Although it could be a smoke-screen for the all the off the field incidents, they could try and terminate Flood for cause to avoid paying the buyout. The Carroo incident is the final straw, and I can't see KF surviving this.
I wonder if the email scandal is the way out for the university
- Thread starter chakazullo
- Start date
Remind me again of all the college football coaches who got fired because players got in trouble. If Flood gets fired it will be because he is not a very good coach, not because of 7 player arrests. This has happened to a lot of schools before and we will get through it. Its just extra difficult for RU fans because we are used to thinking we had this super clean program.
Flood will either be fired or retained at the end of the year, just like every other coach. We still have a decent squad and a bunch of winnable games. You can't just fire a staff midway through the season because some players are idiots.
Kinda like the way Tim Pernetti tried to get away with not paying Fred Hill Jr by firing him for, ahem, "insubordination" (i.e. watching his Rutgers Hall of Fame father's baseball team) rather than being a terrible leader of a program? Worth a shot, I suppose, but unlikely to get away with it.
Wasn't FHJR fired for heckling an umpire? Did I imagine that ?
Gary Waters was an awesome coach....whys we get rid of that dude again?
Gary Waters was an awesome coach....whys we get rid of that dude again?
If the Univ finds "just cause" for firing because of violating stated policy, RU won't have to pay any of his remaining contract.
If RU fires him for being a bad coach, RU would be responsible for the remainder of his contract.
If RU fires him for being a bad coach, RU would be responsible for the remainder of his contract.
Unless his behavior in the barnwell situation is worse than we know I don't see anything happening before the end of their yr. if we have like 3 wins going into our last game maybe word gets out. Clearly the off the field stuff will be considered.
That would be gutless on the part of the RU Administration if they do that.
And good luck in getting the next HC candidate to accept the RU job if they do that. We will once again become the Lepers of the CFB world.
Knight moves- are you nuts.
When schiano left, flood was a default pick, especially because of the timing.
So he goes from having no job to being close to a millionaire. His agent then convinces the university that in order to grant him stability in recruiting he needs an extension . And floods best quality is the way he represents the university and building a culture of family. So the university buys in.
They tried to find his replacement in the past but they couldn't because of the buyout.
When Greg left this place, there were nine nfl players on that roster graduating roster, and a stacked recruiting class. The cupboard was stacked.
The university should not be on the hook for a million dollars.
When schiano left, flood was a default pick, especially because of the timing.
So he goes from having no job to being close to a millionaire. His agent then convinces the university that in order to grant him stability in recruiting he needs an extension . And floods best quality is the way he represents the university and building a culture of family. So the university buys in.
They tried to find his replacement in the past but they couldn't because of the buyout.
When Greg left this place, there were nine nfl players on that roster graduating roster, and a stacked recruiting class. The cupboard was stacked.
The university should not be on the hook for a million dollars.
I agree. Just like it was gutless (as I wrote to Dr McCormick) for Mulcahy to try to avoid paying Waters' buyout because he got stuck in a snowstorm, or for Pernetti to avoid paying Hill Jr's buyout by claiming insubordination after being told not to watch baseball games after he yelled at an umpire.
If Rutgers wants to fire Flood for losing too many games, or for not having control of the team, then fire him for that, and pay him whatever his contract says he is entitled to.
If you don't want to pay him what he is entitled to, then you shouldn't have put it in the contract.
take the million dollars you were going to pay him and put it to good use elsewhere.
And If the university does not have money earmarked to pay two head coaches, then fire him for cause. But continuing to have a strangle hold on the program when the most important job is to MANAGE THE PERSONALITIES and he can't do that, then go.
And If the university does not have money earmarked to pay two head coaches, then fire him for cause. But continuing to have a strangle hold on the program when the most important job is to MANAGE THE PERSONALITIES and he can't do that, then go.
You must be loyal to the university and what's in the best interest for Rutgers.
I would have been ok with ru paying him 2 million a year if he was killing it.
But if his schtick was family and raising and developing men, then he has failed on that front as well.
I would have been ok with ru paying him 2 million a year if he was killing it.
But if his schtick was family and raising and developing men, then he has failed on that front as well.
What is in the long-term best interest for Rutgers is for the University to take its contractual obligations seriously and follow through on them.
Oh don't get me wrong. I love kyle flood and I think is a great man.
But to keep high testosterone kids, some from dysfunctional backgrounds in check. That I have lost faith in.
But to keep high testosterone kids, some from dysfunctional backgrounds in check. That I have lost faith in.
Unless he was somehow directly involved in the Carroo situation he will not get fired mid-season. That being said, barring this team playing way over their heads, I can't see him making it to next season based on everything.
Team has a chance versus PSU ... Don't want to throw that game away ... Will wait until after a loss ... Team can overcome against Kansas (then again I remember the loss to Tulane).
