The Report?
- Thread starter RUtix4me
- Start date
If the report uncovered NCAA violations, the report, or at least its findings, will be made public at some point. No doubt.
the fact that the NJ reporters are not digging or even talking about it sort of speaks volumes. The poltical hire of Hobbs at play here may be working...the removal of Julie Hermann at all costs by the media was successful. Its always interesting to see how the media ignores some stories but doesn't let up on others. They are hypocritical for sure but there are usually reasons tied to why they do the things they do.
Ultimately, the media will not ignore this story. Now, if there are no substantial or negative findings that RU has to report and so it keeps the findings confidential as a matter of attorney client privilege, you may never hear another thing about it. But that will mean that there was no substantial wrongdoing found. If, on the other hand, substantial and reportable actions are uncovered, RU will report it, it will be public and you'll see either the findings or the report itself.
I think the issues that are rumored to be in the report--systemic bungling of the university drug testing policy--are not NCAA level infractions. It is my understanding that university athletic departments are to police themselves re: drug testing. Therefore, RU has no responsibility, ethically or legally, to make the report public.
I'm not an OPRA expert by any stretch, but I fail to see how every single piece of university work product is subject to OPRA. If in the normal course of business, the university contracts with outside counsel, consultants or service providers, is that work product subject to an Open Records request? If not, I wouldn't expect the "report" to ever see the light of day.
Multiple people, none of whom know each other, all had the same story re: the report.
The report painted Julie in a very negative light as far as overseer of the drug testing program. Ultimately, this was a buck stops here situation and she paid with her job.
Julie is the definition of an agenda driven hire. That neither she (Obviously she signed an agreement not to discuss it), nor those driving that agenda (Kate Sweeney) uttered a peep on the way out the door is telling.
She was on the path to accomplishing some good things. However, she was clearly not nearly an accomplished enough manager for a job of this scope.
I'm not an OPRA expert by any stretch, but I fail to see how every single piece of university work product is subject to OPRA. If in the normal course of business, the university contracts with outside counsel, consultants or service providers, is that work product subject to an Open Records request? If not, I wouldn't expect the "report" to ever see the light of day.
Multiple people, none of whom know each other, all had the same story re: the report.
The report painted Julie in a very negative light as far as overseer of the drug testing program. Ultimately, this was a buck stops here situation and she paid with her job.
Julie is the definition of an agenda driven hire. That neither she (Obviously she signed an agreement not to discuss it), nor those driving that agenda (Kate Sweeney) uttered a peep on the way out the door is telling.
She was on the path to accomplishing some good things. However, she was clearly not nearly an accomplished enough manager for a job of this scope.
I don't believe this for even one second.
Barchi is on public record saying that nothing further came out of the report. Barchi would be terminated for such a bold-faced lie if that is not the real story. Rutgers has self reported for far less damaging internal problems.
Nice try.
Playing along...why?
If his internal stakeholders know the truth, and as a matter of "family business" decide the report doesn't need to be released, why does he owe anyone a public explanation?
If the report is ever leaked, i guess he would have some 'splainin to do, but other than that, he doesn't owe any of us "the truth."
There is a difference between deciding not to release an internal report..and saying in public that the investigation revealed no further infractions. That's what Barchi did. He said they completed the investigation and nothing further (damaging) has come out. He said this in is presser on Flood and Hermann firing.
He would absolutely have to explain why he lied to the Rutgers Board, alumni, faculty, students, and fans when he said no additional indiscretions will be coming out....if they did in fact leak out. He would be roasted, vilified, and terminated by the Board in hours, not days.
No way he would put himself in this position.
Last edited:
You keep using the word infractions. That's not what we're talking about--at least not me.
Once word of the report being finalized started circulating, people were told that the "report" DID NOT contain possible NCAA infractions. However, it did paint Julie in a very poor light as the manager in charge of making sure all of her teams were following INTERNAL policies and procedures related to drug testing.
Nothing Barchi said contradicts that.
The report does not contain NCAA violations. There is no other shoe to drop about the report. However, what people are saying is the report DOES contain evidence that Julie did not do a good enough job fostering a culture of compliance with the already established university policies and procedures related to drug testing. And she paid for those mistakes with her job.
From Barchi:
“We already evaluated the facts that we know about the situation with Kyle’s interactions (with faculty) in the summer and provided what we thought were the appropriate sanctions for that,” Barchi said. “There are no new facts beyond that, so I think our decision was an appropriate one.”
http://www.app.com/story/sports/col...ers-fires-football-coach-kyle-flood/76528994/
I couldn't read the article because my free APP access for the month is up. That said, you're in the right church but the wrong pew.
We're not rehashing the contact with the professor argument.
The teeth of the report from the firm located in Kansas--the NCAA specialists--was a complete review of the policies and procedures of the football program and how the program rolled up into the broader athletic department.
The second internal investigation was not about Kyle trying to get grades changed, per se.
It was about structural compliance with drug testing, academic integrity and whether or not they were running a tight ship vis a vis the NCAA AND internal policies.
Here is one oft repeated example.
