SIAP: very negative story from the New York Times
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
That article is more or less fair. I hate that they don't give the Rutgers overall budget figures though. If people knew how tiny athletics was compared to the university budget, they would better comprehend the magnitude of the issue. Athletics certainly has a revenue problem. It is far from a large problem in the grand scheme of things.
Carroo was not exonerated. The complaining witness did not want to testify, and that was the end of the case. The district attorney made plain at the time that the case would have gone forward if the alleged victim had been willing to testify.
As for Walter Duranty, that was over 75-85 years ago.
As for Walter Duranty, that was over 75-85 years ago.
I just love how much attention this program gets. Unfortunately, it's been for all the wrong reasons. If Dr. Barchi, Mr. Hobbs and Coach Ash can get it right, the sky is the limit.
As Coach Ash pointed out yesterday, the key is getting the talent to stay home. I loved that he focused in on the opportunity for players to develop a brand for themselves that will last a lifetime once their playing days are over. That's exactly it.
This is the biggest, most diverse economy in the country. We have 250,000 plus grads in every corner of it. He needs to develop the networking for players to the point where it's off the charts. Constant, ongoing, career development seminars with Rutgers grads, throughout their careers at Rutgers. Some kind of web presence where graduating seniors and ex-players can have a Facebook/linked in style presentation of their career goals and promotion within the Rutgers community encouraging alumni to help the kids in whatever way they can to help realize the goals. Our competition is in relatively remote or smallish, regional markets. We have the world at our doorstep. That has to be what separates us...access to all of that.
The big barrier has been removed and that is any sense that going to Rutgers to play football likely means you're passing on better player development elsewhere. When Urban Meyer says you're about the best coach he's ever worked with, well, that's the top of the pile. Sell that and sell lifetime network support with a real tangible way for Rutgers grads to reach out to players looking for a career boost and it's a formula that not only attracts the best in NJ, but the best in the country because of the market we are in.
Get it right and watch the NYT and any other media outlet change their perception and coverage of Rutgers Football.
As Coach Ash pointed out yesterday, the key is getting the talent to stay home. I loved that he focused in on the opportunity for players to develop a brand for themselves that will last a lifetime once their playing days are over. That's exactly it.
This is the biggest, most diverse economy in the country. We have 250,000 plus grads in every corner of it. He needs to develop the networking for players to the point where it's off the charts. Constant, ongoing, career development seminars with Rutgers grads, throughout their careers at Rutgers. Some kind of web presence where graduating seniors and ex-players can have a Facebook/linked in style presentation of their career goals and promotion within the Rutgers community encouraging alumni to help the kids in whatever way they can to help realize the goals. Our competition is in relatively remote or smallish, regional markets. We have the world at our doorstep. That has to be what separates us...access to all of that.
The big barrier has been removed and that is any sense that going to Rutgers to play football likely means you're passing on better player development elsewhere. When Urban Meyer says you're about the best coach he's ever worked with, well, that's the top of the pile. Sell that and sell lifetime network support with a real tangible way for Rutgers grads to reach out to players looking for a career boost and it's a formula that not only attracts the best in NJ, but the best in the country because of the market we are in.
Get it right and watch the NYT and any other media outlet change their perception and coverage of Rutgers Football.
What the NY Times did was send a reporter to the clips and re-write the old Rutgers story and at about the eleventh paragraph insert the Chris Ash news.
You take the good and the bad.
Bottom line: If you don't like negative headlines, give them positive stories to write.
Bottom line: If you don't like negative headlines, give them positive stories to write.
I agree that this wasn't a hatchet job and Barchi and Hobbs were not made available for comment, But it is another in the long line of articles and commentary that helps shape public opinion and the arc of that commentary is in the wrong direction.
Tired of the press rehashing every single event over and over again. It may not be a hachet job but most of it is old news. We already know the stories. It's been reported. Mike Rice wasn't hired when Rutgers was in the B1G Conference. His demise would have happened regardless of what Conference Rutgers played in. Why keep on rehashing it 2.5 years after he was terminated in relation to us joining the B1G? Hermann wasn't a good hire for this marketplace. A number of her comments were not up to par for a major AD. However, her behavior in her past, for example, in the 1980s as coach of some team is brought up over and over again, as if it occurred at Rutgers and is Rutgers fault.
It's supposed to be a positive day and we read the same crap over and over again. Sorry for ranting.
It's supposed to be a positive day and we read the same crap over and over again. Sorry for ranting.
