I agree that the offensive staff hire is going to be a major factor whether schiano sinks or swims here. If it’s nunzio , he might be finished
Would Rutgers be better off in the ACC?
- Thread starter Morrischiano
- Start date
So Schiano now gets a minimum of 10 years to produce a winning record. Why don't we just offer him a lifetime contract, makes sense to me.
I never said schiano gets 10 years. But I said we are 10 hard years from being a respectable program.
I know schiano, I think he is a good guy, but he has to hire a good offensive staff to continue the rebuild.
He has grown a lot from his faults on his first time here, but he has to show more growth.
Depends who they bring in as assistants. I would be okay with Nunzio if we hire a true QB coach.
What evidence do you have that Schiano would allow an offensive staff to have a vision that risks putting pressure on the defense by not prioritizing time of possession, let alone giving someone with that vision (or any OC for that matter) 2-4 years to get it done?
You can reincarnate Mike Leach for the Rutgers OC job, and if the struggles of implementing a “new” Air Raid offense at RU meant there were a lot of three and outs he would be gone after a year or two like every other Schiano OC.
People don’t want to face that there is little chance for a good hire as a Schiano OC in 2022-23, because the principles held by the innovative offensive minds in college football are completely at odds with Schiano’s principles for coaching football.
I don't think we need to run an air raid offense to be successful. I think with a vision and a QB we can be successful.
Again my dream offense is everything balanced and single back. A te/h or 2 te sets. Zone stretch to create double teams and zone read. Counter. Level reads, boots, vertical stretch passing game. Rpo and s good okay action game.
The only way the ACC GOR is broken is if a majority of teams leave the conference. There aren't enough B1G/SEC caliber teams in the conference for that to happen, so you'd have to have Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia Tech type teams voluntarily leave the conference for the Big 12 or AAC and that isn't happening.
Never said otherwise about ACC tv deal. You do realize there is other sources of income, especially for Major successful programs, right?
FSU and Clemson bring in 71 and 63 million a year.
Where does Syracuse football rank in ACC in spending, revenue? ‘We’re committed’ to compete
Syracuse is resourcing its program with more staff members this season.
7 big ten programs bring in less…
Where does Syracuse football rank in ACC in spending, revenue? ‘We’re committed’ to compete
Syracuse is resourcing its program with more staff members this season.
Again, please tell me what is factually incorrect what I was saying?
Throw away everything football related.
Now throw away everything athletic competition related.
Just the collaboration on cancer research alone with the other B1G institutions makes B1G membership worthwhile for Rutgers.
Now throw away everything athletic competition related.
Just the collaboration on cancer research alone with the other B1G institutions makes B1G membership worthwhile for Rutgers.
Why couldn't that collaboration happen anyway?
This always seemed so weird.
Would schools really refuse to collaborate because "well they play football against other teams"?
Are we refusing a collaboration opportunities with Stanford because of athletics?
The state of the football team shouldn't be impacting academic opportunities.
On the flip side would Michigan really say "Rutgers? No way we can't collaborate. Oh we're playing them in football now? Ok we can work together."
Seems wildly misguided.
Seems wildly misguided.
No but B1G membership makes you are part of a highly exclusive academic research peer group with access to world class facilities and research teams.
Cue the old Amex theme "Membership, has it's privileges."
Some fail to grasp that the B1G is an academic organization that is also a significant player in college sports. The value of the sports teams is tiny compared to the research side.
On the sports side where the B1G is a significant player in many sports it allows for better player recruitment. But as with anything, you need to manage it properly to yield the benefits. Examples of this can be seen in men's basketball, baseball, the soccer programs for example. Football can achieve it too but it's a much steeper mountain to climb.
Exactly. It's like being a member of a private country club.
But it’s not an academic organization. It’s an athletic affiliation!
Do you think today the Michigan and Ohio state message boards are posting how great the BIG is with academic collaboration ?? Lol
Laugh away, self proclaimed legend, what you don't know is what you don't know.
What the legend isn't aware of one of the biggest aspects of the B1G....lol. Go to Google and educate yourself a bit. The academic research between the schools is a very big thing.
