Was talking to someone in Rutgers tickets sales
- Thread starter HeavenUniv.
- Start date
3 would be an unfortunate conundrum because it's definitive middle ground.
I would guess that with 3 wins and no blowouts - not even against OSU, et al, he might stick. But if we win 3 games and continue to get blown out in the tougher conference games, I would vote him off the island.
We discussed this a lot in the fall, but the aspects of the contract that make it a bad deal are that it is fully guaranteed, is measured in contract years that start months after the football season (ensuring that whenever he lets go he'll be receiving an extra third of a year of salary), the fully guaranteed raises, and then the extension.
The contract is incredibly backloaded and I believe it will still cost more than $7 million to fire Ash after next season. Basically, if you're the Rutgers AD in 2015, you cannot afford to sign any contract that you can't afford the buyout. By not firing Ash at end of 2018, Hobbs essentially acknowledged that this is what he did.
It isn't because this is just the calculated additional funds lost this year. The actual yearly loss for the year compared to 2015 is several million more. In other words, it's snowballing -- Ash is costing more than $5 million in lost revenue just this year!
Maryland had a clause in their contract with that the payout was 65% of the remainder, which is smart.
@rutgersguy1 has railed against this. It may be hard to negotiate, but any coach worth his weight and has confidence in his abilities should be willing to agree to payout reductions on a schedule if they do not produce a certain number of wins and/or if attendance falls below a certain level. The coaches get plenty of bonuses for making bowls and a lot of other trivial accomplishments--why shouldn't they agree that if they get canned for poor performance that the full amount is not due?
It will not happen, but I would take it a step further and include:
"In year 3 of Coach X's contract, the base salary is $X Million, provided the team wins at least 5 (or 6) games during the regular season. For each win under 5 games, there will be a reduction of salary of $100,000."
Good luck getting that signed.
And one would hope that also includes no WTF losses to either UMass or Liberty, which perhaps should result in immediate relieving of his duties. Of course, with either of those two not being Ws, it's likely a reach that there will be 3+ wins anyway.
I know we've been over this a lot before, but what was Ash's leverage exactly? If he wouldn't sign what was being offered, let him walk, as there were others with similar qualifications available for a similar price.
Over time, Hobbs had made reference to the fact that Ash was willing to take the job. Some have said on this forum that PJ and Greg were interested. Expressing interest and getting down to accepting an offer are two different things. PJ or Greg may have well said something (this is total speculation) that they would be interested for $4 million/year. We all know that would never fly at Rutgers, and given our financial position, perhaps Hobbs was forced to bottom fish for candidates.
IIRC, we were a little late on Babers, and he was pretty close to a deal with Syracuse.
Keep in mind that other than a few posters, most were pretty stoked about the hiring of Ash. Even the NJ.com story was mostly positive.
https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2015/12/rutgers_expected_to_hire_chris_ash_as_head_coach_p.html
What probably happened is that Hobbs locked in on Ash, decided he was the man for the job, and did not look back.
I don't recall if it ever came out who else was seriously in the mix, but based on things Hobbs has said before, it did not sound like there were a lot of people lining up to take the job for what Rutgers was willing to offer.
The comments to the above nj.com story are interesting to read today.
Here are two of many:
"3 years ago
So, which is better, an assistant coach from a National Championship team who has worked for the best head coach in the country, or someone who has winning head coaching experience from a MAC or MEAC school?
I'll go with the guy who knows what it takes to win against the top programs in the country."
"3 years ago
The first p[iece of advise for Ash will be to not listen to the alumni or read the newspapers and keep the NSL out of your locker room. This is a good choice and kudos to Hobbs. He obviously knew enough to get the input from his B1G AD colleagues. A new coach had to have B1G roots plus it looks like he has some recruiting credentials in Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa. U of NJ needs guys from there too, not just NJ talent. Very good way to end the week. Now get rid of the BB coach next Saturday"
I think your recollection and recounting is fair. I just think the entire mindset of "gotta have this guy," when this guy is pretty clearly a guy that may or may not succeed, is crazy.
It is hard to hire good coaches, even top programs get it wrong all the time. So I won't fault Hobbs at all for getting the initial hire wrong, but damn it is hard to find something to point to that is he has done well so far. That's what makes his retention so hard to swallow, there's almost nothing you can point to that even seems to be moving in the right direction.
I agree.