It's fine. Not salacious. Just annoying since we want this buried and to turn the page
I'm sure you could write an article about any school and pick out the bad points and high light them to make them seem incompetent. This is more of the same rehash the old to put Rutgers in a bad light. The writer had two directions to go with this article. Rutgers starts fresh and begins to move on from it's past mistakes or the route he took bash Rutgers to sell papers. It's a shame everyone has to take this angle. Fair article yes with our past discretions, warranted no especially when Rutgers is trying to put the past behind them. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't with writers in this area.
When it comes to college football, the NY Times appears to be painfully overtaxed to contemplate anything beyond Harvard-Yale and Army-Navy.
Their coverage of college football is quite weak.
Their coverage of college football is quite weak.
Indeed. Hiring Urban Meyer's top assistant is just a travesty.
The article isn't factually wrong, but draws a pretty weak correlation between the scandals in the athletic department and the move to the Big Ten. I don't think the chain of events that occurred would have dramatically different if we were in the AAC, except our long-term upside would've been much lower.
Yes, his work was so respected at the time that it won a Pulitzer. Only now do we know that it was inaccurate. The Times, like any newspaper, is proud of its Pulitzers; that's why it's in the lobby.
Inaccurate. Covered up a genocide. Potato Pot-ah-to. You fellow travelers are very forgiving of each other.
You have a lot of nerve calling me that. You know nothing about me. You don't know the amount of time I've spent arguing against left-wing radicals. So shut your trap.
Not to mention that the Times has had plenty of more recent examples of shoddy journalism... Jayson Blair, Rick Bragg, Judith Miller, etc.
Interesting that the article points out that we have seen an increase in out of state applications (up 14%) given the latest figures that RU has 48,000 undergraduates and 14% are out of state that would mean that there are currently 6720 out of state students. If that increases 14%, that would be about 940 more out of state grads paying full tuition which is an $8000 difference in tuition that $7,500,000 more. if we replace 940 in state with out of state.
The article also states that donations are up from 148,000,000 to 180,000,000 that would be an increase of $32,000,000. So all together that would be $39,500,000 increase in donations and revenue in the same year moving to the Big Ten. Given that the subsidy is $36,000,000, according to this articles own reporting the move to the Big Ten is an unmitigated success.
The article also states that donations are up from 148,000,000 to 180,000,000 that would be an increase of $32,000,000. So all together that would be $39,500,000 increase in donations and revenue in the same year moving to the Big Ten. Given that the subsidy is $36,000,000, according to this articles own reporting the move to the Big Ten is an unmitigated success.
I stopped reading the article when it said: "six players were dismissed after they were arrested in a series of home invasions." I don't think that's accurate at all.
Listen, I read the TImes all of the time.....even though it's a bit too right-wing for my tastes.
But their sports coverage has always been weak
Just weather the storm people. The Washington Post for years was horrible to Maryland. Do NOT CLICK on their articles. Do not subscribe to them, and complain bitterly in emails. Tell your friends to drop subscriptions.
It's the only way you get better coverage.
I see it the state of New Jersey investing in becoming part of the Big Ten. You have the highest ceiling of any school in Big Ten, but a long way to go. No one expects anything from Rutgers for a decade. Anything you do well in any sports is gravy.
I mean hell you've only really been involved in big time athletics for 10-15 years. Stupid to hold you against any school in B1G.
Point taken, but it's not like the NYT takes every opportunity to disparage Rutgers. The article is definitely a piss on our parade, but they wouldn't be able to write that piece had we not shot ourselves in the foot with a machine gun the last quarter.
If the DA couldn't proceed without her testimony, then it seems to me there wasn't much of a case.
Some witnesses came forward to the authorities to state that the person that knocked her over was not Carroo and that Carroo didn't touch her. The partial videos seemed to support those statements.
There was a narrative espoused by some here that observers (potential witnesses) reported that Carroo did what he was accused of doing. However those observers were apparently unwilling to make themselves available to the prosecution. So it's kind of hard to take those reports seriously.
Given the fact that the only witnesses and the videos indicated no wrongdoing on Carroo's part, given the ex-girfriend's statements about why she wanted to drop the restraining order, and given the ex-girlfriend's refusal to testify against Carroo at a trial, I think we can conclude that Carroo was indeed exonerated.
Some interesting comments to the story (many negative about Rutgers):
JenD
NJ 1 hour ago
Rutgers' emphasis on football has enraged me for years. I got my PhD there and I taught there as well. The school has lost the plot. In its attempt to be a "big-time" sports school, it is throwing large sums of money away -- money that could be better spent on the educational mission of the university. Or have I somehow misunderstood the meaning of the term "education"? And don't get me started on the kinds of criminal behavior engaged in by this past season's team.
What is the point of this? Why does no one stop and ask WHY it is so important to be a major football school? How does that enhance education at Rutgers? How is all that money NOT a corrupting influence?
