Do you believe Rutgers made the right decision by giving head football coach Greg Schiano an extension through 2030 worth approximately $6.25 million per season?
Last edited:
Poll: Do you support Greg Schiano's contract extension?
- Thread starter Cheap Sunglasses
- Start date
I thought it was a year earlier than it needed to be.
Just to clarify, he did not get a six year extension. He was already under contract through 2027. He got a three year extension taking him through 2030. He also got a salary bump for the years covered under his existing contract.
Just to clarify, he did not get a six year extension. He was already under contract through 2027. He got a three year extension taking him through 2030. He also got a salary bump for the years covered under his existing contract.
Oh jeez, here we go again!! Troll is going to troll.
I support the extension/increase BUT:
- just as thrilled his OC/DC got theirs AND
- IMHO this is “put up or STFU” money. Have to keep seeing this build 0 questions asked 👍
- just as thrilled his OC/DC got theirs AND
- IMHO this is “put up or STFU” money. Have to keep seeing this build 0 questions asked 👍
I think many folks forget how successful we were under Greg 1.0 (especially considering he rescued us from. The Terry Shea debacle). .Was it perfect? Far from it. But we had a balls out recruiting class coming in and were on the rise as program when he bolted for the NFL. Had he stayed we probably wouldnt be debating the merits of contract extensions.
I'm just not sure of the point of an increase to $6.5m/aav 4 years prior to contract ending.
Does that stop him "being poached" by a school offering $7m?
What was the point of the increase so early?
If it was "respect" - is the inference that HC Schiano would have left for a raise over $4m and not given Rutgers a chance to counter offer?
If that indeed the inference, then that situation still exists doesn't it - just at $6.5m now instead of $4m.
If the reason is "now recruits would respect him" - does that mean previously recruits didn't?
Are Nebraska and Illinois and Indiana and Maryland out recruiting us because they were paying their HC more?
If we made the HC (Schiano or anyone else) the highest paid HC in the country - would that "show recruits we're serious" and we get the #1 recruiting class in the country?
To me, all these justifications for any HC getting a raise that aren't "results on the field" don't really make sense to me.
Does that stop him "being poached" by a school offering $7m?
What was the point of the increase so early?
If it was "respect" - is the inference that HC Schiano would have left for a raise over $4m and not given Rutgers a chance to counter offer?
If that indeed the inference, then that situation still exists doesn't it - just at $6.5m now instead of $4m.
If the reason is "now recruits would respect him" - does that mean previously recruits didn't?
Are Nebraska and Illinois and Indiana and Maryland out recruiting us because they were paying their HC more?
If we made the HC (Schiano or anyone else) the highest paid HC in the country - would that "show recruits we're serious" and we get the #1 recruiting class in the country?
To me, all these justifications for any HC getting a raise that aren't "results on the field" don't really make sense to me.
I only voted "yes" because the option of "Hell yes" wasn't present.
Nothing against Greg but I voted "no." My ultimate preference would be that the NCAA or an association of University Presidents come together and agree that all contracts be limited to two years and that they could be extended another year each year upon mutual agreement. There would be no buyouts beyond the two-year contract limit. This creates a level playing field in terms of coaching contracts without indebting institutions of higher education for millions of dollars to buy out contracts of unsuccessful coaches. As an academician I do not consider payment of such buyouts to be a good use of university funds and this insanity should stop immediately.
Ultimately, only University presidents and their boards can make this happen. In the long run, I believe that this will help the survival of our student sports programs that we all love so much.
Ultimately, only University presidents and their boards can make this happen. In the long run, I believe that this will help the survival of our student sports programs that we all love so much.
New Poll: Should we ban Idiots from posting Polls?
Suddenly we’ve been invaded by the old Big East schools fans
At one time this poll was:
Yes 6
No 14
….the loonies voted early…JUST LIKE his other poll which, somehow, had 6 votes in favor of “Miami” in less than 10 minutes lololll!!!
Yes 6
No 14
….the loonies voted early…JUST LIKE his other poll which, somehow, had 6 votes in favor of “Miami” in less than 10 minutes lololll!!!
Yes because the position coaches need to be well watered and it would be awkward to pay them up after a successful season while keeping the HC flat at a lower level B1G salary.
