The achievements and missteps of Rutgers' Richard L. McCormick: Book review

[Tango Two]

If anyone seemed destined to one day lead Rutgers it was Richard L. McCormick. Son of beloved professor and university historian Richard P. McCormick and longtime campus administrator Katheryne C. McCormick, the scion spent his boyhood firmly anchored to the banks of the Old Raritan, a Rutgers brat totally immersed in the lore and tradition of the institution.



McCormick ultimately did reach the presidency and held the post for 10 eventful, often controversial, sometimes embarrassing years. Now enjoying emeritus status, he has delivered a memoir brimming with the highs and lows of his stewardship. And he does so with a bracing mixture of introspection, erudition, candor, and contrition.



.

The achievements and missteps...

 

[Upstream]

The SL review seems to focus mostly on PR issues and the press.

Here is a better review, with excerpts that highlight the political infiltration at Rutges:

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/08/19/summer-reading-new-jersey-s-books-and-authors-raised-at-rutgers-a-president-s-story/?p=all



Here is the Amazon page if you are interested in purchasing: http://www.amazon.com/Raised-Rutgers-Presidents-Rivergate-Collection/dp/0813564743

 

[Cofifa]

I found the background on the break up of the Federated system and the politics of the History department very interesting . Personalities such as Alec Pond , Provost Wheeler , and President Boustien were all part of my undergraduate experience .

 

[TonyLieske]

Some interesting stuff in the excerpt.

I have said before, and still believe, that McCormick's achievements here are grossly underestimated by us football fans (and probably most alums). I think the internal restructuring of the colleges is a huge positive in the long term and I also think he deserves the vast majority of the credit for getting back the Medical School. From a purely football POV, he is the one that allowed the school to subsidize the athletic department at extraordinary levels and, IMHO, that is what allowed us (along with our location) the chance to be invited to the Big ten conference. It sucks that he sacrificed BM after the stadium expansion fiasco, but overall I still think he stewardship of the school has been a net positive for both the school and the athletic department.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

I'd agree. He had his warts and made some questionable hires/decisions but overall he was good for the University. He also helped push the foundation forward. He wasn't always the most savvy fundraiser but I think he understood the importance of it and helped keep RU on the right track. The internal restructuring alone was a huge contribution to the University.

 

[retired711]

Dick McCormick put a lot of political capital into restructuring the colleges, and it was the right thing to do. McCormick's biggest fault was alienating Governor Corzine -- not that McCormick was wrong on the merits, only that McCormick forgot that a public university president must get on with the governor.

I had a couple of personal contacts with McCormick and I was impressed by him on each occasion. And I can tell you that McCormick knew every issue at Rutgers -- he would amaze questioners at University Senate meetings.

 

[LadyRU09]

Restructuring the colleges killed a lot of traditions and made a lot of us who were students or staff at the time extremely upset. The current students don't care much about it, though.

Some people never took Dick seriously during a lot of the things he did.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Originally posted by LadyRU09:
Restructuring the colleges killed a lot of traditions and made a lot of us who were students or staff at the time extremely upset. The current students don't care much about it, though.

Some people never took Dick seriously during a lot of the things he did.

It may have killed some traditions and no doubt a change like that will upset people but leaders have to do the right thing for the long term. This was without a doubt the right thing to do. The old structure was mostly an inefficient and costly facade anyway (since previous changes such as those in the 80s). Many traditions can continue in a slightly new form and other new traditions have/will emerge to take their place.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:

Originally posted by LadyRU09:
Restructuring the colleges killed a lot of traditions and made a lot of us who were students or staff at the time extremely upset. The current students don't care much about it, though.

Some people never took Dick seriously during a lot of the things he did.

It may have killed some traditions and no doubt a change like that will upset people but leaders have to do the right thing for the long term. This was without a doubt the right thing to do. The old structure was mostly an inefficient and costly facade anyway (since previous changes such as those in the 80s). Many traditions can continue in a slightly new form and other new traditions have/will emerge to take their place.

I think you're both right.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Fact of the matter is he laid the groundwork for the B1G and RWJ, two things that will forever change RU for the better. Arguably, the most transformative presidency RU had. Plus merging the colleges.