Unless there is a discovery of multiple instances where Flood engaged in heavy-handed obvious arm-twisting, this is still going to end up being little more than a policy review / admonition / take a policy & procedure class / ... at most a game suspension. The email was likely improper - but since the actual guideline has some ambiguity & in many ways lacks specifics & since, by all indications, this would be a first time that the issue of 'communication' has been an administrative issue for Flood... it would be very hard to turn this into a termination case.
If there really isn't any evidence of extremely inappropriate communications but nonetheless Rutgers attempted to seize on technicalities and pump up the email situation into being some heinous "for-cause" - contract shredding - grounds for termination ... it would blow up in a colossally very bad way for Rutgers - it would become a PR implosion nightmare. It would also be a textbook case of idiocy. Flood's legal team would slam-dunk this with ease
An ugly, exaggerated & gratuitous trashing of Flood just does not make sense - it would be insane
- The 'buy-out' is covered by a booster - so, while it is real money, it is not money out of the RU budget.... and if you want him gone - the amount would be worth it to have Flood go away in peace
- A 'pumped-up' sham story will be exposed as such - and will be seen for what it is by every quality coaching candidate - and nobody looking to build their career - nobody - worth having will even take your phone calls if your institution is seen as nothing but a huge field of random & political landmines & numerous well connected forces seeking to thwart your efforts and sabotage you & and ruin your reputation at every turn - The only people who will consider your institution will be those who are (1.) desperate for a job (2.) attempting to re-hab their career (3.) woefully under qualified (4.) delusional
If there really isn't any evidence of extremely inappropriate communications but nonetheless Rutgers attempted to seize on technicalities and pump up the email situation into being some heinous "for-cause" - contract shredding - grounds for termination ... it would blow up in a colossally very bad way for Rutgers - it would become a PR implosion nightmare. It would also be a textbook case of idiocy. Flood's legal team would slam-dunk this with ease
An ugly, exaggerated & gratuitous trashing of Flood just does not make sense - it would be insane
- The 'buy-out' is covered by a booster - so, while it is real money, it is not money out of the RU budget.... and if you want him gone - the amount would be worth it to have Flood go away in peace
- A 'pumped-up' sham story will be exposed as such - and will be seen for what it is by every quality coaching candidate - and nobody looking to build their career - nobody - worth having will even take your phone calls if your institution is seen as nothing but a huge field of random & political landmines & numerous well connected forces seeking to thwart your efforts and sabotage you & and ruin your reputation at every turn - The only people who will consider your institution will be those who are (1.) desperate for a job (2.) attempting to re-hab their career (3.) woefully under qualified (4.) delusional
If the policy is clear and Flood was given compliance training and he then choose to violate it, he should be dismissed for cause. The University has an obligation to save money even if it is money of donors.
At my University I have seen:
1. a dean dismissed for cause for showing up to a meeting intoxicated.
2. a faculty member dismissed for cause for double-dipping (having another academic job)
3. a tenured faculty member dismissed for cause for telling his class he will not give out A grades in order to protest the large class size.
In all those cases the dismissals were held-up in legal forums.
If Flood is dismissed for cause, he "ruined" his own reputation as a "man of integrity", not Rutgers. Like they did with Schiano, Rutgers will give appropriate guarantees to the right coach.
The 'policy' - or versions of what has been presented as the "the guidelines" contain generalizations, advisory statements that include words like 'should' and 'attempt to influence' but there is very little specificity - - for example it says 'should not initiate communications' - but does not speak to what is & is not appropriate in the context of a communication that a coach did not initiate. The point is that the 'guidelines' are far far from black & white - and it does not make any reference to corrective action / disciplinary action.
Back to my original point - If - (and it is an unlikely If ) - they were to uncover clear instances of Flood being outrageously coercive - really strong-arming some professor - then he is done - and the best he could do would be to hope that his lawyer could get him some fractional settlement.
But - if instead - we are considering the original poster's question of whether the email scandal can be used as a "way out" - - it would be terribly terribly ill advised to opportunistically attempt to capitalize on what may be only worthy of a corrective action - and arbitrarily and capriciously over-reach and use it as justification for 'termination for cause' - if the bear facts will not support such an action.
If the policy is vague, I'm sure RU lawyers will concur with your good analysis. However reports are that Flood did initiate communications, so we will see.
When I was still a grad student at RU, I failed a starting player on the final four 75-76 team. The academic coordinator regularly checked that this player was attending class (he was) but there was no contact from anyone after the grade was issued. The integrity by which the program was run by Tom Young made a lasting impression on me.
I've long since given up on the University. My interests and those of the school have nothing in common. I only support the football team and that, tenuously.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
BB Recruiting 2024 former SEC commit big man visiting this weekend- Latest: BOGDANOVICH
-
-
