Don’t know those, but I do know my Rutgers Football History.
The coach and facilities are integral parts of the Rutgers value proposition, which is why Schiano had a clause regarding a new Rutgers Football Facility inserted into his contract.
VTech lost to Marshall, not exactly the sign of a team firing on all cylinders. And who said anything about regularly beating Top 15 opponents. We didn't beat a Top 50 opponent even once. Maryland hosed us.
Virginia Tech in a year when they lost to Marshall, and finished ranked 59, is your idea of a win that's better than beating up on weaklings. And we DID beat a Top 60 team--51 ranked Northwestern! Therefore Schiano is capable of beating better than mediocre opponents.
Lol you keep thinking hammering away at Top 60 vs Top 50 means anything. I've said for YEARS he only beats weak and mediocre teams. If your best victories are against teams ranked in the 50s that qualifies as weak or mediocre teams to most people. If you think it's practically the same as beating Georgia I'm afraid most people won't agree.
Wow I'm convinced. Top 50 not Top 60! Give Schiano $10 million. He's better than Nick Saban! Much better!
ah was thinking someone else.
If he can beat one of the Big Ten's historically weakest programs with an interim coach he can beat anyone!
It was the coach being a good recruiter, not the facilities, unless of course you have inside info obtained at Subway on Easton at the time.
Here's my point: If Pasqualoni wasn't out at Syracuse, Rice wasn't going anywhere but 'cuse. My second point is that it was the Coach Schiano being a good recruiter that landed him here, but Rice was also high on the facilities. Saying it was facilities over coaches is just silly.
Virginia Tech lost their Senior starting QB and their #1 WR the week before against Purdue. Not quite disarray, but their offense was a mess. Sophomore in his first start versus RU, 1 TD 1 INT. He finished the year with 14 more TDs and only 2 more INTs.
If Schiano were coaching at Temple, would he have gone to Temple? No, of course not. Never said schiano’s recruiting wasn’t a factor. I said facilities helped, which they did.
Seriously, you're bad at this. Your big point is that I said we couldn't beat a Top 50 or Top 60 team--when I made that comment we hadn't beaten a Top 60 team. Two teams squeaked below Top 60 into the 50s and you think that proves Schiano can beat teams that are better than mediocre. If you're happy with that good for you. But stop acting like teams in the 50s aren't weak and mediocre. It makes you look silly.
he went to a shitty law school and you think he'd be good at debating and articulating a line of trajectory to reach a valid baseline for an opinion? lol
there's enough time on his contract not to hurt recruiting because it wasn't extended.
It's just that it's absurd to argue that there's any difference between beating a team ranked 55 versus 64. It's all mediocre to crappy. That means many non P5 teams are even ranked above you. He can never come back with evidence of a win against a solid team.
extension talk at the end of the 2024 season if RU goes to another bowl.
oh, there it is ! The fieldhouse. What's the equivalent NIL $$ to a fieldhouse?
Call me when Schiano beats anyone better than mediocre. And "changes by the day" is the kind of weak exaggeration that reveals you have no argument. You should do better.
Top 60, as in ranked from 50 to 60, is not good, it's mediocre. 40s is fairly mediocre, too. A ranking in the 40s puts you in the bottom half of P5 teams, or in the middle. If you can't beat teams in either bracket you're not beating good teams.
Because it makes recruiting more difficult, with rival recruiters telling recruits that the coach isn’t going to be there for the duration of their careers. Rutgers has enough recruiting constraints as it is.