He wasn't great at managing the media- but Barchi hasn't been great at that either and I suspect the problem runs deeper.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Fact of the matter is he laid the groundwork for the B1G and RWJ, two things that will forever change RU for the better. Arguably, the most transformative presidency RU had. Plus merging the colleges.

He wasn't great at managing the media- but Barchi hasn't been great at that either and I suspect the problem runs deeper.

Not even close - the transition in the post-war era from smallish private to HUGE public and in the 80s as we went from mostly liberal arts to true research giant were both more transformation and ultimately much more important in getting us into the Big Ten than anything McCormick did (being as Schiano was already hired and given lots of power before McCormick got here),

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Fact of the matter is he laid the groundwork for the B1G and RWJ, two things that will forever change RU for the better. Arguably, the most transformative presidency RU had. Plus merging the colleges.

He wasn't great at managing the media- but Barchi hasn't been great at that either and I suspect the problem runs deeper.

Not even close - the transition in the post-war era from smallish private to HUGE public and in the 80s as we went from mostly liberal arts to true research giant were both more transformation and ultimately much more important in getting us into the Big Ten than anything McCormick did (being as Schiano was already hired and given lots of power before McCormick got here),

And RWJ essentially fell into our lap. McCormick got a huge bonus for the merger, but he was not a leading figure.

The factors derleider cites fro getting us into the B1G were very important. The biggest one was Schiano making us competitive and yes, he came here the year before McCormick did. My impression is that Fran Lawrence was Lawrence as a high school athlete -- baseball and hockey -- and so was not a rock-hard opponent of athletics. BTW, I had forgotten that he died last year at the age of 75. As I get older, deaths at that age are scary.

 

[NotInRHouse]

But McCormick is the one who gave Schiano carte blanche and never caved to the RU 1000.

Also the changes you are referencing took place over a greater span of time. They were not one off, specific things.

 

[TonyLieske]

Saying RWJ "fell in to his/our lap" is minimizing his impact. He (and the board) were actively engaged in merging RU with UMDNJ for years. Once it finally became a legitimate option for the NJ Government, he (and the board) were heavily involved in the negotiations.

Could another president have gotten it done under the same conditions? Sure. But he is the one who ACTUALLY got it done, not theoretically. Therefore I think he deserves the credit.

And while Schiano got here before him, he was the one that OK'd the millions in dollars of annual subsidies. He could have easily taken the Barchi stance of demanding that the AD become budget neutral by "X" date, but he never did that. Am I saying he is the one that deserves all the credit for getting to the Big 10? Of course not. But a more fiscally conservative (or more risk averse) president certainly could have derailed things.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
But McCormick is the one who gave Schiano carte blanche and never caved to the RU 1000.

Also the changes you are referencing took place over a greater span of time. They were not one off, specific things.

The move to the AAU was a long term process but it was a specific initiative, on par with the ten year processes of building up football, or the decade long effort to get the med school back.

Schiano had carte blanche from the beginning I believe. I think the Hale Center revival was a go before McCormick took over, or so shortly after that McCormick wouldn't have had major involvement. And ultimately McCormick threw BM under the bus for using the carte blanche he was given.

Basically your argument is he was great because he got out of the way and let others do their jobs. Compared to other presidents who actively drove RU in the direction of becoming a flagship school, or a major research university I would say, not so great, nor so important in getting us into the Big Ten (which in itself was less important than the moves that got us into the AAU.)

 

[retired711]

McCormick had nothing to do with AAU membership. That happened in 1989 under President Bloustein, who fought hard for it.

The athletics subsidy had nothing to do with McCormick. It's what the BOG wanted, and it existed long before McCormick. The BOG has stopped wanting it given the financial pressure on the University, and Barchi is carrying out that policy.

Yes, McCormick didn't cave in to the Rutgers 1000, but you could say something simliar about every president beginning with Bloustein. The Rutgers 1000 never posed a serious threat anyway, because Dowling, while a fine scholar, is not exactly a leadership type.

As for UMDNJ, thaqt was mostly a matter of the institution's collapse due to its problems auditing itself. The merger proposal that was enacted didn't even come from McCormick.