When investigators (from the outside counsel) asked Kyle if he had been to NCAA compliance training, he replied no...none was offered outside of my season. I was not going to miss a day on the field with my guys or in game planning (which is rich, but that's another conversation) to go take a training course.
When investigators pursued this line of thought, they discovered that NO compliance training had been taken by ANYONE for several years under Julie.
Can this story be bullshit? I suppose. But I also bet that you will find several people on this board who heard the same exact story from many different people.
And what are these drug policies..what was so bad? lots of talk but no one coming out with the balls to say anything. And we already know that football players are given more chances to fail these tests than other sports...lets hear details but lets also comparecthem to what happens at other schools
.
Glad it is all over and done with. Onward and upward.
Just for the record, I called this when the investigation started and some were crowing how Flood was going to get canned, and I pointed out if it was a drug compliance issue, that is the AD's job.
Glad it is all over and done with. Onward and upward.
Are you addressing this to me?
First, I don't have that info and you know that--which makes the defense of your girl silly at this point.
Second, I don't think Rutgers has ever been run to the tune of, "well, the 99th man on our roster failed 5 drug tests, but the 99th man at Alabama failed 8."
OK< fair enough. I thought the investigation was to look further into whether there were any NCAA infractions for Flood having contact the teacher.
Still hold that if there was ANY fire whatsoever, Rutgers would have self-reported to mitigate the damage.
It's not as if Rutgers didn't go public with what Mike Rice did. They announced his wrongdoing, and suspended Rice. The only thing they didn't do is show the video, which caused the entire ruckus....not the fact that they tried to hide the incident altogether.
I understand your idea of being proactive, but I think the point we're talking past each other on is there was nothing to self report.
If Whatsamatta U conducts an internal investigation that results in no NCAA violations, the NCAA doesn't care.
Kyle Flood served under 3 ADs...are you telling me he didn't know procedures? are you then saying as an assistant and then as a head man under TP that he was not required to go to compliance. Do we even know how that works...I mean yes we have a general idea but WE as people not privvy to exactly what goes with compliance can we comment on this like we know the facts. Perhaps it was already assumed that he should go to compliance..perhaps it was the responsibility of the compliance officer, I don't know, I am just throwing that out there because Flood wasn't hired 2 and half years ago....and it does not seem that there is any issue with coaches in OTHER sports having issues
I agree there is nothing to self report. That is what I have been saying. If there was something to self report, I'm sure Rutgers would have done so.
You are right, they are not. As somebody that has helped compile OPRA information for a NJ public college the OPRA law has 24 different reasons why a record might not be subject to release.
But apart from the law if there was anything really juicy I doubt they could keep "unidentified sources" from chirping to the NJ Advance crew.
What I heard separately is that part of the investigation was seeing what we needed to do to bring our drug testing policies in line with the Big Ten. Some of our policies were more lenient, some of them more stringent. This portion, at least, was not a finger pointing exercise but more of a push to become compliant with Big Ten policies.
Flood was inept. No doubt. But ultimately, it was his boss' responsibility to make sure he had training every year.
That's just the way big organizations work. Things like this are probably the one example where shit flows upstream.
There is no other plausible explanation for how the events of Thanksgiving week unfolded. Julie went from thinking she was meeting with Barchi to discuss Flood's future, to having a meeting with him that lasted 7 minutes because her replacement had already been hired. Anyone with exposure to large organizations can read between the lines. Things don't unfold that way--with a protected class employee (not trying to be purposely inflammatory, but I feel it's important to the story line)--unless the big boss is holding a full house. Barchi said something to Julie, in under 15 minutes, that got her to accept being fired and agreeing to a non-disclosure. You can't fire the guy who runs the string trimmer on one of your crews that fast in 2015. That Barchi fired a $275k employee in under the time it takes to get Dominoes is very telling to me.
And Bac, don't confuse my position. I was for firing Flood and for keeping Julie. I'm happy with Hobbs and think he is an upgrade, but I wasn't out in the streets with torches and pitchforks for Julie. The OP asked a question. Im posting what several of us were told, all by different people.
It's certainly possible that we're all getting played. I've also said that from my first few posts. Would I bet the mortgage on this info as rock solid? No. But it doesn't take much of a mental leap for me to piece it together.
Something in that report revealed that the systems in the athletic department were missing the mark--badly. Julie paid for that. I can't be convinced she was fired because Flood can't coach.
It's certainly possible that we're all getting played. I've also said that from my first few posts. Would I bet the mortgage on this info as rock solid? No. But it doesn't take much of a mental leap for me to piece it together.
Something in that report revealed that the systems in the athletic department were missing the mark--badly. Julie paid for that. I can't be convinced she was fired because Flood can't coach.
