The Legend of Saint Greg
- Thread starter sherrane
- Start date
The NJ.com guys said yesterday on their podcast that they have heard that Rutgers is prepared to pay $3.5 million for the next head coach. They did not know what the staff budget would be. Who knows if true but it seems reasonable to me.
That's what I expected prior to any rumors of larger numbers. I said while we still had Ash expect our next candidate to get in that 3-3.5M range but don't expect the pool of candidates to change much. That's sort of becoming an entry level P5 salary more and more these days....I don't agree with that it's a deserved salary for a first time P5 HC but that's what you see.
The key clause in your post is “once we’ve rebuilt.”
How many years will it take for RU to be rebuilt? Given where we are today I’m thinking that 4 years is about the over/under for the Rebuild. It could take longer.
2 B1G wins and 2 OOC wins per year is probably the upside for the next 3 or more years imo. Right now that is far out of reach with our current roster.
Unless we have some rare very good luck, I think that's probably correct. Which could be a little depressing if I wasn't so irritatingly happy most of the time.
But only Temple is an "original" BCS team (1998). UConn and USF were still in FCS at the time while UCF was an Independent. Cincinnati was a BCS team without being in the P5 as well as Houston and SMU (inaugural year of the American Athletic Conference).
Louisville, TCU, and Utah are P5 teams that weren't original BCS teams.
Most of my data is from ESPN[dot]com. You can examine team schedules as far back as 2001 (I believe), with the team rankings the week of the game.
We must knight, Saint Gregory of Brunswick. Tis will be a joyous time once again.
Last edited:
I always operate on the principle that it's never wise to mess with another man's sheep.
Yes, forgot about the rest of them.
Temple dropped out of the BCS way before the rest of them did in 2004.
the program is at the level of Shea. The OP trashes the one guy who won at RU and then advocates that RU will find another needle in the haystack preferring to take a 1% chance that happens instead of hiring Schiano who will stop the bleeding almost immediately and has a fair chance at getting us back to bowls
Addazio / BC situation is a great example. That is honestly my big fear of going with Schiano. Thanks for doing the analysis to confirm what I've always felt with Greg, which was, he doesn't do too well against good coaches. He has a past (Rutgers, Tampa Bay and Ohio State) of being outcoached by coaches with lesser or equal talent. Also, make no mistake, if we ever bring Greg back, he will have a very long leash. So, IF winning 5-7 wins every year became the norm, it will be the norm for a long long time - I mean like 10 years or so.
That said, I support the idea of bringing him back, only because I think he would immediately bring Rutgers back to respectability and stability. But it is not the "no brainer" slam dunk that people think it is. If anything, it's the opposite.
If Hobbs hires Candle and he doesn't work out. We have a new AD and a new coach in 4 years - maybe 3 years if no progress is seen. If Greg v2.0 doesn't work out, we are going to be stuck with Greg for a very long time.
It is a tough call - it's like making a deal with the devil - so to speak.
Last edited:
The OP didn't trash anybody. He presented facts.
Your post strongly implies that you feel the facts trash Schiano. If so, maybe you should reevaluate your opinion of him.
I don't think you have fairly summarized his position at all. He didn't trash anyone but presented hundreds of games worth of statistics for various coaches. He also later said he specifically went into the examination for the purpose of confirming his positive view of Schiano and still would support his hiring.
The next guy did a nice enough job blowing games against Pitt and Louisville to not win it outright and a BCS bid..
In my view, another 4 years of 1 win seasons would do irreparable damage.
Schiano getting us to 6 or 7 wins...and going to, and with his history, likely winning some of the best bowls we've ever played in...and then leaving a very nicely wrapped gift for the next guy seems way more ideal.
If you're expecting us to go toe to toe with tOSU I see your point. I'm more expecting us to be an Iowa.
Well it took 3 years to get to competitive and 5 years to get to "good (a bowl)" under Greg-1. My hope is that with so much more infrastructure/program elements in place, he or someone else could get us to 6 wins and a bowl in 3-4 years.
What is irreparable damage? We are not getting kicked out of the B1G - that's just crazy nonsense.