Still, McCormick does deserve credit for the restructuring, which was a very hard thing to accomplish and required a great deal of grit. It's not easy to proceed when the Douglas College alumnae are insisting they'll never give another dime.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
But McCormick is the one who gave Schiano carte blanche and never caved to the RU 1000.

Also the changes you are referencing took place over a greater span of time. They were not one off, specific things.

The move to the AAU was a long term process but it was a specific initiative, on par with the ten year processes of building up football, or the decade long effort to get the med school back.

Schiano had carte blanche from the beginning I believe. I think the Hale Center revival was a go before McCormick took over, or so shortly after that McCormick wouldn't have had major involvement. And ultimately McCormick threw BM under the bus for using the carte blanche he was given.

Basically your argument is he was great because he got out of the way and let others do their jobs. Compared to other presidents who actively drove RU in the direction of becoming a flagship school, or a major research university I would say, not so great, nor so important in getting us into the Big Ten (which in itself was less important than the moves that got us into the AAU.)

I would argue that with RU and NJ in general...that is a foremost leadership quality. It is what it is. But I can think of plenty of hacks, or bad leaders at other schools, that would have thrown GS under the bus when the SL got antsy, or not pushed the UMDNJ issue. Recall, he was the one who discussed it with the NJIT President before Christie was involved.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
But McCormick is the one who gave Schiano carte blanche and never caved to the RU 1000.

Also the changes you are referencing took place over a greater span of time. They were not one off, specific things.

Do you have any evidence? Remember that Schiano worked for Mulcahy, who eventually got fired (essentially) because the University thought he was spending money without authority.

The RU 1000 was so puny that it was not a big deal to resist it.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
McCormick had nothing to do with AAU membership. That happened in 1989 under President Bloustein, who fought hard for it.

The athletics subsidy had nothing to do with McCormick. It's what the BOG wanted, and it existed long before McCormick. The BOG has stopped wanting it given the financial pressure on the University, and Barchi is carrying out that policy.

Yes, McCormick didn't cave in to the Rutgers 1000, but you could say something simliar about every president beginning with Bloustein. The Rutgers 1000 never posed a serious threat anyway, because Dowling, while a fine scholar, is not exactly a leadership type.

As for UMDNJ, thaqt was mostly a matter of the institution's collapse due to its problems auditing itself. The merger proposal that was enacted didn't even come from McCormick.

Still, McCormick does deserve credit for the restructuring, which was a very hard thing to accomplish and required a great deal of grit. It's not easy to proceed when the Douglas College alumnae are insisting they'll never give another dime.

Well done, counselor.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
But McCormick is the one who gave Schiano carte blanche and never caved to the RU 1000.

Also the changes you are referencing took place over a greater span of time. They were not one off, specific things.

Do you have any evidence? Remember that Schiano worked for Mulcahy, who eventually got fired (essentially) because the University thought he was spending money without authority.

The RU 1000 was so puny that it was not a big deal to resist it.

Yes. He approved Schiano getting a house on University land. He presided over at least some of the facilities upgrades. He was there when (at least IMO) GS made the biggest upgrade to his staff in 2011. And he never blushed at the SL BS- which if they hate Hermann, they really despised Schiano.

I think, ultimately BM should not have been fired, but what I will say is that in scheme of things, by that time, the program and its needs had been well established. Further, aside from hiring Goodale and keeping CVS around- though he probably overpaid her in retrospect-most of the other sports withered on the vine during his tenure. I think allowing BM to take the fall essentially protected GS. And the story never went viral- really it was a nonstory but the SL has managed to push several since into the national media.

Maybe it's me, but I recall antagonism towards football being much worse during the GS era from both the 1000 and the media- now we can debate what effect those had but I would say McCormick handled that aspect of the media better than say, Snookiegate or Rutgersfest when we were basically being attacked with lies in the national media.

 

[retired711]

Good points, NIRH. McCormick would tell faculty senate meetings that "it may not be desirable for colleges to be running what amount to minor leagues for football players. But now that colleges are involved, we have to be, too. After all, most people in the state know us primarily through our football team."

 

[NotInRHouse]

And at the end of the day, that argument was prescient- the B1G infusion of cash will do a lot for RU, as will the CIC and the general association. It was a great and important argument to win.