As a taxpayer, I also want to know why New Jerseyans are expected to subsidize RU's athletics department for tens of millions of dollars. Why? Our governor claims we don't have money for women's health programs, but we can subsidize this bloated athletics department? How does that make sense? It doesn't, except for those who will get a thrill out of pretending Rutgers is going to win a big championship some day.
I would love the NYT to investigate how Mr. Hobbs got his job as AD. For all the bleating about RU needing to act like a Big Ten school, Mr. Hobbs was chosen rapidly, without a search being done, after serving as the interim AD for Seton Hall's program. But he just happens to be one of Christie's buddies. Hmm. And the Governor says he had nothing to do with the choice. Right.
---------------------------
John Mazur
Sayreville 1 hour ago
I don't know how many readers remember when RU was in Division 1A, but it was wonderful.
the Stadium was fine, and the games were more about tailgating, meeting up with friends, and enjoying fall afternoons outdoors. Tickets were inexpensive, as was the program itself, compared to the money pit it has become.
Too, was going to a basketball game in the old gym. Was it a first class facility? No, but the students were as close to the floor as they would be in a High School gym...and they were very loud.
College football has become too big to fail, with many players who have no business calling themselves students. These players are used, do not get a proper education that will get those who don't make the pro's college grad type jobs.
In fact, those who benefit University football have nothing at all to do with the school, it's the NFL, who, unlike baseball, get a free minor league to choose and draft their players.
-----------------------
Thor
Ann Arbor 1 hour ago
The headline is poorly chosen. Rutgers problems stem not so much from joining the Big Ten but, as the article tells it, a series of administrative scandals and administrative blunders. It's true joining the Big Ten did not magically solve these problems, but that's quite different from being the cause of them.
As far as I am concerned, Rutgers and Maryland can leave. It was all a money grab based on TV dollars from the very beginning. They don't fit in with the Big Ten. Tradition is a good thing in college sports, and it has gone by the wayside in the quest for the almighty dollar.
Columbus, OH 17 minutes ago
Thor, for maybe the first time in my life, I agree with a Wolverine.
JenD
NJ 1 hour ago
Rutgers' emphasis on football has enraged me for years. I got my PhD there and I taught there as well. The school has lost the plot. In its attempt to be a "big-time" sports school, it is throwing large sums of money away -- money that could be better spent on the educational mission of the university. Or have I somehow misunderstood the meaning of the term "education"? And don't get me started on the kinds of criminal behavior engaged in by this past season's team.
What is the point of this? Why does no one stop and ask WHY it is so important to be a major football school? How does that enhance education at Rutgers? How is all that money NOT a corrupting influence?
As a taxpayer, I also want to know why New Jerseyans are expected to subsidize RU's athletics department for tens of millions of dollars. Why? Our governor claims we don't have money for women's health programs, but we can subsidize this bloated athletics department? How does that make sense? It doesn't, except for those who will get a thrill out of pretending Rutgers is going to win a big championship some day.
I would love the NYT to investigate how Mr. Hobbs got his job as AD. For all the bleating about RU needing to act like a Big Ten school, Mr. Hobbs was chosen rapidly, without a search being done, after serving as the interim AD for Seton Hall's program. But he just happens to be one of Christie's buddies. Hmm. And the Governor says he had nothing to do with the choice. Right.
---------------------------
John Mazur
Sayreville 1 hour ago
I don't know how many readers remember when RU was in Division 1A, but it was wonderful.
the Stadium was fine, and the games were more about tailgating, meeting up with friends, and enjoying fall afternoons outdoors. Tickets were inexpensive, as was the program itself, compared to the money pit it has become.
Too, was going to a basketball game in the old gym. Was it a first class facility? No, but the students were as close to the floor as they would be in a High School gym...and they were very loud.
College football has become too big to fail, with many players who have no business calling themselves students. These players are used, do not get a proper education that will get those who don't make the pro's college grad type jobs.
In fact, those who benefit University football have nothing at all to do with the school, it's the NFL, who, unlike baseball, get a free minor league to choose and draft their players.
-----------------------
Thor
Ann Arbor 1 hour ago
The headline is poorly chosen. Rutgers problems stem not so much from joining the Big Ten but, as the article tells it, a series of administrative scandals and administrative blunders. It's true joining the Big Ten did not magically solve these problems, but that's quite different from being the cause of them.
As far as I am concerned, Rutgers and Maryland can leave. It was all a money grab based on TV dollars from the very beginning. They don't fit in with the Big Ten. Tradition is a good thing in college sports, and it has gone by the wayside in the quest for the almighty dollar.