I think it was a bunch of things that got Julie fired. I think the fact that football was in the headlines was frustrating Barchi and he finally said enough..plus he had to face the idea of the facilities for basketball which if you remember he totally was no commenting on and punting it way back a year ago. I sense that Julie was very frustrated that the purse strings were not going to be open and they had to raise a lot of money. I feel that Barchi took the bull by the horns finally decided that money needs to be spent..now perhaps Christie had a private sitdown with him but all of a sudden we no longer hear about the subsidy having to be eliminated before they spend. Hobbs is better suited to raise the type of money needed than Julie was. Its going to take corporate money and some political savvy. I think enough smaller things added up for Barchi to make a move at the right time. I don't think she did anything terribly wrong and she has put this department in better shape and Big 10 ready. I think Hobbs can move forward now...its a bit of a risk but I think politically and with the donors this will be more palapable than having to overcome Pernettitards and their factions.
the ironic thing is that Julie's fate got tied to Flood's incompetence in the end....and she had recognized he was wrong for the job and wanted him out at the end of 2013 but the donors wanted a guy with head coaching experience...lol of course we just hired an assistant...we could have had Herman or Narduzzi and it would saved money all around including saving Julie's job and Flood would have been gone. Barchi wasn't opening any purse strings back then. That the donors were so agenda driven back then, remember it was Julies first 6 months, rather than trusting in her was so foolish. Hopefully we are past these factions in the athletic department and with our donors
You may be right. Time will tell. It's still too early in my mind to write it off and assume that the investigation is over, no NCAA infractions were found and we can move on. Maybe, though. There certainly could be issues found related to things like drug testing that might not implicate NCAA reporting, involve issues of student privacy, and we'll never hear about.
The investigation certainly didn't spit out the type of dead-on fire-for-cause findings that a couple of posters claiming inside information were telling us, along with telling us that RU was holding on to that information until after the last game only then to first Flood for cause.
Let's hope the results weren't that bad, and the investigation has allowed RU to better administer important aspects of its athletic department.
I'll say this:
some here knew about what was going on, for a long time now - as did I and a few posters here can confirm as much - and while at the time I was told it was all on Flood I can't disagree with those saying that, if Julie truly did know - and apparently that's the case - she's (unfortunately) every bit to blame for letting it continue.
some here knew about what was going on, for a long time now - as did I and a few posters here can confirm as much - and while at the time I was told it was all on Flood I can't disagree with those saying that, if Julie truly did know - and apparently that's the case - she's (unfortunately) every bit to blame for letting it continue.
what nonsense--you are still defending her, bac???--she was known as a terrible administrator, a horrible rep of RU in the media and a poor fund raiser, and there was a thick file of her faults floating around--she was a disaster that never got out of her own way--you act like we should rehire her--her firing was all of her own doing--maybe you should email her and hire her yourself--wow a man in love
To be honest, I really don't care what's in the report. I don't need to know. I also don't feel like I ever needed to know there even was a report. That's what the BOG is for - overseeing that kind of stuff and taking action when necessary.
More and more, I feel like people have this burning desire to know all the dirt on everybody and everything. I view it as a particularly unfortunate side-effect of the popularity of reality TV. Everybody thinks they deserve to know everything, even when many of those things do not materially affect the person wanting to know and/or when that person cannot be materially affected by knowing the things.
There are many things that it's important for everyone to know. This report is not one of them.
More and more, I feel like people have this burning desire to know all the dirt on everybody and everything. I view it as a particularly unfortunate side-effect of the popularity of reality TV. Everybody thinks they deserve to know everything, even when many of those things do not materially affect the person wanting to know and/or when that person cannot be materially affected by knowing the things.
There are many things that it's important for everyone to know. This report is not one of them.
I bet you were one that believed Flood when he denied talking to the professor. Go back and stick your head in the sand.
And you do understand that people at Rutgers worked on the investigation along with the law firm.
Also "nothing further came of the report" covers a very wide spectrum of things, IMHO, like "we already knew about the drug test issues, prior to the report, hence.....nothing further came of the report."
Yes the report was ordered for a few reasons that were disturbing but the report confirmed those reason but didn't find anything else
My guess is that there are more than a few in this thread (and it is pretty obvious who they are) who are hoping that the report is "bad" and that it is leaked to the press, even if there are no NCAA reportable infractions. SMH.
Have nothing to add other than to say I found the entire discussion very interesting and informative.
Good job gang
Good job gang
Agree with this. They want Flood and Hermann to go down in flames, for whatever reason.
I'm not sure what other stuff, others heard, but the thing I knew about, IMHO, was just dumb, head-shaking type of stuff (like e-mailgate...not the worse thing, but, really?).
bullshit...her coaches loved her except of course for the two colossal failures...she had to clean up shit that your boy TP never even thought to do. Admistrative wise she moved things forward. I am tired of arguing with stupid. Criticize her all you want for media gaffes, but she was busy doing work that this athletic department passed on for years. Under her watch wrestling and womens soccer as well as mens soccer flourished and she gave these programs attention unlike her predecessors. If you would take your head out of your ass for just one time in your miserable board existence you maybe you can understand.
and unlike you I am not calling for a fired AD to be rehired and I support Hobbs..too bad you and the Pernetti tards only worry about yourselves
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Basketball Rutgers Basketball wins second straight, downs USC 95-85- Latest: Chickadee34
-
