1. Why was the person who leaked the investigation not punished?
If you believe the reports, the person who leaked the details of an ongoing investigation had an ax to grind because they were passed over for an athletics position. This person was not a whistle blower and should have been severely pinished if not dismissed.
2. How does the teachers union reveal the grade of the player with impunity? How did they even get the grade? Isn't this all protected at Rutgers?
3. With advisors monitoring and tutoring every player, going to class with them, how does the kid even get into such a situation? If he was cutting class or not doing his assignments, did Flood know? Why was Flood helping him with homework in the first place? Granted the report said it was not an issue and I get that Flood cares but the advisors are supposed to be doing this not a highly paid coach who is trying to change the face of the program. Was the class appropriate for him?
4. What was the motivation of the academic advisor staff to report him in the first place? The teacher didn't complain. Were they defensive that maybe they dropped the ball and didnt like that Flood was doing their job? Everything I've heard about our academic support program was that it was top notch. If the kid is required to attend class, has help doing his homework, he should be able to pass. If the class is such where one or two tests are make or break and the kid might struggle, than maybe he should have been advised to take something else. It's not easy to get into the school so I have to believe that the player was capable.
5. How did the administration even come up with the punishment? What precedent did they even follow. If they wanted a severe punishment, they could easily have issued a severe reprimand and a fine of 200,000 and training. Hurting the team, the program, by suspending him has only one objective, a political one, to punish the program and not just the coach. Was this their real purpose? Is the administration feeling the pressure from their ascension into the B1G. Are the academics jockeying to assert their political power. Was there a fear that the donor contributions would start to dry up on the academic side if football, basketball and the other sports started to capture the attention of the donor base?
In all the posts and stories, I have yet to see anyone address any of these questions. Maybe I just missed it.
If you believe the reports, the person who leaked the details of an ongoing investigation had an ax to grind because they were passed over for an athletics position. This person was not a whistle blower and should have been severely pinished if not dismissed.
2. How does the teachers union reveal the grade of the player with impunity? How did they even get the grade? Isn't this all protected at Rutgers?
3. With advisors monitoring and tutoring every player, going to class with them, how does the kid even get into such a situation? If he was cutting class or not doing his assignments, did Flood know? Why was Flood helping him with homework in the first place? Granted the report said it was not an issue and I get that Flood cares but the advisors are supposed to be doing this not a highly paid coach who is trying to change the face of the program. Was the class appropriate for him?
4. What was the motivation of the academic advisor staff to report him in the first place? The teacher didn't complain. Were they defensive that maybe they dropped the ball and didnt like that Flood was doing their job? Everything I've heard about our academic support program was that it was top notch. If the kid is required to attend class, has help doing his homework, he should be able to pass. If the class is such where one or two tests are make or break and the kid might struggle, than maybe he should have been advised to take something else. It's not easy to get into the school so I have to believe that the player was capable.
5. How did the administration even come up with the punishment? What precedent did they even follow. If they wanted a severe punishment, they could easily have issued a severe reprimand and a fine of 200,000 and training. Hurting the team, the program, by suspending him has only one objective, a political one, to punish the program and not just the coach. Was this their real purpose? Is the administration feeling the pressure from their ascension into the B1G. Are the academics jockeying to assert their political power. Was there a fear that the donor contributions would start to dry up on the academic side if football, basketball and the other sports started to capture the attention of the donor base?
In all the posts and stories, I have yet to see anyone address any of these questions. Maybe I just missed it.