But this is much like a merger of two companies or a marriage that seems great at the time. Both sides have love in their eyes and are thinking what a wonderful life they will have together.
Then when things go to hell, regrets creep into both parties' minds. At some level (and he does not hide it), Ash must be wondering why he signed on at Rutgers. He does not seem to respect Rutgers or its traditions. He basically tried to do things the Ohio State way when he was playing with non-Ohio State talent. He is a very wooden, stereotypical midwestern type of guy who did not adapt well to his surroundings.
Ash had all the attributes of what RU wanted and needed in a coach, except for local ties. He had the B1G pedigree. He had the backing of Urban Meyer and Barry Alvarez (for whatever they were worth).
What's funny is that most people seem to say that Ash was the muscle behind tOSU's defense, and Luke Fickel played a lesser role. Fickel seems to be killing it at Cincinnati. Or is he? He is living off of some pretty highly ranked recruiting classes within the AAC of his predecessor. His first two recruiting classes were great and then good.
If Ash crashes, does Hobbs take a run at Fickel? Or will we be bottom fishing again? Fickel will make $2.3 Million at Cincinnati this year, which is about the same Ash makes at a B1G school.
Still cheaper on Stubhub.
https://www.stubhub.com/rutgers-scarlet-knights-football-tickets/performer/27695/
This
Losing 7000 season ticket holders { Ticket revenue, Parking, Seat Gift, Concessions , Donations) this season cost substantially more than the $3million buyout of Ash and his staff. Compound that over the next 3 years and the state of the Program is in financial disaster. B1G Full shares in 4 years time will help.
and a drop in Middlesex County ticket revenue siap
My problem is the contract, how the hell could you give something like that to a first time head coach?
Nobody was beating down the doors.
There are some who still insist that Schiano was interested in the job. This is a 100% outright lie.
Annnnnnnnnnnnd.........a little birdie told me Barchi didn't want anything to do with him.
I’ve been disenfranchised... I already voted him off the island but he’s still here
Landed four 4 star recruits his first year. Won 5 games his third year.
Wake me up when Ash does either one of those. It’s year 4.
He’s still young enough to make a 15 year run at it and retire at 70. Assuming he still wants to coach.
If not go the FCS route.
Well before last year I said he could go theoretically winless (which he essentially did with just 1 win over Texas State) and he'd be back for this year. I also said there's probably a greater than 50% chance he'd be back for year 5 with 4-5 wins in year 4....the 1 win season last year maybe I dial that a little back to 50-50. 3 wins or fewer greater than 50% chance he's gone and 6 wins for sure he's back. I still think those are about the odds.
I'm not sure I understand the narrative that Ash was pretty much our only choice, which is why Hobbs had little negotiating room. That's not what I remember.
Sure, Flood had the program in a downturn. That's why he was fired. But that's not unusual. Most HC hires to replace fired coaches are for programs in downturns; that's the most common reason for coaches to be fired.
But we had just joined the Big Ten; we were a few years away from Schiano's proof that a coach could be successful at Rutgers; and Flood had made a bowl game in the B1G, albeit with Schiano's players.
Rutgers was an attractive enough job to attract plenty of coaches looking to move up from lower conferences or from coordinator roles. There would have been other options if Ash walked due to a less lucrative buyout package.
Sure, Flood had the program in a downturn. That's why he was fired. But that's not unusual. Most HC hires to replace fired coaches are for programs in downturns; that's the most common reason for coaches to be fired.
But we had just joined the Big Ten; we were a few years away from Schiano's proof that a coach could be successful at Rutgers; and Flood had made a bowl game in the B1G, albeit with Schiano's players.
Rutgers was an attractive enough job to attract plenty of coaches looking to move up from lower conferences or from coordinator roles. There would have been other options if Ash walked due to a less lucrative buyout package.
Agree with all that. Downtrodden lower status programs like us are able to hire solid candidates....what makes us any different. People always like to think we're unique but we're not and there are always quality candidates out there worthy of an opportunity. Ash wasn't on my radar but his resume was worthy of an opportunity but if his agent's ask was too much well then there are similar candidates just as good worthy of an opportunity that are out there.
I mean Kansas just hired Les Miles and while on the backside of his career he's definitely got a resume worthy of an opportunity...and look at the stuff they're trying to pull on their former coach. ISU hired Matt Campbell. KSU hired a top coach from the FCS, Cuse hired Babers and the list goes on and on....Now when any of these guy were hired who knows if they would be successful or not but the point you can find them and if others turn you down there are still more out there. It's a matter of how much you're fixated on a particular candidate or are you willing to scour further for other quality worthy of an opportunity candidates.
