It is pretty clear to virtually all of us that the report put out by the University yesterday was filled with embarrassing details that made our coach look like a buffoon. At the same time, I do think it is important to keep in mind that the checks and balances actually did work in this case.
While comparing how this may have been swept under the rug at some places isn't the standard we want this program to be judged against, the fact of the matter is that the coach crossed the line and he was reported by academic support. Pressuring the academic side of the university to compromise their standards and integrity to the benefit of athletics is a big no-no, and a line that shouldn't be crossed. Flood chose to cross that line and was appropriately reported on his actions.
Giving Flood the benefit of the doubt, I'm pretty sure if the professor told him to get lost that he ultimately would have, but there was enough persistence on Flood's part that the professor certainly knew what Flood wanted to happen. I am not going to assume the worst with Flood and think his intentions were100% nefarious (I do think he wanted Nadir to earn the better grade...not just be given it).
The other 'good' I take away beyond academic support doing the right thing is that it seems very likely that this was the first time Flood went down this path. I'm guessing virtually all academic stuff is done through academic support (which is why they are there) and the fact that Barnwell was going to be ineligible is why Flood intervened. His bumbling approach to everything, and the fact that he was turned in by academic support, tells me he is an amateur at this stuff. The other thing it tells me is that we have a locker room filled with good kids who are responsible enough to take care of their business and not get to the point where the head coach feels the need to stick his nose where it doesn't belong.
The thing I wonder about now is whether he is, or isn't, the guy we thought he was. This wasn't the crime of the century here, it certainly was no UNC, but he crossed a line he shouldn't have. I always joke that it is easy for me to be faithful to my wife because I am a slightly pudgy late-30s guy who drives a Honda Accord that women aren't throwing themselves at. With no opportunity to behave badly, well...of course I behave. Guys like Quentin Gause, Chris Muller, Darius Hamilton, and others create no opportunity for Flood to face ethical dilemmas. They do what they should. Nadir Barnwell, Ruhann Peele, Andre Boggs obviously do not. I'm not sure his record is all that great when faced with 'temptation', but maybe there are lots of things where the right thing was done and we don't know about it. Those things usually don't make headlines.
I've liked Flood, but don't know where we go from here. I think we can do better at the head coach position, but we could just as easily do worse. I think his potential for a future at Rutgers is rightly very shaky at this point. My struggle is whether he is damaged goods in terms of fans, the administration, his players, recruits, and their families. If he is viewed as damaged goods and it will take 3+ years to restore his image, then the plug needs to be pulled. If all interested parties view the punishment as appropriate and are willing to get back to business as usual after Michigan State, then he can stay. I tend to think he is damaged goods, but I'm not one that really matters in the issue.
While comparing how this may have been swept under the rug at some places isn't the standard we want this program to be judged against, the fact of the matter is that the coach crossed the line and he was reported by academic support. Pressuring the academic side of the university to compromise their standards and integrity to the benefit of athletics is a big no-no, and a line that shouldn't be crossed. Flood chose to cross that line and was appropriately reported on his actions.
Giving Flood the benefit of the doubt, I'm pretty sure if the professor told him to get lost that he ultimately would have, but there was enough persistence on Flood's part that the professor certainly knew what Flood wanted to happen. I am not going to assume the worst with Flood and think his intentions were100% nefarious (I do think he wanted Nadir to earn the better grade...not just be given it).
The other 'good' I take away beyond academic support doing the right thing is that it seems very likely that this was the first time Flood went down this path. I'm guessing virtually all academic stuff is done through academic support (which is why they are there) and the fact that Barnwell was going to be ineligible is why Flood intervened. His bumbling approach to everything, and the fact that he was turned in by academic support, tells me he is an amateur at this stuff. The other thing it tells me is that we have a locker room filled with good kids who are responsible enough to take care of their business and not get to the point where the head coach feels the need to stick his nose where it doesn't belong.
The thing I wonder about now is whether he is, or isn't, the guy we thought he was. This wasn't the crime of the century here, it certainly was no UNC, but he crossed a line he shouldn't have. I always joke that it is easy for me to be faithful to my wife because I am a slightly pudgy late-30s guy who drives a Honda Accord that women aren't throwing themselves at. With no opportunity to behave badly, well...of course I behave. Guys like Quentin Gause, Chris Muller, Darius Hamilton, and others create no opportunity for Flood to face ethical dilemmas. They do what they should. Nadir Barnwell, Ruhann Peele, Andre Boggs obviously do not. I'm not sure his record is all that great when faced with 'temptation', but maybe there are lots of things where the right thing was done and we don't know about it. Those things usually don't make headlines.
I've liked Flood, but don't know where we go from here. I think we can do better at the head coach position, but we could just as easily do worse. I think his potential for a future at Rutgers is rightly very shaky at this point. My struggle is whether he is damaged goods in terms of fans, the administration, his players, recruits, and their families. If he is viewed as damaged goods and it will take 3+ years to restore his image, then the plug needs to be pulled. If all interested parties view the punishment as appropriate and are willing to get back to business as usual after Michigan State, then he can stay. I tend to think he is damaged goods, but I'm not one that really matters in the issue.