Look, I would love to go bowling again also. But, unlike many here, I am fully aware of the price we have to pay for it. There is a lot of risk to Greg v.2.0. He will go up against better coaches in the B1G East than the Big East. So, there is no guarantee he will repeat what he did in 2006 or become an Iowa. That's the risk.
Schiano never even tied for first, even in 2006 w/some future superstar players. Not exactly seeing how pointing out that Flood actually managed to do what Schiano couldn't (with the same players) helps Schiano.
I agree with this as a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done. Some of it by Greg himself.
Curious...what makes you believe with high probability that Schiano will achieve similar results (7/5 to 8/4) against a much stronger strength of schedule? Word from tOSU is that he's still very much a micro-manager, doesn't scheme to the strengths of his players, and doesn't make adequate in-game adjustments.
Greg should recruit well with the B1G tag, but would it be 'well enough' against our peers? I actually believe that 3 to 4 ranked teams in the B1G East will be the new norm going forward. Powers are coalescing.
What some of you don’t seem to understand is the numbers the op presented are consistent with a top 40 program. Not a top 25 program. A top 40 program is by definition an average p5 team. He had rutgers at top 40 recruiting against the p5 in a failing conference. The numbers out of context are not meaningful not to mention statistically insignificant for the most part. Top 40 was pretty good for Rutgers who knows maybe top 25 recruiting in the big. Or we can cycle rinse and repeat with some up and comer assistant or a retread. This decision is the no brainer to end all no brainers assuming the guy wants to be here.
See here is a perfect example of the Schiano or bust mentality. The data is not meaningful? The data has NOTHING TO DO with a top 40 or 25 program.
The data shows Schiano loses to good coaches. THAT is what the data shows.
the slam was in the thread title..obviously
also no regard to the uniqueness of Rutgers and the program history given where it came from. Its a huge consideration. People act as if RU has had levels of success that make it like any other job. I dont think people are honest with RU's place in the athletic world, its truly at the bottom..just going off of history now when you add in RU hoops 28 years of no NCAA
You can throw all the facts, stats and figures you want at me.
GS’s failure here netted him offers from Michigan, Miami and the NFL, those two college jobs are the only ones we know about... someone other than you thought his tenure here was quite good.
All I know is I traveled this country extensively, and the perception of RU football and Schiano was a miracle.
GS’s failure here netted him offers from Michigan, Miami and the NFL, those two college jobs are the only ones we know about... someone other than you thought his tenure here was quite good.
All I know is I traveled this country extensively, and the perception of RU football and Schiano was a miracle.
You have a valid point that there are intangible factors to be considered. There are intangible factors for all coaches, including Schiano - some good and some bad. But they should only be considered in the context of all relevant data, which includes all the numbers the OP dug up and arranged for us.
The title is a bit of well-deserved light mockery of the only-Schiano camp. There are definitely some who are treating Schiano as some kind of mystical being whose mere presence will instantly transform RUFB to respectability.
Which is a completely ridiculous proposition. Only consistently winning games against tough competition can transform RUFB to respectability. And the OP's numbers present a troubling reality about Schiano's being able to consistently win against tough competition.
Do you think Rutgers employs any "in-house" of subcontracted sports analytics services for football or any of their sports?
History may repeat itself, right? Isn't that your argument? That Schiano can repeat what he did? So, why can't history of not winning the conference because he would lose to good coaches not repeat too? I distinctly remember you slamming me after we got our arses handed to us by Brian Kelly on the opening game of the 2009 season. I said all hope is not lost - be positive and YOU essentially told me to STFU cause you were so disappointed with Schiano and didn't think he would ever get over the hump - as far as winning championships. That was the Big East where he feasted on guys like Kragthorp and Greg Robinson. The B1G East has elite coaches and his history has shown he has struggled with elite coaches. We can't just poopoo that fact.
If you guys say - hey I know what Schiano can do and I'm ok with it. That's fine. But let's not pretend like Schiano is a slam dunk hire. He is not. There are a lot of risks associated with it, mainly, if we get it wrong - we are stuck with it for a long long time. I'm ok with that risk only because we need stability. BUT, it is not a no-brainer. Far from it.
Similar threads