- Reply
- 8Recommend
Columbus, OH 17 minutes ago
Thor, for maybe the first time in my life, I agree with a Wolverine.
As is standard in social events, the negative responses come fast and furious. But when the dust settles, the more measured and favorable responses come out. Let the JenD's of the world start off with their complaints and their imprecise, over-generalized talking points, and then the less emotional, more measured points will emerge. I have little doubt she knows almost nothing about how subsidies work and what the numbers mean (and what they don't).
On a related note, does anyone really think that the $1mm raised a few days ago, of which, from what I understand, only $100k went toward athletics, would have actually been raised had it not been for the coalescing influence of the football program? Is JenD, for instance, aware that football is in the black, and that her argument is one in favor of cutting the other athletics programs, including an equal number of male and female athletes? About her point that she raised (but that she didn't want to get into) about the legal issues some of the players were involved with, what are we to do about the non-athletes who get into similar trouble--should we shut down English 101 because two students in the MTh section were busted over the weekend? If a grad student doing his or her doctoral thesis with JenD is popped for blowing fireworks off or drunk driving, should her other doctoral students be assigned elsewhere or dropped?
On a related note, does anyone really think that the $1mm raised a few days ago, of which, from what I understand, only $100k went toward athletics, would have actually been raised had it not been for the coalescing influence of the football program? Is JenD, for instance, aware that football is in the black, and that her argument is one in favor of cutting the other athletics programs, including an equal number of male and female athletes? About her point that she raised (but that she didn't want to get into) about the legal issues some of the players were involved with, what are we to do about the non-athletes who get into similar trouble--should we shut down English 101 because two students in the MTh section were busted over the weekend? If a grad student doing his or her doctoral thesis with JenD is popped for blowing fireworks off or drunk driving, should her other doctoral students be assigned elsewhere or dropped?
They didn't pick and choose the low points of the last 20 years. They just reviewed the Flood/Hermann era.
I don't agree. The article once again made it sound like 6 players were thrown off the team for armed burglary. It was one player who did that - the other 5 got into a fight (although it is still not clear to me exactly what happened here). They also made it sound like Flood pressured the professor to change the grade - the email transcripts clearly showed that this was not true.
Agree with 2 caveats.
1. We aren't admitting 14% more from out of state. We have a soft cap on out of state students. The quality of students coming from out of state is increasing.
2. The increase in donating does not include the fact that donating was way down due to the Rice scandal. So you can't measur the increase versus the low of the Rice scandal but where it should have been without that scandal. It's still an increase but not as dramatic.
I don't mind Politi writing critical articles on RU or any team - he's a columnist and has to take a critical position as part of his job. I may disagree but he is an opinion writer.
Kate Zernike is a correspondent who I find to be a complete hack. Her article in the NYT today was pretty slanted in its heading (RU Move to Big 10 Brings Scandal and Firings). Our moving to the Big 10 didn't cause the issues we now have - they existed prior to us being in the Big 10. But the headline makes it appear that it did. However, I don't expect her to be unbiased.
FWIW I believe that they both live in Montclair (which i also call home) and while I don't know either personally, Zernike did a hatchet job article on a slate of local unaffiliated candidates running for town counsel in the NYT (a national paper reporting on our town election like anyone cares outside of Montclair) and did so maybe the day or 2 days before our last election. It was an obvious push to get a disparage this group of residents in a paper people who live in town will see. Same type of passive aggressive attack piece so I am not surprised she is called in to provide another passive aggressive attack article on RU while posing as an objective journalist.
Kate Zernike is a correspondent who I find to be a complete hack. Her article in the NYT today was pretty slanted in its heading (RU Move to Big 10 Brings Scandal and Firings). Our moving to the Big 10 didn't cause the issues we now have - they existed prior to us being in the Big 10. But the headline makes it appear that it did. However, I don't expect her to be unbiased.
FWIW I believe that they both live in Montclair (which i also call home) and while I don't know either personally, Zernike did a hatchet job article on a slate of local unaffiliated candidates running for town counsel in the NYT (a national paper reporting on our town election like anyone cares outside of Montclair) and did so maybe the day or 2 days before our last election. It was an obvious push to get a disparage this group of residents in a paper people who live in town will see. Same type of passive aggressive attack piece so I am not surprised she is called in to provide another passive aggressive attack article on RU while posing as an objective journalist.
At least NJ.com puts shady wording like 6 people connected to home invasions, like since they were arrested the same day they are connected.
It's as if no one has ever heard of innocent until proven guilty.
Yep. I really don't understand by what standard are people still claiming that Carroo wasn't exonerated or that he wasn't innocent. It's true that no jury of his peers produced a verdict of not guilty. But that's because the prosecutor had no case with which to move forward to trial.
