is "why?" What did he do to make her "hate" him?
If she really hates Flood and wants to stab him in the back every chance, and I'm not arguing that one way or the other, then why bother increasing his contract/buyout and the salary pool for assistants and some additional recruiting staff. No need to help his recruiting or his security. Just let him fail. Also that contract adjustment was off a 6-7/3-5 year not last year's record and she took quite a bit of flak for it here for doing it too early. The timing of the the contract adjustment doesn't scream back stab either.
You have the excuse of no B10 money and it's perfectly reasonable not to lift a finger to help him and just let him fail. I mean we didn't even have the money to let FHJ go at first so saying hey we don't have any money to help Flood sounds plausible.
I've never seen it as she likes him or doesn't like him because I have no idea. I just see it as she's like any AD that will support their HC how they can and after that he sinks or swims on his own.
You have the excuse of no B10 money and it's perfectly reasonable not to lift a finger to help him and just let him fail. I mean we didn't even have the money to let FHJ go at first so saying hey we don't have any money to help Flood sounds plausible.
I've never seen it as she likes him or doesn't like him because I have no idea. I just see it as she's like any AD that will support their HC how they can and after that he sinks or swims on his own.
Last edited:
Without commenting on the veracity of the claim that Hermann hates Flood, there are some reasons why she might:
1) He is not her hire.
2) She may not think he is the right coach for the job, for any of the reasons often posted on this board.