 

[retired711]

Yes,but the team must be competitive in the B1G. It doesn't have to win the conference more than once every so often, but it has to be around .500 at the least.

This post was edited on 11/7 6:29 PM by camdenlawprof

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

From the review link posted earlier:

A HELICOPTER CONVERSATION WITH GOVERNOR McGREEVEY

On a late October afternoon in 2002, Governor Jim McGreevey was yelling at me on the telephone -- he in a helicopter somewhere over New Jersey and I at my home in Seattle.

He knew that the Rutgers Board of Governors was intending to appoint me as the University's nineteenth president within the next several days, and he was not happy about that. The leaders of the state legislature, he said, specifically naming the copresidents of the senate and the speaker of the assembly, shared his opposition to my appointment. The governor wanted me to withdraw as a candidate for the position because I could not, he shouted, succeed as the leader of Rutgers without political support.

Our conversation became even more ragged when his cell phone dropped the call from the helicopter several times, and eventually our connection was irretrievably lost. The governor's angry words left me shaken, but I had no intention of walking away from the opportunity to become president of Rutgers.

This is something that should never be forgotten. That NJ politicians desperately want to get their hands of Rutgers' budget.

McGreedy in particular tried several times to create a Chancellor's position, over and above the Rutgers President, in order to achieve this goal, and I contend, create a position that he himself could fill after his time as Governor.

Almost every issue we can think of involving Rutgers can be viewed through a filter of New Jersey machine politics. You know how Woodward and Bernstein were famously told "follow the money"? And how every crime is typically investigated through the filter of "Who Benefits?"... well, the Rutgers version should be, how do Jersey politicians benefit from this proposal? What powers do they seize through this measure, which is being sold as being for the benefit of higher education in New Jersey.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Camden- was referring to the money as a general proposition for all sports and uses. I have my own thoughts on what's needed for football which everyone knows (and what most people probably agree with at this point).

 

[Scarlet16E]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
McCormick had nothing to do with AAU membership. That happened in 1989 under President Bloustein, who fought hard for it.

The athletics subsidy had nothing to do with McCormick. It's what the BOG wanted, and it existed long before McCormick. The BOG has stopped wanting it given the financial pressure on the University, and Barchi is carrying out that policy.

Yes, McCormick didn't cave in to the Rutgers 1000, but you could say something simliar about every president beginning with Bloustein. The Rutgers 1000 never posed a serious threat anyway, because Dowling, while a fine scholar, is not exactly a leadership type.

As for UMDNJ, thaqt was mostly a matter of the institution's collapse due to its problems auditing itself. The merger proposal that was enacted didn't even come from McCormick.

Still, McCormick does deserve credit for the restructuring, which was a very hard thing to accomplish and required a great deal of grit. It's not easy to proceed when the Douglas College alumnae are insisting they'll never give another dime.

Well done, counselor.

Sadly, one thing that made proceeding over such objections easier is that neither the Douglass Alumnae, nor anyone else have a history of giving very much to Rutgers.

At Rutgers, the overall history of financial gifts is so low that threats to "stop donating" are obviously just bluster.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by Scarlet16E:

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
McCormick had nothing to do with AAU membership. That happened in 1989 under President Bloustein, who fought hard for it.

The athletics subsidy had nothing to do with McCormick. It's what the BOG wanted, and it existed long before McCormick. The BOG has stopped wanting it given the financial pressure on the University, and Barchi is carrying out that policy.

Yes, McCormick didn't cave in to the Rutgers 1000, but you could say something simliar about every president beginning with Bloustein. The Rutgers 1000 never posed a serious threat anyway, because Dowling, while a fine scholar, is not exactly a leadership type.

As for UMDNJ, thaqt was mostly a matter of the institution's collapse due to its problems auditing itself. The merger proposal that was enacted didn't even come from McCormick.

Still, McCormick does deserve credit for the restructuring, which was a very hard thing to accomplish and required a great deal of grit. It's not easy to proceed when the Douglas College alumnae are insisting they'll never give another dime.

Well done, counselor.

Sadly, one thing that made proceeding over such objections easier is that neither the Douglass Alumnae, nor anyone else have a history of giving very much to Rutgers.

At Rutgers, the overall history of financial gifts is so low that threats to "stop donating" are obviously just bluster.

