Why didn't Rutgers decide Flood's status prior to the start of the season?

[Armor and Sword]

I ask because over on the other side of the B1G, Illinois dealt with their prairie/dumpster fire by firing Tim Beckman prior the start of the season because of his treatment of injured players . They (or the AD) fired him based on "preliminary" information and they didn't bother waiting to finish a "complete" investigation. Meanwhile, Rutgers suspends Flood after a month-long complete investigation and had preliminary information in the form of Flood's own emails to the professor probably early on. I would think RU had better evidence on Flood than Illinois had on Beckman. You can make the argument that Beckman's case was more urgent, he was jeopardizing health and safety of athletes, but they felt they had enough info to can him for cause and not pay Beckman what was left on his contract ($3 millionish), which was substantially more than Flood's guaranteed $. Maybe the Illinois AD felt confident Cubit can lead the team for the season, yet RU's interim coaching options are more risky, something we will find out on Saturday vs. PSU.

So, was Illinois too hasty or was RU too deliberate with their head coaches cases of misdeeds?

 

[StyleKnight]

Because they had to finish the investigation.

Illinois started their investigation earlier.

 

[Tango Two]

The investigation wasn't completed.

 

[Armor and Sword]

But Illinois acted on preliminary info. They didn't bother waiting for the investigation to be done but I know that situation their started earlier.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2015-08-28/beckman-fired.html

 

[rutgers48]

The investigation wasn't completed.

This. But, Rutgers is usually slow and inept at anything they do so of course a simple investigation that could have been wrapped up in 2 weeks instead took over a month. Not like they were investigating Watergate here.

 

[derleider]

This. But, Rutgers is usually slow and inept at anything they do so of course a simple investigation that could have been wrapped up in 2 weeks instead took over a month. Not like they were investigating Watergate here.

Maybe it could have, maybe it couldnt have. Whats it matter. Do you think it would have been better to have Flood out for games 1-3 rather than 3-5? He misses PSU in boths cases. We dont need him to win Kansas or to lose to MSU. Would the PR be better if we were coming off a 1-2 start with Flood coming back for Kansas rather than this scenario? Probably not.

The problem with rushing the Flood thing is - if you miss some details and they come out later, you leave yourself open to accusations of covering things up or sweeping them under the rug. The end of summer (lots of people on vacation) and the beginning of the school year (probably the most hectic time for everyone) is probably not a great time to try to get things done in general.

For Illinois - you have decided to fire the guy. You couldnt institute a harsher punishment, so at worst, you get accused of overreacting.

 

[Armor and Sword]

Unlike Illinois, Rutgers did not have interview more than 90 individuals, review more than 200,000 documents, and hours of practice and game footage. Yet Illinois was able to fire with cause based on a preliminary review. Rutgers had what, a couple of emails and maybe a dozen witness interviews?

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Rutgers hired an outside firm to do the investigation , who in turn took their time to finish it. Had they finished it before the start of the season, this would had happen at the start of the season, There is no reason to think otherwise.

 

[RUMBA-JK]

Apples / Oranges

In Beckman's case - it was viewed that he was jeopardizing health and safety of athletes and it was a past & present ongoing pattern of behavior. A pattern of behavior that - once brought to their attention - had to be stopped immediately. University would be liable if they knowingly allowed it to continue.

The Flood matter under investigation was a specific situation that occurred over a specific period of time - in the past - so no concern that behavior is continuing - and no risk to health & safety

 

[derleider]

Unlike Illinois, Rutgers did not have interview more than 90 individuals, review more than 200,000 documents, and hours of practice and game footage. Yet Illinois was able to fire with cause based on a preliminary review. Rutgers had what, a couple of emails and maybe a dozen witness interviews?

Yes, and like I said - that makes no difference. Illinois could decide the whole thing based on the prelimnary because it was serious enough that they couldnt they were going to fire the guy just based on the preliminary - no one was going to accuse them of underreacting.

RU had to make sure that it got everything. Because you dont want to suspend the guy for one game, then have it come out that he met with the professor off campus, and then make it look like you went light on him.

 

[Upstream]

Flood's contact with the professor wasn't reported until Aug 12. At that time, according to the report, the involved professor was in Europe through the end of August with limited email and phone access. Assuming you want to talk to the professor before making a decision, you are already at the end of August before you can talk to the professor in person. And it is only at that point that the investigators find out that the contact also included clandestine meetings in Princeton.

 

[RUBigFrank]

did we really need a full scale investigation rather than a sit down with Barchi? It shows the ineptness of leadership at the top - why turn the University into a glasshouse for all to see the inept doings of the senior leadership. This was a simple issue that should not have come to public light!

 

[RU31trap]

did we really need a full scale investigation rather than a sit down with Barchi? It shows the ineptness of leadership at the top - why turn the University into a glasshouse for all to see the inept doings of the senior leadership. This was a simple issue that should not have come to public light!