You don't have to bend over backwards with extra long contracts or unreasonable clauses especially for a candidate who is unproven (which frankly most are even some that may have had success elsewhere).
Last edited:
Don't think anyone said "only." Maybe once candidates started doing their due diligence and (1) seeing what Flood did in recruiting; (2) massive loss of players due to arrests and dismissals; (3) looming sanctions; (4) competing in the B1G East; (5) low pay in expensive NJ, they passed and decided to wait for another opportunity.
How many other legitimate candidates did we hear about?
Was Ash even mentioned until he was just about hired? I don't think so IIRC. People throw out names but who is to know for sure who is on Hobbs radar unless you're in his inner circle. Agents can always throw out stuff but who is to know it's true. Regardless they're are always worthy candidates out there up for practically any challenge.
I don't follow MBB as closely any more but IIRC take the example of MBB. Didn't Hurley ask for 7 years but we didn't give it and regardless of what happened after with Jordan and now Pikiell I think that was correct. It's just too much to give to an unproven coach. The clauses were fine if you had some protection for the school dependent on the severity of any possible sanction. We weren't UNC or USC to be worried about such stuff but if a candidate wanted assurances go ahead and give it based on severity if not severe (which they weren't) then no tacked on years. It covers both sides as opposed to these typical one sided deals for the coach. You could also reduce the guarantees if you so badly wanted to tack on years....then reduce the guarantees in the later years....I've seen that kind of thing done at times as well.
Would take Jeff Monken or Mike Norvell today.
The whole saving money thing isn’t going to work out.
Because you’re not really saving much. Ash will move on and get some reasonable salary as a DC somewhere and the buyout won’t be 2 million a year. People will buy tickets and the end result won’t be a big number.
And just think if he had a 5 year deal like he should of had in the first place. It would of been easy to fire him and the new coach would of already been through a whole recruiting cycle.
Sad
The whole saving money thing isn’t going to work out.
Because you’re not really saving much. Ash will move on and get some reasonable salary as a DC somewhere and the buyout won’t be 2 million a year. People will buy tickets and the end result won’t be a big number.
And just think if he had a 5 year deal like he should of had in the first place. It would of been easy to fire him and the new coach would of already been through a whole recruiting cycle.
Sad
if you hire a questionably successful coach, there is no way to win...... if we did not have that built in extension in Ash's contract , other programs point out to recruits that he is probably going to be fired soon, because he has not been extended......so, if you do extend, to protect Ash's verbals and/or near verbals, you run the risk of having a long contract for someone you would rather get rid of a few years later
every 5 year contract with any coach runs into this timeline....a decision must be made....but if you let the contract run as is, you hurt that coach when it comes to recruiting...
it is the big programs with tons of money that are not afraid to cut loose a coach with
many years to go on their contract.....we cannot do that, when we extend we are
committed more than those programs
Last edited:
Mike Norvell seems like he'd be a tough get because he's usually at the top of the names every season. But you know with that you still have to keep performing up to standard every year or your once hot burning star could turn to embers. So that plus the fact that he hasn't landed one yet, especially Arkansas recently, could make him possible but on balance I think still a hard one to land. I like Seth Littrell myself but he too is somewhat similar but never hurts to send out feelers to them when necessary.
Still like Dave Aranda if he's willing to go towards a spread. He worked under Leach as a GA and other spread offenses at Hawaii and Utah State so if that rubbed off on him and influenced him that would be good. I actually have seen him talk about being a HC finally, before I wasn't even sure if he wanted to be one and wondered if maybe NFL DC was his dream job. One of his daughters loves Broadway so that couldn't hurt lol. But personality wise if you don't like Ash (who I think is normal personality wise frankly) forget about Aranda. Personality wise he's as bland as Paul Chryst, paint drying might be more exciting. You can definitely feel his love of football and talking about the intricacies and schemes of it. Me I'm more about aptitude that personality so it doesn't bother me but I know it would for many here.
I think higher quality candidates want a full commitment from the school. They want a serious commitment of dollars for their staff, a commitment to facilities and resources, and an administration that believes in the football program and is full steam ahead in supporting it as the face of the university. Barchi wants none of that. I think anyone who’s worth their salt sees Barchi’s and the administration’s lack of effort or care for the program and says no thanks. I’ve heard from moderators on these boards that Greg has said as long as Barchi is here, he wants no part of Rutgers.