State suport is getting to that point as well. At some point they are putting in so little that RU can effectively say FU to any threats to reduce it even more.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by Scarlet16E:

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
McCormick had nothing to do with AAU membership. That happened in 1989 under President Bloustein, who fought hard for it.

The athletics subsidy had nothing to do with McCormick. It's what the BOG wanted, and it existed long before McCormick. The BOG has stopped wanting it given the financial pressure on the University, and Barchi is carrying out that policy.

Yes, McCormick didn't cave in to the Rutgers 1000, but you could say something simliar about every president beginning with Bloustein. The Rutgers 1000 never posed a serious threat anyway, because Dowling, while a fine scholar, is not exactly a leadership type.

As for UMDNJ, thaqt was mostly a matter of the institution's collapse due to its problems auditing itself. The merger proposal that was enacted didn't even come from McCormick.

Still, McCormick does deserve credit for the restructuring, which was a very hard thing to accomplish and required a great deal of grit. It's not easy to proceed when the Douglas College alumnae are insisting they'll never give another dime.

Well done, counselor.

Sadly, one thing that made proceeding over such objections easier is that neither the Douglass Alumnae, nor anyone else have a history of giving very much to Rutgers.

At Rutgers, the overall history of financial gifts is so low that threats to "stop donating" are obviously just bluster.

State suport is getting to that point as well. At some point they are putting in so little that RU can effectively say FU to any threats to reduce it even more.

Agree. But I am waiting for the day when Trenton will say "you didn't make that!" with regard to the B1G check and try and get a piece.

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Mulcahy, who eventually got fired (essentially) because the University thought he was spending money without authority.
.

Let's not fall into the trap that the Star Ledger headline machine tries to gin up. They repeat this story line consistently but there was never any proof. But they say it enough that people repeat it.

Mulcahy let his key contacts on the Board know exactly what he was doing, and keep the President informed also. No, Mulcahy did not seek approval from the AAUP, University Senate, student malcontents or any self appointed professorial curmudgeons.

But the nonsense that he was some sort of a rogue operator never came from anybody at Rutgers in a position to know.

That story line did fit into the political agenda of powerful forces in Trenton that as Good Old Rutgers reminds us, are on a long term campaign to make Rutgers another state agency subject to political patronage, with a huge revenue stream, student's tuition dollars, they have not been able to skim, yet. "Outrageous" sports spending was the best target for those that wanted to damage the University's independence.

Mulcahy was let go because the leadership, President and Board, realized somebody had to be sacrificed because going head to head with the machine is a very dangerous game. Mulcahy had to go to defuse the situation. He is a good enough soldier and astute enough politician to realize sometimes you have to fall on your sword.

Remember the leaks that pointed to an "over budget, schedule delayed" Stadium expansion, all that were false, came from one disgruntled board member, deeply politically connected to the Lynch machine, who coveted Mulcahy's positon.

This post was edited on 11/12 9:31 AM by srru86

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by e5fdny:
Agree. But I am waiting for the day when Trenton will say "you didn't make that!" with regard to the B1G check and try and get a piece.

Thank you for reminding us that is another revenue stream which our "friends" in Trenton seek to dip their beaks into.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by srru86:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Mulcahy, who eventually got fired (essentially) because the University thought he was spending money without authority.
.

Let's not fall into the trap that the Star Ledger headline machine tries to gin up. They repeat this story line consistently but there was never any proof. But they say it enough that people repeat it.

Mulcahy let his key contacts on the Board know exactly what he was doing, and keep the President informed also. No, Mulcahy did not seek approval from the AAUP, University Senate, student malcontents or any self appointed professorial curmudgeons.

But the nonsense that he was some sort of a rogue operator never came from anybody at Rutgers in a position to know.

That story line did fit into the political agenda of powerful forces in Trenton that as Good Old Rutgers reminds us, are on a long term campaign to make Rutgers another state agency subject to political patronage, with a huge revenue stream, student's tuition dollars, they have not been able to skim, yet. "Outrageous" sports spending was the best target for those that wanted to damage the University's independence.

Mulcahy was let go because the leadership, President and Board, realized somebody had to be sacrificed because going head to head with the machine is a very dangerous game. Mulcahy had to go to defuse the situation. He is a good enough soldier and astute enough politician to realize sometimes you have to fall on your sword.

