ADVERTISEMENT

Serious question

well go to the Patriot League then or the other sports forum because arguing for 30 Olympic sports on the fooball board where our AD turned the program into a dumpster fire isnt going to get you anything sympathy, in fact now I know your agenda
 
well go to the Patriot League then or the other sports forum because arguing for 30 Olympic sports on the fooball board where our AD turned the program into a dumpster fire isnt going to get you anything sympathy, in fact now I know your agenda

You don't know my agenda at all.

I have gone to Rutgers games my entire life. I have sat in on recruiting meetings with some of the biggest names in college football. I have sent kids to play all over the country. I've even had the opportunity to coach in some of the greatest stadiums in the country. Oddly enough I even have a hat in the ring with one of the guys interviewing for our HC job.

My dream is for Rutgers to have an extremely successful athletics program (not just football).

I'm sorry my opinion doesn't fit yours. I do see your side of it though. And I get your anger.
 
Last edited:
Baseball and softball need better facilities. Lacrosse needs better facilities. Soccer could use an upgrade beyond what is coming.
Perhaps we can raise tuition. It's already the biggest bargain in the Big Ten , no ?
 
Baseball and softball need better facilities. Lacrosse needs better facilities. Soccer could use an upgrade beyond what is coming.

baseball and softball just got an indoor practice facility. Soccer and lacrosse are moving into the Rodkin center. While these asks are important, they shouldn’t be prioritized over the recruiting needs of football , which lost half its paying customers do to its inability to produce a competitive product, thx to subpar recruiting.
 
baseball and softball just got an indoor practice facility. Soccer and lacrosse are moving into the Rodkin center. While these asks are important, they shouldn’t be prioritized over the recruiting needs of football , which lost half its paying customers do to its inability to produce a competitive product, thx to subpar recruiting.


exactly...did we not lose over 5 million in lost revenue plus buyout money would take that further up but yeah field hockey
 
baseball and softball just got an indoor practice facility. Soccer and lacrosse are moving into the Rodkin center. While these asks are important, they shouldn’t be prioritized over the recruiting needs of football , which lost half its paying customers do to its inability to produce a competitive product, thx to subpar recruiting.
Our baseball and softball facilities are barely college level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeavenUniv.
I was there Saturday. I saw how awful it was. If it was raining it would have reminded me of Temple except we beat Temple.

So gut everything and anything to try to fix football? For how long? What is the timeline to fix football before you fix other sports?

I think it's a much more complicated issue than this board seems to make it.
Dealing with complicated questions is not a strong suit of many on this board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
Can you expand that?

Three thoughts here (by the way I’m not convinced your original question is serious ... it seems like you’re trolling).

1) We already eliminated several men’s sports (Title 9 driven) so how much did they matter? They were already “sacrificed”

2) You say you were there Saturday and it was awful ( it was a sorry sight there were only 3 people in my row and I have great seats). In spite of that the crowd in attendance Saturday (or any other home game in the last 15 years) EXCEEDS THE TOTAL ATTENDANCE of most other sports (hoops and wrestling aside) for that ENTIRE time span. There are a few die hards, parents, and boyfriends/girlfriend of the players as the sole attendees of several sports. It’s just the way it is. Football matters more.

3) Successful football programs can an often do help build (and fund) non-revenue sports.
 
Since crew doesn’t need them, can we use those really stupid long oars to knock some sense into people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kbee3
If RU remains in the B1G (which it may not), those investments for football will need to be made sooner or later. Schiano is absolutely right. He knows what is needed. Other HC candidates wont care ..take the $$ and run...
 
I would be willing to cut every athletic program at the school and go with Rutgers Football and Womens Track (which we'd have to fund for Title IX purposes) to hire Schiano. Of course, we wouldn't need to do that, but I would. The only three I would feel bad about would be Mens Basketball, Baseball and Wrestling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rutgersal
Three thoughts here (by the way I’m not convinced your original question is serious ... it seems like you’re trolling).

1) We already eliminated several men’s sports (Title 9 driven) so how much did they matter? They were already “sacrificed”

2) You say you were there Saturday and it was awful ( it was a sorry sight there were only 3 people in my row and I have great seats). In spite of that the crowd in attendance Saturday (or any other home game in the last 15 years) EXCEEDS THE TOTAL ATTENDANCE of most other sports (hoops and wrestling aside) for that ENTIRE time span. There are a few die hards, parents, and boyfriends/girlfriend of the players as the sole attendees of several sports. It’s just the way it is. Football matters more.

3) Successful football programs can an often do help build (and fund) non-revenue sports.
Thanks for the answers. And I really am not trolling. I was having the discussion with someone else and kind of wanted to see where the normal consensus of people were.
 
With what Schiano was asking for, on the timeline he wanted, would you be willing to sacrifice other sports and projects to have gotten him?

This is what it came down to.

Is football worth cutting the legs out of other sports? Right now we just don't have the money at Rutgers to upgrade everything today.

I'm not flaming or trolling but it a real question. Do you, as an AD, screw over your other programs to push this hire?

I'm not sure if I was an AD I could.
I think it's worth adding to the equation that you have to do all of the aforementioned sacrificing for a coach that no one else seems to want at any price. The BOG has a certain fiscal duty here, and I assume considering someone's 'market value' is a part of that duty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gef21
My argument is my opinion. I believe we should have a full compliment of sports and not sacrifice any.

I want Rutgers football to be extremely successful but I also want all Rutgers sports to be successful.
Football and men's basketball are the only 2 profitable sports at Rutgers. The revenue generated from both sports helped fund the other sports here. With the millions in ticket, parking, concessions, and souvenir revenue that has steadily declined over the last 4 years because of the football program, there is more of a likelihood that other sports will be negatively impacted than paying the cost of hiring Schiano. If GS were hired, and it is likely that football revenue would increase quickly enough to be a net plus to all of the other programs.

The fact that he already has had good response from kids that he has been contacting from the transfer portal and HS recruits show just how prepared this guy is. There is no other coach, that RU can realistically get, who can draw people here by his name. I know GS is not Urban Meyer, but his name carries a lot of weight with NJ HS coaches, and most people still remember him as the guy that built Rutgers Football. That makes it that much more important that you hire someone that has done the kind a prep that GS has already done.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: angmo
This is basically what @Caliknight has been saying all along.

At the end of the day, this whole thing is a math problem. The school isn't willing to poor tens of millions of dollars of "Rutgers money" into the football program. Our expenses - coaching salaries and infrastructure - have to be paid for out of football-derived revenue as well as conference-derived revenue and donor money.

Math problem. Always has been.
You are drinking the cool aid from being too close to the program - the math problem is "not" putting money into the program.
 
Even when we were winning, the program was losing money. What would we have received if we met his demand?
That’s a tasty little fact the all football all the time people won’t recognize. At peak Schiano, we were losing millions while decimating most every other program.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT