You know the website and who wrote it. It's nothing that hasn't been said on here by various posters, it's just more concise.
Not a bad read.
Not a bad read.
NJ.com Article Today: "5 Reasons Rutgers Might Not Fire Kyle Flood At Season's End"
- Thread starter RutgersRaRa
- Start date
yes - saw it - and the flip side - "5 reason they should " -
yep - pretty spot-on in terms of a 30,000 foot view of the situation but nothing new
basic take away - it is time for a change - but Rutgers doesn't have the large "change"
Don't keep getting hung up on the buyout. That's not the issue, particularly since Towers is, by all accounts, on the hook for that money.
The real driver with respect to Barchi is "investment" - as in, "there won't be any".
To him, this math is simple:
RU Athletics takes a subsidy from the University of x
The current salaries for football are y/x
A new coaching staff would be more like (2y)/x
This is not permitted.
If that is true then it should be against the law for Barchi to own a company or take any position that involves finance.
The math also assumes x for anticipated revenue - meaning packed house for all home games, every year.
Why?
You guys aren't getting it - and it's been explained here, before. Barchi has very explicitly said that Rutgers being in the Big 10 was not his decision, it was something he was handed. It would not have been his preference, it's simply the hand he was dealt.
His goal with respect to athletics is one thing and one thing only - reduce the subsidy.
You might not agree with his methods, you might not agree with how he defines and manages opportunity cost, but his methods are, from the perspective of his leadership, perfectly valid.
This is why I (and others) have been saying for years that RU's athletic standing isn't a Flood thing or a Julie thing or even really a Barchi thing. It's where the BOG and the state have put us, more than anything else. Other large universities (PSU, for example) are led by a "win at all costs" culture. We. Are. Not.
And Floods teams performance on the field this year also supports that the team, despite being in a rebuilding year and overcoming adversity, is performing similarly to 2014... and it could be argued to have even shown a slight improvement improved despite not showing up in the W-L column. Hear me out
So basically RU has been playing without it's best defender, without its best offensive player for most of the season. Replacing a 4 year starter at QB with inexperienced QB (the most important position on the field) and replacing the bulk of the offensive line.. probably the 2nd most important unit on the field. And we all know about the loss of players to the off the field digressions which we can argue until the end of days whether or not that is the responsibility of the coach or not. But you cant argue the negative impact those losses had on the field. And certainly no one would have realistically expected an improved product on the field this year Especially with a new QB and revamped O Line coming in.
So despite all those setbacks and players that needed to be replaced
A look at this years results vs last years
Norfolk State in 15 / Howard in 14 - Big Win both years WASH
Wash State - Game was down to the wire in both 14 & 15 WASH
Penn State - Close in 14- convincing loss in 15 Worse outcome
Kansas in 15, Navy in 14 - Strong win WASH
#4 Mich St. Down to the wire in 15, Blown out in 14 Much BETTER outcome
Indiana - Road Win in 15, Home win in 14 WASH or slightly better
Ohio State - Beaten badly both years WASH
Wisconsin - Beaten badly both years WASH
So basically in all the games this year, versus comparative games last year, we have had 5 games in which the results were a wash, one game in which we improved from a blowout loss, to a game that came down to the wire, another game that was a wash or a little better ( Road win vs Indiana vs home win) and only one game where the results were significantly worse than a similar game in 14 (PSU). But you could argue that there were extenuating circumstances just prior to that game (Suspended Caroo and Coach Flood ) that really messed with the psych of the team.
So if you want to compare on the field results? The team is in a rebuilding year and essentially has performed equally or slightly better on the field.
You cannot enforce pledges. It's not a contract in the traditional sense, which is why Corzine never donated a dime to stadium expansion.
It's permitted as long as donors step up and cover the difference, which I'm not going to hold my breathe for them to do, but it would be nice. Barchi isn't averse to spending money, as long as donors provide it.
If donors provide the money, then Barchi isn't "spending it".
Obviously large scale donations change the calculus and Barchi has already told Julie that any change is more than happily funded by donations.
We don't have those donors. So... "dat's da name of dat tune", as Baretta used to say.
If what you say about Barchi not wanting to be in the B1G is true, then I want him fired and he should not lead MY university. I am the Alumni he is NOT.
If this is 100% accurate, he is a moron. And I'm not talking from a sports fan mindset. To be part of the B1G, just for academics alone is a great thing.