But what about the 3 yr extension, almost doubling what he had left on the original contract following a 6-6 season ?
Well RU wants people to donate big money to NIL and cementing Schiano and coaches into a long stretch can help.
I remember during Schiano 1.0 there was an emotional faction that wanted to toss Schiano over the side in order to "take the next step." As soon as something goes wrong in a game there are vocal people who want to kick players/coaches out of the fort. Constantly wanting to replace people on a whim is a problem in cfb. Its ok if fans, recruits, media know there is a stable foundation.
Aside from that, its the style these days to throw millions around like nickles
Once we became bowl eligible, an extension was inevitable however I think 1-2 years would have been sufficient and for less money than what his raise will be
If he can continue to get us to bowl games and improve then further extensions and higher raises would definitely be warranted.
I’m also quite happy the DC got an extension as I think he’s terrific!.
If he can continue to get us to bowl games and improve then further extensions and higher raises would definitely be warranted.
I’m also quite happy the DC got an extension as I think he’s terrific!.
I voted no. I don't get the, "Well we have to accept that we don't have the NIL money to get a QB or an offensive line, but hey, let's give GS a couple million more." Has to be a bit of a reckoning at some point. Do we need to get a coach who can get the NIL money necessary?
doubtful that he'd leave for another job, but the pay increase is more in line with what a middle of pack Big 1G program would pay. Remember Mel Tugger was at 9 mil per and it looks like Harbaugh will go to 11, which means Day will soon follow and probably Lanning. Just keeping up with the Joneses...
simply put, it's too early, mediocre results and no one, NO ONE is coming for him
If we're doing this poll after 4 years, the question should be, "have we shown enough improvement during that time to warrant an extension?" The answer to that is clearly yes. You can complain about the QB situation as much as you want but the reality is we still went to a bowl and we're in a much better place now.
When you throw in the fact that a 4 year or less contract can be used against you in recruiting it's a no brainer.
When you throw in the fact that a 4 year or less contract can be used against you in recruiting it's a no brainer.
Perfect match, nobody else that is good wanted
RU. and no good school wanted Greggie.
I think Beating Wagner was why we gave him
the raise and extention.
RU. and no good school wanted Greggie.
I think Beating Wagner was why we gave him
the raise and extention.
LOL there are 42 "no" votes as of this writing so as usual you're posting misinformation. The poll results seem perfectly in line with how the hardcore element of our relatively small fanbase feels about Schiano: a 70% approval rating, give or take.
How about a poll asking whether posters approve of the job you're doing as moderator? Now THAT would be interesting.
Last edited:
I CLEARLY stated “AT ONE TIME” you freakin’ moron lol!!!
I thought it was "less 5 years is a problem" - a players full career?
When it was pointed out HC Schiano had 4 years (not 5) left and it did not impact recruiting at all - the minimum number of years suddenly fell to "less than 4 years is a problem".
No way not voting in the sunglasses poll.
I hear everyone who votes is getting a cheap participation trophy that can be framed
I found this interesting -- possibly one of the few areas in the NCAA FBS "league" where the world of U.S. higher ed can add some long-overdue parity to the enterprise.
I always thought it was the length of an athlete's career - 4-5 years based upon the possibility of a redshirt year. Honestly, I have no idea if that is true or used negatively.
Your recommendation that university presidents "agree that all contracts should be limited to two years" would violate existing federal antitrust laws.....
Your recommendation that university presidents "agree that all contracts should be limited to two years" would violate existing federal antitrust laws.....
I'm not a lawyer but I don't see my suggestion as involving antitrust conditions. While contracts would be limited to two years, there is no cap on annual salaries. There is no competitor being hurt by this. And it helps preserve the financial health of our higher education system, which is a pre-requisite, after-all, of maintaining the intercollegiate sports system in the first place.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't see my suggestion as involving antitrust conditions. While contracts would be limited to two years, there is no cap on annual salaries. There is no competitor being hurt by this. And it helps preserve the financial health of our higher education system, which is a pre-requisite, after-all, of maintaining the intercollegiate sports system in the first place.
Of course he gets it as he replies to his own poll under his 5000th ID!
Fell for the new moniker Spanky, thanks for pointing it out. Going to delete that post.