Remember the leaks that pointed to an "over budget, schedule delayed" Stadium expansion, all that were false, came from one disgruntled board member, deeply politically connected to the Lynch machine, who coveted Mulcahy's positon.

This post was edited on 11/12 9:31 AM by srru86

not what I heard from university officials at the time. Also quite implausible because (1) why would a board member want Mulcahy's position (he'd be McCormick's subordinate; and (2) the board member in question was not appointed. Let's not make up more conspiracies than there actually are.

This post was edited on 11/12 3:56 PM by camdenlawprof

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by srru86:

Originally posted by e5fdny:
Agree. But I am waiting for the day when Trenton will say "you didn't make that!" with regard to the B1G check and try and get a piece.

Thank you for reminding us that is another revenue stream which our "friends" in Trenton seek to dip their beaks into.

Whether it's legal or not I think all of us on this forum know they are going to try.

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

(1) why would a board member want Mulcahy's position (he'd be McCormick's subordinate)

He saw himself as a sports guys, likes the visibility, had personal connections in the department, and his political masters wanted their man on the inside. I imagine he didn't see his potential role as taking orders from McCormick.

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
(2) the board member in question was not appointed. Let's not make up more conspiracies than there actually

He did get an even better sinecure from his masters for services rendered. And just because he didn't get it doesn't rule out tearing down those that stood in his way or their proxies.

This post was edited on 11/13 9:39 AM by srru86

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by srru86:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

(1) why would a board member want Mulcahy's position (he'd be McCormick's subordinate)

He saw himself as a sports guys, likes the visibility, had personal connections in the department, and his political masters wanted their man on the inside. I imagine he didn't see his potential role as taking orders from McCormick.

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
(2) the board member in question was not appointed. Let's not make up more conspiracies than there actually

He did get an even better sinecure from his masters for services rendered. And just because he didn't get it doesn't rule out tearing down those that stood in his way or their proxies.

This post was edited on 11/13 9:39 AM by srru86

How did Pernetti's appointment serve his interests?

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by srru86:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

(1) why would a board member want Mulcahy's position (he'd be McCormick's subordinate)

He saw himself as a sports guys, likes the visibility, had personal connections in the department, and his political masters wanted their man on the inside. I imagine he didn't see his potential role as taking orders from McCormick.

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
(2) the board member in question was not appointed. Let's not make up more conspiracies than there actually

He did get an even better sinecure from his masters for services rendered. And just because he didn't get it doesn't rule out tearing down those that stood in his way or their proxies.

This post was edited on 11/13 9:39 AM by srru86

How did Pernetti's appointment serve his interests?

I'm taking an admittedly more negative slant in things than you. Tearing down Mulcahy was the goal. I presume Tim P. was not the desired candidate of the power brokers. More about vindictiveness than logic.

 

[NotInRHouse]

At the time Pernetti was regarded as someone who would take a stand against the media (famously blew his nose into the SL) and a supporter of the football program, having played here. He was also supposedly (and probably) the favorite candidate of Schiano. So I would say he was basically picked to do what Mulcahey did, but just not have Mulcahey here anymore.

 

[Upstream]

It is actually ironic that Mulcahy was the guy who came to the AD's office from politics, and he was undone by politics.

Pernetti was the guy who came to the AD's office from media, and he was undone by media.

 

[retired711]

sorry, but it makes no sense for the "power brokers" to have been able to fire Mulcahy, but unable to prevent the appointment of someone largely like him. Not much power there. Sorry, but you just cannot sell me on this implausible story absent a lot more evidence.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I think the difference is Pernetti was not "political"- basically the thought was that Mulcahy was typical NJ corrupt political appointment being financially dishonest. But in terms of athletics, both were there to grow football, that's for certain.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Originally posted by Upstream:
It is actually ironic that Mulcahy was the guy who came to the AD's office from politics, and he was undone by politics.

Pernetti was the guy who came to the AD's office from media, and he was undone by media.

Hermann was brought in to heal after a bullying crisis...and was *almost* undone by a bullying crisis.

We need to bring in someone who comes in from national championships lol...