Slyker, if that's the case, then why were the people ripping on the 'negatoids' over the summer lauding all of our 'talent and depth', especially on the OL and DL (2 huge problem areas this year) and at WR (where apparently everyone else besides Carroo plays like those Fisher- Price toy people with no arms or feet)??? Could it be that they have their heads up their rear ends?
Joe P.
Joe P.
Your bias is betrayed by how you characterized the Penn St and Mich St experiences, which in reality were very similar, just opposite.
Penn St is "Close in 14- convincing loss in 15, worse outcome" even though RU relinquished a last minute lead last year and were run out of the building in the 2nd qtr at Happy Valley.
Mich St is "Blown out in 14 Down to the wire in 15 Much BETTER outcome" even though RU wasn't as close to winning this year's MSU game as they were last year's PSU game.
Another example is that Indiana got a " or slightly better" because the win was on the road, but Wash St didn't get an "or slightly worse" because of the home loss.
I think Barchi would rather be the University of Chicago (and be in the B10 academic consortium) rather than Ohio State. There is a little nuance to his point.
We would all rather be Michigan, but that's why we're yapping on a sports message board...lol
"Rutgers does not become eligible for a full-share share of the Big Ten revenue pie until 2021. That share is reportedly $32 million now, while Rutgers is getting a little more than $10 million"
I realize he's trying to reduce the subsidy, but isn't RU already making more from the Big Ten than our Big East payout was each year? If so, shouldn't there be more money somewhere in the budget if needed?
I've still get to see any writer come up with any real proof that the administration or college football coaches feel the way about the AD as they do. Maybe I've missed those stories, but it seems like one or two people came up with the theory that male football coaches won't work for a female AD and the concept stuck with other writers.
Has anyone actually seen someone quoted as saying the AD will be a problem in landing a good coach?
I realize he's trying to reduce the subsidy, but isn't RU already making more from the Big Ten than our Big East payout was each year? If so, shouldn't there be more money somewhere in the budget if needed?
I've still get to see any writer come up with any real proof that the administration or college football coaches feel the way about the AD as they do. Maybe I've missed those stories, but it seems like one or two people came up with the theory that male football coaches won't work for a female AD and the concept stuck with other writers.
Has anyone actually seen someone quoted as saying the AD will be a problem in landing a good coach?
- Multiple players getting arrested for home invasions, and assaults
- Team captain involved in a domestic dispute after a game in the stadium parking lot
- Coach knowingly violates academic policy and is suspended for 3 games
- Team goes 3-9 or 4-8 at best
Regarding last years PSU game and this year MSU games. MSU was the #4 team in the country. Psu last year was nowhere near that. So considering that fact, you could reasonably argue these outcomes were similar or maybe even that the MSU Result was better
And ok. Even if I just consider the Indiana results a wash. Then there are 6 games as a wash. And one better outcome and one worse outcome. And in a rebuilding year with a new qb not sure why anyone would have been expecting more out off this year.
- Multiple players getting arrested for home invasions, and assaults
- Team captain involved in a domestic dispute after a game in the stadium parking lot
- Coach knowingly violates academic policy and is suspended for 3 games
- Team goes 3-9 or 4-8 at best
YES
in fact I would think in many of the football power programs that many on this board wish we would emulate, the email incident would have never been allowed to brought to light by the school and the local media would have never made as big a deal about the arrests and would have largely been ignored by the fan base
It wasn't me. And I can't help with the stupidity of others. I felt from the end of last season that this year was going to be rough. It takes several years to get a new qb up to speed and we were replacing a 4 yr starter. Major drop off expected there. And in my mind the o line is just as important to the success of the team and we were replacing major components there with untested freshman.
RU4Real. If you could provide the article or date when Barchi said this it would be greatly appreciated. If what you say is true, this is appalling! If this is true and Barchi cannot see the athletic and ACADEMIC benefits of being a member of the B1G then he needs his head examined. If true, he has no place in this fine university and should be terminated for cause. Maybe he should be a VP candidate for Ben Carson.
It may be true that Barchi would rather be Chicago, but even he knows that that's not realistic and RU wouldn't have been brought into the B1G if we didn't happen to be in the NYC/NJ/Philly TV markets. If they wanted just another non-football, high-powered academic partner for the CIC, they could've offered that to schools like Johns Hopkins (who is in for lacrosse) or Carnegie-Mellon.