As for Ash, I think he blindly believed he could just overcome this, not knowing how difficult it was. He’s seen this as a stepping stone job from day one and thought being a coach would just work like it did at Ohio State. He’s on vacation here, he thinks one day he’ll be coaching Iowa if he gets it done here, that’s where he really wants to be.
Fleck wanted the job BUT Roy Hobbs was on this mission to break away from everthing Schiano ..so he blew a established HC,who had produced a ranked team allready off-PJ Fleck for Asherror.
Nobody knows for 110% certain,but I was told (and there are print reports saying same) Narduzzi did enter the mix late,contacted Roy Hobbs,who told Narduzzi agent that he had a 'handshake' agreement with Asherror!! Narduzzi also has NJ ties,Mother still lives here.
The Camp extension news yesterday though may give a glimmer of hope after all ,with a possible twist for next season.
I've mentioned this before here many times but I don't buy that recruiting crap personally. Oh he's got only so few years on the contract left so he can't recruit. BS to me. On its face it sounds reasonable but in practice I don't think it matters much.
I've said I see recruiting as a tiered pyramid with the tiers of similar talent getting wider as you go down. I think most schools recruit to the tier corresponding to their status on the college landscape regardless of coach. It would take a really exceptional or poor recruiter or longer term good/bad results to move up/down tiers. There are only a limited number of schollies and even a more limited number of playing spots/time. The players want to play so they have to go somewhere. Look how many transfers you see every year from top programs to programs like us of kids leaving for what? An opportunity to play and get on the field. If a coach is secure why are they leaving? Cause it doesn't matter compared to the opportunity to play.
Besides if a coach has a longer contract is he guaranteed to stay? Nope he could leave too because more often that not the clauses in the contract aren't nearly prohibitive enough to prevent them from leaving.
So what do you actually guarantee in practice with a longer contract for a coach? He can leave pretty easily if he's good. Players leave for more playing time. So really the only thing you guarantee is if he sucks the school is on the hook for millions more dollars. Like I said in theory it sounds good and reasonable but in practice on balance it's not worth it.
---
I agree with a lot of what you say here, but we can be pretty certain that other programs would still mention that RU has only one year left on a contract with a head coach.....
how much that affects a recruit..... not known....but what we do know, in today's world of negative recruiting, that it would be brought up.
I dont think other coaches need to point to RU head coach length of contract to negative recruit,the lack of current success,won/loss record alone could be the number one usage by other coaches.Or other HCs could point today to several hot seat coach lists,so what did RU and Hobbs gain from giving the extension other then a bigger buyout?
----
Hobbs did all he could preseason in discounting the hot seat articles.... FYI, it appears the extension was built into the original contract, so it really was not tacked on years, the contract was for seven years, I think
Agree with that but to what effect? Negative recruiting happens anyway and it would just be one more bullet point...so what. Like I said schools still generally recruit to the tier of talent corresponding their status and limited opportunities to play are still limited opportunities to play. In the end I don't think it makes much difference.
And I have seen schools let it go on to 1-2 years on a contract. Sometimes they extend and sometimes they fire. I wanna say McEntyre's contract at Colorado before he had his big season went down to 1-2 years and then of course they gave a nice extension off his 1 big year. Of course it ended up being a flash in the pan, something else I always warn about with contract extensions, and they ended firing a couple years after lol.
IIRC, the initial 2 years operated on a MOU and the official 5 year contract started in year 3 essentially. A rose is a rose etc.....how ever you structure or call it at the outset you were basically signing up anywhere from a likely 6-8 year deal. That's too much IMO. Move on to another guy if that's needed and to me you can find guys worthy of an opportunity out there IMO or at the very least don't fully guarantee the later years.
Hobbs apparently thought that he had found the next Greg Schiano, as Mulcahy did.
Ash was a good candidate as a young DC in the B1G at the time, even without HC experience. Hobbs indicated that Ash was one of the few qualified candidates who wanted the RU job, so we didn’t have any other good options.
Hobbs didn’t know that Ash wasn’t HC material. He simply may have chosen the best available candidate at the time. RU was dealing from a position of weakness, once again. Now we are left to continue with Ash, hoping for a turnaround.