I too believe you can get the same results using different methodologies. It almost seems like the leadership is advertising Floods punishment to make a point to everyone in the country that here at Rutgers faculty and administrators are still in charge. A school with a bigger football program would have sat quietly to see if the NCAA made a move, if yes, then act. Again, no one is condoning his behavior all we're saying is be a little smarter when administering punishment because you could be cutting your own throat.

 

[derleider]

did we really need a full scale investigation rather than a sit down with Barchi? It shows the ineptness of leadership at the top - why turn the University into a glasshouse for all to see the inept doings of the senior leadership. This was a simple issue that should not have come to public light!

Yes. Once the complaint was lodged, the university needed to do an investigation.

Again - just for PR reasons - if you dont do the investigation and just have a sit down and more stuff comes out then RU ends up looking ever worse.

The thing is it seems simple - if it was just the original story - Flood emailed a professor to find out of Barnwell could earn extra credit. But when you start tacking on the details - he ignored advisers saying to lay off, the professor had already complained about Barnwell's nagging, Flood used his private email and met off campus to avoid being seen - then you get a case that looks much worse for Flood and you should be happy that all of this stuff came out in the span of three weeks, rather than there being some behind the scenes tete a tete between Flood and Barchi and then the details get leaked/uncovered via interviews over the course of a month or two.

And of course, RU did try to keep it out off the public light. Some disgruntled employee leaked the investigation.

 

[Upstream]

And of course, RU did try to keep it out off the public light. Some disgruntled employee leaked the investigation.

At the end, once Flood was suspended, the report would have been public anyway.

And considering that Flood was suspended exactly 1 month after the student submitted the questionable assignment, the timeline doesn't seem that unreasonable.

 

[RU848789]

Apples / Oranges

In Beckman's case - it was viewed that he was jeopardizing health and safety of athletes and it was a past & present ongoing pattern of behavior. A pattern of behavior that - once brought to their attention - had to be stopped immediately. University would be liable if they knowingly allowed it to continue.

The Flood matter under investigation was a specific situation that occurred over a specific period of time - in the past - so no concern that behavior is continuing - and no risk to health & safety

This. Huge difference in the seriousness of the situation. While I've called for Flood to be canned due to the combination of lack of discipline over the team and his dumb mistakes on the Barnwell academics issue, the seriousness of Flood's transgressions pale in comparison to what went on at Illinois. One could argue that it might be tougher to fire Flood for cause, which maybe is why he was just suspended and perhaps RU waits to see how the season goes and then decides to fire him for poor performance if we don't make a bowl.

 

[Armor and Sword]

Flood's contact with the professor wasn't reported until Aug 12. At that time, according to the report, the involved professor was in Europe through the end of August with limited email and phone access. Assuming you want to talk to the professor before making a decision, you are already at the end of August before you can talk to the professor in person. And it is only at that point that the investigators find out that the contact also included clandestine meetings in Princeton.

Good Point

Rutgers hired an outside firm to do the investigation , who in turn took their time to finish it. Had they finished it before the start of the season, this would had happen at the start of the season, There is no reason to think otherwise.

Illinois hired outside counsel to investigate Beckman's case too. Yet the AD felt he had enough to go on to act on Beckman before the final report came out. Maybe health and safety issues made the matter more urgent for the AD to act.

And of course, RU did try to keep it out off the public light. Some disgruntled employee leaked the investigation.

I was curious how this got out in the first place. Even if the academic advisors sent the matter up the food chain, there was no obligation to make this public.

 

[RUBigFrank]

Good Point



Illinois hired outside counsel to investigate Beckman's case too. Yet the AD felt he had enough to go on to act on Beckman before the final report came out. Maybe health and safety issues made the matter more urgent for the AD to act.



I was curious how this got out in the first place. Even if the academic advisors sent the matter up the food chain, there was no obligation to make this public.

Barchi could have come to the same conclusion without the investigation and resulting suspension - the investigation was just a CYA on his part - remember in the Mike Rice affair his claim that he did not see the video. Barchi can now claim he left no stone unturned - opening up a glass house with an incriminating written report that really stigmatizes the coach.

essentially he could of just simply suspended Flood - the faculty union would have been happy keeping the cultural status quo academics over athletics

 

[REDRICH65]

Beckman had 100 kids ready to start fall camp. If the allegations were true, UI could b seen as putting their health at risk. He had to go immediately.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

As others have noted, the obvious difference is the severity of the charge. Beckman was gone as soon as they found any proof of the alleged wrongdoing.

 

[biazza38]

I really don't know how anyone can even draw this comparison.
Do you know how dumb Rutgers would look if they just suspended him for three games after a complaint from a professor and did not investigate? As much as i hate investigations, they did what they had to do.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Good Point



Illinois hired outside counsel to investigate Beckman's case too. Yet the AD felt he had enough to go on to act on Beckman before the final report came out. Maybe health and safety issues made the matter more urgent for the AD to act.



I was curious how this got out in the first place. Even if the academic advisors sent the matter up the food chain, there was no obligation to make this public.

Unless, the same person(s) who sent it up the food chain leaked it?

just spit ballin' of course...

 

[knightfan7]

Hadn't the Illini allegations been reported in the media well before the school started investigating or do I have the timeline mixed up?