While Barchi is clearly on record as saying RU must reduce the subsidy, he's also said he wants RU to be competitive in the B1G and if we continue to tank and there's enough pressure for a change, I think he would respond. But I don't see that kind of pressure building if we beat Army (we should) and win at least one other B1G game (doable) to go 5-7.
Financially, there's also the potential for a significantly reduced negotiated buyout, depending on the results of the ongoing investigation into the program.
http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/index.ssf/2013/05/trancript_of_robert_barchi_int.html
Do you believe there’s a value in big-time athletics?
As you know, I played sports in college, and I saw great value in it for me. I still see value in it as an activity. In our institution, it occupies a very small population of or students, where at an Ivy League it could be a very large percentage. But it does have an important role to play once you’ve made the decision to go down this path, in terms of institutional reputation, visibility and alumni support and buy-in and all those things. I came to an institution that already had made a decision about D1 athletics. I came to an institution that already made a major financial commitment to doing that. My commitment to the institution is to take that and make sure we have a high-integrity program that focuses as much on academics as it does athletics, and take it to a place where it’s budget neutral. That’s what I said when I came here.
I get the sense that you wouldn’t have gone down that road if it was your choice …
I didn’t say that at all. Please, don’t put words in my mouth. All I’m saying is somebody consciously made that decision, based on facts that I was not involved in. I can’t say what I would have done because I wasn’t there. I don’t have access and I’m not privy to all that went into it.
Urban Meyer makes $4 million a year. Michigan has a $129 million athletic budget. Are you comfortable making that commitment?
I’m comfortable with the business plan that I looked at when we said we were going into the Big Ten, that this approach will make our athletic department budget neutral. That’s what I’m concerned about. It’s not the size of the budget, it’s whether the budget is siphoning dollars off the academic mission. It is now. We’ve been taking $1 million off that number every year.
Movement to the Big Ten is a game changer. It will cost more for what we’ll have to spend on athletics and coaching, but the revenues are so much higher based on what we know today, not 10 years from now, that I can see us moving to budget neutrality in six years. We’re not going to be spending what Ohio State spends. We’re not going to be spending what Michigan spends. But I think we can be competitive in the Big Ten with the business plan we’ve put together, and I think that business plan will get us to budget neutrality in six years.
Do you believe there’s a value in big-time athletics?
As you know, I played sports in college, and I saw great value in it for me. I still see value in it as an activity. In our institution, it occupies a very small population of or students, where at an Ivy League it could be a very large percentage. But it does have an important role to play once you’ve made the decision to go down this path, in terms of institutional reputation, visibility and alumni support and buy-in and all those things. I came to an institution that already had made a decision about D1 athletics. I came to an institution that already made a major financial commitment to doing that. My commitment to the institution is to take that and make sure we have a high-integrity program that focuses as much on academics as it does athletics, and take it to a place where it’s budget neutral. That’s what I said when I came here.
I get the sense that you wouldn’t have gone down that road if it was your choice …
I didn’t say that at all. Please, don’t put words in my mouth. All I’m saying is somebody consciously made that decision, based on facts that I was not involved in. I can’t say what I would have done because I wasn’t there. I don’t have access and I’m not privy to all that went into it.
Urban Meyer makes $4 million a year. Michigan has a $129 million athletic budget. Are you comfortable making that commitment?
I’m comfortable with the business plan that I looked at when we said we were going into the Big Ten, that this approach will make our athletic department budget neutral. That’s what I’m concerned about. It’s not the size of the budget, it’s whether the budget is siphoning dollars off the academic mission. It is now. We’ve been taking $1 million off that number every year.
Movement to the Big Ten is a game changer. It will cost more for what we’ll have to spend on athletics and coaching, but the revenues are so much higher based on what we know today, not 10 years from now, that I can see us moving to budget neutrality in six years. We’re not going to be spending what Ohio State spends. We’re not going to be spending what Michigan spends. But I think we can be competitive in the Big Ten with the business plan we’ve put together, and I think that business plan will get us to budget neutrality in six years.
Oh boy, here is the truth, which some people here will dismiss because they refused to accept the truth.
