I look at it from the standpoint of Greg's next best alternative. Is someone going to hire him and give him a "better' deal? And if they do, will he uproot himself for that deal. He seems to be back home where he belongs. And for him, how much is "enough?" His 8 year contract (not including incentives) was $32 million. Maybe he and his agent should have had the foresight to include a clause for upward adjustment in salary to be at least at the median pay of similar programs (similar W-L records over previous 3-4 years).
Fair point. We saw that with Flood. That MAY have contributed to his lack of effort, and going to the Counting Crows concerts instead of game-planning for the opening game of the season. But he had other issues besides being criminally underpaid ($725K/year to start after Greg was making north of $3M).
agree!!!!!
Anyone can have any opinion, doesn't bother me. 180 opinion from me, so what...that's what this place is for, discussion and debate.
We’re getting 70-80M this year, as part of the Big Tens media distribution, plus with increased revenue from ticket sales, there’s more than enough revenue to pay for it. We are going to build the Fieldhouse and pay Schiano right. NIL is out of scope for the school.
No issue at all with differing opinions, even if yours is wrong (just kidding - an old joke - ask @mildone). Not much use for a message board where everyone agrees. I don't actually think we're 180 degrees apart, though. I agree that performance-based pay is very important, but so is base pay and I do think Greg simply shouldn't be at the bottom of the B1G.
The expectation is that it will be handled in the offseason. Plus his hand will be further strengthened if we can win at least one of the remaining games.
I don’t think Schiano thinks or is asking for an extension . The reality in today’s world is he needs the contract to reflect not only to future HS recruits but also their families and yes even the 4-5 star transfers that will be here. Pretty certain there are still a number of posters who are hoping next season the team tanks. Could it ? However I don’t see that happening. They still won’t admit he was the correct choice just as Pikiell was in MBB.It’s Rutgers that’s what fans do .
This. I would be surprised if he’s focused on this at all right now. He knows he’s going to be taken care of financially.
@rutgersguy1, #s must like you. Because he never tells me he's kidding when he tells me I'm wrong. And he tells me I'm wrong 99% of the time, and says I'm damn wrong the remaining 13% of the time.
We only play 3 OOC games, not 4. There was nothing wrong with what we scheduled. One money game against an FCS. There’s nothing wrong with that. VTech is 3-4 and 2-1 in the ACC. Temple lost their QB after our game, but we still had the guts to schedule a home and home with a Group of 5 team. It’s not a world beater schedule, but for a team that hadn’t been bowling since 2014 playing in the BIG east it was more than fine.
He has 4 years left. If he gets to 6 wins next year, we can extend him. It’s not going to impact recruiting at alll in the next 12 months
I think conventional "wisdom" these days is you want to show recruits that coach has 5 years or more as it shows the recruits commitment for their whole time on campus.
Won't impact 2024 class, but will impact recruiting on 2025 and beyond class as it introduces uncertainty to those classes that coaches like Harbaugh, Franklin, Fickell, Locksley and others will jump on.
knightshift, We tried this with the year of the flood and relegating Rutgers to the Ash heap....It was a disaster. Greg is a good coach but for Rutgers he is more valuable. I believe the Rutgers job is tougher than most of your P5 jobs because our governmental institutions are very strong relative to the boosters. I believe in most programs the boosters run the show but at Rutgers I think it is the institutions that are in control. Greg knows better than anyone how to navigate the NJ political landscape better than any coach. Because he grew up in NJ and his first stint at Rutgers he knows all the players that need to be known to propel Rutgers to the top.
Agree about not handing out huge contracts based on one flash of success. But disagree strongly that we shouldn't pay GS what he deserves, his fair market value, just because we know he doesn't want to move. Do we really want to give GS the business and put him over a barrel for a contract, just because we think we might be able to get away with it? Maybe his next best option is retiring and fishing in Florida all day instead of working for an institution that screws with him and embarrasses him instead of paying him what other coaches at a similar level make.
Please, lets not make the mistake of giving HC GS the RU screw!
As I stated in the follow up to my original post, the 2024 class is not really affected, but that may not hold for 2025 and thereafter. Opposing coaches absolutely will weaponize that against Rutgers. Whether Rutgers wants to get ahead of that and counter is another issue. You can risk it either way in terms of not extending (which ultimately will negatively impact recruiting) or extending (and find that this year was a "one hit wonder" so you overpay and may need a large buyout (btw, there was an Ash extension after his one "competitive year")). Every AD and fan base has to grapple with these choices in today's environment. Choose wisely.
Cue the violins for the guy making $4M/year getting screwed over on a contract he freely negotiated himself.
While my judgment might be shaky, my spelling certainly isn't. You're in 'Merica - learn how to spell right.
It’s not that he is getting screwed over, it’s where do we want out football program at. If there is anyone on this board that Greg hasn’t done a good job of turning around this program you need to readjust your expectations.
Haha. Tell me who is chomping at the bit to hire Schiano? You most be the drunk guy in this thread.
As a fan that wants to win and have fun at games, it’s enlightened self interest.
he got what he was worth, but lower than what a B1G HC that was sought after would demand
Wait. I cite percentages that, combined, add up to 112% and it's the one-letter typo you're complaining about?