Membership into the B1G conference is not all about sports. It is a University membership
Regardless of "attitudes" nobody wanted to settle for a conference most would've been happy for a landing place after the big east started to implode. I wanted the ACC because i'm more interested in playing schools in the mid atlantic and southeast then the midwest. I'm always down to follow the $$$ though....
Very fair statement. BE was falling apart and we all would have loved the ACC but hit the lotto with B1G.
Anyone questioning it is a fool. Anyone that thinks we would be any better on the field, is a bigger fool.
We are not where we are because of B1G competition- we are here because our school can’t figure out how to build a football team in the highest revenue conference there is. How would we be better with 10’s of millions less per year?
Air raid was just an example. The point is that Schiano is all about the defense, and has no patience for any kind of offense which puts pressure on his defense, so he would has never shown the same patience for an OC building his offense that people expect us to show for him.
There is the Big Ten Academic Alliance.
Which coincidentally has the exact same membership as the Big Ten Athletic Conference.
Could a school join the BTAA and not the BTAC?
It doesn't seem you can be in one without the other.
YepNever said otherwise about ACC tv deal. You do realize there is other sources of income, especially for Major successful programs, right?
FSU and Clemson bring in 71 and 63 million a year.
Where does Syracuse football rank in ACC in spending, revenue? ‘We’re committed’ to compete
Syracuse is resourcing its program with more staff members this season.www.syracuse.com
7 big ten programs bring in less…
Where does Syracuse football rank in ACC in spending, revenue? ‘We’re committed’ to compete
Syracuse is resourcing its program with more staff members this season.
Again, please tell me what is factually incorrect what I was saying?
And if either one of those them was out of the ACC and in the B1G/SEC, that number would be much higher
Ticket prices, booster donations, apparel etc would all immediately dramatically increase
The ACC is absolute dog shit - and getting worse by the year
I should know - my school has been in the league for 30 years and carried it football wise damn near half the time
I think the number is 9 if I remember correctly
Big 4 are FSU, Clemson, UVA & UNC
Next rung = Miami, NC State, VT, Duke
Tweeners = GT, Ville + Pitt
Wake, BC, and Cuse have no shot
All those talk about "higher conference revenue" is meaningless.
More money doesn't mean better AD.
Because every other school gets the same money.
For every additional dollar we receive from the conference - every other team is getting the same to spend.
More money is only beneficial if the AD is smarter at spending those additional dollars than the other ADs.
Money outside of conference revenue is where it matters (donations to AD) compared to conference members.
And according to most - we are behind the rest of the Big Ten in that money.
More money doesn't mean better AD.
Because every other school gets the same money.
For every additional dollar we receive from the conference - every other team is getting the same to spend.
More money is only beneficial if the AD is smarter at spending those additional dollars than the other ADs.
Money outside of conference revenue is where it matters (donations to AD) compared to conference members.
And according to most - we are behind the rest of the Big Ten in that money.
Not the only one. Connecticut and South Florida come to mind. And they would kill to be in the Big Ten.
I agree with you. Don’t get you keep comparing BIG and ACC.
I’ve said many times BIG >>>> ACC financially. We agree.
I think RU is in a different scenario than your team. We are in the NY market which is a front-running city that loves winners. The popularity of Rutgers in the big east when they were good…much larger than the popularity of Rutgers now.
A competitive RU team in the ACC will bring in more donations, tickets, apparel revenue than a shitty RU team in the BIG, imo
It depends on the level of success
We’d have to roll through the ACC like Clemson the last 7 years and FSU before that
Mid pack wouldn’t move the needle for our fan base
I disagree. A middle of the pack top 25-15 team would be huge for the program and the fanbase.
Just because they would kill for it doesn’t mean it’s a good decision.
With the 12 team playoff and guaranteed G5 spot it’s not such an easy decision.
UConn or USF could win the AAC and go to the CFP (with all the attention and fanfare that brings) or go to Big Ten with making a low level bowl at 6-6 the ceiling.
Is that really worth the additional money?
Obviously for the schools and athletic departments (they are businesses after all)….yes, it’s CERTAINLY worth the additional money.
For us fans??? I’d rather see a successful team. And I think we’d have more success in the ACC
It's worth the additional everything. Unlike a lot of Rutgers fans, who aim fir mediocrity and don't think winning a lot is possible, other people think their teams can compete, deluded or not. They don't back down based on such calculations.