Barchi doesn't hate sports. Deal with it. However when he talks publicly it has to appease many different factions. It's all politics. There are many Faculty and Staff that legit hate sports and think that the money spent on football should be spend on giving them raises. They see the sub as the #1 reason why they are not paid more, have better labs, etc. The sub is not the real reason but that is what the teachers union latch onto during their meetings. The very real fact is that our sub is insanely high compared to ALL OTHER FBS schools is a very real problem. The sub must be reduce, period! It currently is at $36 million a year. It should be closer to what the rest of our Big Ten peers has it. However this can't realistically happen until 2021. I think that everyone understand that. Once the sub is reduce to NORMAL levels. It will be a lot easier to get the BOG to approve one time cost upgrades. One time cost upgrades are much easier to approve and get done than adding a ton of annual cost. For example, $36 million times 6 years is $216 MILLION!
I hope that clears things up a bit for everyone.
Barchi doesn't hate sports. Deal with it. However when he talks publicly it has to appease many different factions. It's all politics. There are many Faculty and Staff that legit hate sports and think that the money spent on football should be spend on giving them raises. They see the sub as the #1 reason why they are not paid more, have better labs, etc. The sub is not the real reason but that is what the teachers union latch onto during their meetings. The very real fact is that our sub is insanely high compared to ALL OTHER FBS schools is a very real problem. The sub must be reduce, period! It currently is at $36 million a year. It should be closer to what the rest of our Big Ten peers has it. However this can't realistically happen until 2021. I think that everyone understand that. Once the sub is reduce to NORMAL levels. It will be a lot easier to get the BOG to approve one time cost upgrades. One time cost upgrades are much easier to approve and get done than adding a ton of annual cost. For example, $36 million times 6 years is $216 MILLION!
I hope that clears things up a bit for everyone.
I thought Barchi was brought in to handle the Mega Merger and then he was done. Is that not the case? Is he here somewhat long term? He was deperately needed for the merger and that's fine. But his long term vision is asinine and he will kill the growth aspects of the university with his short sightedness.
And how can the faculty hate the B1G entrance when the RESEARCH GRANTS are coming in to us in the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS range when we were getting JACK compared to the past?? I've never seen so many articles about research dollars flowing in to Rutgers than the past 12 months?
People love to just say the same things over and over again about Julie and Barchi, and there has never been much to back it up. I am always skeptical about whether any of that is true.
Obviously they are all going to talk about budget neutrality...what do you want them to do. Its just a matter of whether they are talking out both sides of their mouth. We will know soon enough, because it is coming to a head with Kyle Flood, so they are going to have to show their cards. Both of them.
Obviously they are all going to talk about budget neutrality...what do you want them to do. Its just a matter of whether they are talking out both sides of their mouth. We will know soon enough, because it is coming to a head with Kyle Flood, so they are going to have to show their cards. Both of them.
Why is it a rebuilding year? Flood has had four years to make his mark on the program and instead people are making excuses for him because he is missing his best offensive and defensive player, RECRUITED BY THE PREVIOUS COACH, and he has been unable to recruit and develop adequate replacements.
Nothing about our recruiting says that Rutgers is on a good trajectory, which considering Flood has had the benefit of joining the B1G is a major indictment of him.
We already went through this. Don't look at $36 MIL, and that's it. Look at the revenue minus the expenditures which equals the negative $36 mil. Now the big question - how do you reduce the negative $36 mil. You either increase revenue OR you decrease expenditures. Guess what - our expenditures is already one of the lowest in the B1G. You are NOT lowering that any further. The revenue though, is pathetically low. Why is it low? People keep harping on donations. It's not just donations. Our sports aren't generating enough revenue. You know why? BECAUSE WE DON'T WIN ENOUGH THAT'S WHY. THAT is what we should be concentrating on. If we want to get to profitability. This is common sense.
How does this relate to Flood? Simple. Keep Flood and that REVENUE will continue to diminish. Bottom line.
The problem with Barchi is he doesn't see athletics as a business. He sees it as an intramural activity.
FYI: Here is a list of most of the FBS coaching salaries (USA Today). About half of the private schools are missing as well as Pitt (anyone know Narduzzi's salary?). RU is the 67th highest paying job and the 4th lowest P5 team (Notre Dame, Illinois, and Kansas). The #1 reason Flood will remain is money because it will cost RU more money to hire decent coach and staff even if 100% of the buyout is covered by Towers.
Proof again how lazy Politi is. He could only come up with 5 reasons.
Basically - "I'm not interested in competing with Ohio State or Michigan, and my only goal is to get athletics to budget neutrality."
The article said Barchi is expected to retire in 2016. I don't know where he got that info from.
Similar threads
