Right here.
Not as simple as, "yeah, I want him back next year," but, no, I don't think Rutgers should let him go.
Edit: I'm writing this on BART, heading back into the city from SFO after flying in from Ann Arbor.
Poll: Should RU keep Flood or let him go
- Thread starter RUtix4me
- Start date
Not as simple as, "yeah, I want him back next year," but, no, I don't think Rutgers should let him go.
Edit: I'm writing this on BART, heading back into the city from SFO after flying in from Ann Arbor.
I have yet to meet one in real life Floodie. People in my section have been going crazier by the week, I hear people in the lots screaming, and every other alum I know, even casual fans or non followers, just hate that Flood is besmirching the entire name of the university.
I see very little upside to a coaching change next year at Rutgers, all circumstances considered. I share in the frustration, but I see nothing financially or institutionally that suggests a change would be anything more than change for change's sake.
Fan outrage is cheap currency in my ledger. I'll let Hermann know, "this is unacceptable," but I think she's in a much better position than I to determine if a coaching change at this stage is a fruitful enterprise or not. If she decides it's not, I want to be able to continue to give Flood my full support in 2016, without having to backtrack on some hashtag campaign.
Next year is Rutgers 250th Anniversary and the 10 year of that 2006 team.
Do we really want Flood on the sidelines for that?
Do we really want Flood on the sidelines for that?
Yes, as a position coach, which is the level where he should have remained.
"I challenge anyone on this board to give us evidence of any kind…someone you know away from these boards that follows Rutgers and advocates for Floods return"
I know one !
A friend that I have had a friendly wager on every RU FB game with.
I have RU and he has RU's opponent every game using point spread giving or receiving.
He doesn't want Flood gone .
Reasons to keep KF:
Good guy(philanthropic)
No NCAA violations(Nadirgate withstanding)
Good APR
Comes cheap (should not be a reason as you need to spend money to make money)
Liked by players
Reasons to fire KF:
Program regressing rapidly
Recruiting malaise
No signature wins to speak of(last year's bowl win maybe?)
BROKE UNIVERSITY RULES
AGAIN BROKE UNIVERSITY RULES WHEN TOLD NOT TO.
Embarrassed the University
Too many arrests calls into question the types of recruits being brought in
Although still good, a declining APR
In game coaching adjustments
Strange personnel decisions(need to take Nova out after his 5th INT if for nothing else but to protect him. Not to mention at least giving Rettig a chance in hopes that he may spark the team)
Clock management issues.
Revolving yearly OC's (some of it may not be his fault or maybe they realize he is not a good coach and they need to get away).
His teams are undisciplined(this was apparent from the very first game he coached with all the penalties)
I am sure there are more reasons on both sides, but it is a lot easier to come up with reasons to fire him vs. keeping him.
Good guy(philanthropic)
No NCAA violations(Nadirgate withstanding)
Good APR
Comes cheap (should not be a reason as you need to spend money to make money)
Liked by players
Reasons to fire KF:
Program regressing rapidly
Recruiting malaise
No signature wins to speak of(last year's bowl win maybe?)
BROKE UNIVERSITY RULES
AGAIN BROKE UNIVERSITY RULES WHEN TOLD NOT TO.
Embarrassed the University
Too many arrests calls into question the types of recruits being brought in
Although still good, a declining APR
In game coaching adjustments
Strange personnel decisions(need to take Nova out after his 5th INT if for nothing else but to protect him. Not to mention at least giving Rettig a chance in hopes that he may spark the team)
Clock management issues.
Revolving yearly OC's (some of it may not be his fault or maybe they realize he is not a good coach and they need to get away).
His teams are undisciplined(this was apparent from the very first game he coached with all the penalties)
I am sure there are more reasons on both sides, but it is a lot easier to come up with reasons to fire him vs. keeping him.
Last edited:
Most of the people that still want him seem to be afraid that RU would do worse with a new coach. It's difficult for me to understand why they feel that way.
Flood was NEVER a head coach before and even the Big East was a pretty high up conference to start in. We may have been Schiano's first head coaching job but his resume included strong programs and the NFL. Flood's did not.
If RU hired anyone with head coaching experience, it would likely be an improvement IMO.
Flood was NEVER a head coach before and even the Big East was a pretty high up conference to start in. We may have been Schiano's first head coaching job but his resume included strong programs and the NFL. Flood's did not.
If RU hired anyone with head coaching experience, it would likely be an improvement IMO.
Most coaches are philanthropists and no ncaa violations is expected and should not be applauded... Other than that he still has to go lol
I voted dump him.
The reason one might vote to keep him, which I still believe, is that the selection of his replacement will be rife with the same flaws and limitations that have gone into the decision to keep him this long in the first place. This will get us a new coach with equal or less experience, equal or less recruiting relationships, etc. If my prediction is correct, then why go through the added expense and transitional pains only to eventually land in the same spot - a bottom third big 10 doormat.
The reason one might vote to keep him, which I still believe, is that the selection of his replacement will be rife with the same flaws and limitations that have gone into the decision to keep him this long in the first place. This will get us a new coach with equal or less experience, equal or less recruiting relationships, etc. If my prediction is correct, then why go through the added expense and transitional pains only to eventually land in the same spot - a bottom third big 10 doormat.
So the logic here is just to settle for being a bottom dweller because if we try to improve we might end up being bottom dwellers.......which is exactly where we are now .
The idea is that if we are going to fire him merely to find the cheapest most uninspiring replacement, which RU seems destined to do, then don't bother. I felt stronger about that notion before all of the arrests and academic scandal.
We don't know what money might be in play if we were to hire a new coach. There may be surprise sources to get a really competent coach. And, it would be difficult to do worse.
Surprise sources? I'll believe it when I see it. It's not a matter of doing worse. It's a matter of not doing better and wasting another HC cycle with false hope, smoke and mirrors. We're now competing against Meyer/Harbaugh/Dantonio, all experienced HCs and staffs that know how to recruit top talent and win football games, with universities that invest in the infrastructure and Admins that support the program in every possible way.
We're dealing with an unfriendly environment which includes local media who continuously spins negative information about the program, local politicians who are looking for every angle to use the program and some Rutgers University employees who appear to have other priorities compared to anything related to football games. Until such time that the Rutgers Administration makes football a priority and is prepared to invest dollars and time into the program, including working to make the environment a more friendly place, no competent and experienced HC is coming our way unless the University overpays for such talent. Anything else is a complete roll of the dice. Do it right or don't do it at all, until such time that you're prepared to achieve success.
.
There was a time when getting someone like a Dantonio was possible. Find someone good on the way up and give them a raise from what they're making. Flood is cheap for a P5, but the best coaches aren't always found in P5 conferences.
I would like to see a change - with the condition that there is a plan for change
The only justifications for keeping him another year would be - ironically - the extremes of the 'plan' status -
(1.) keep him if there is absolutly no - zero- plan & organizational anarchy guarantees that making a change would lead to a major festival of stupidity and a multi-year commitment to a worse choice
(2.) keep him if there is already a very very well thought plan for change that has a strategically brilliant move penciled in for the end of next year .
Otherwise - start making calls / lists / putting out feelers/ lining up benefactors / - a month ago! make & constantly refine the plan & land a visionary coach with a plan for winning
The only justifications for keeping him another year would be - ironically - the extremes of the 'plan' status -
(1.) keep him if there is absolutly no - zero- plan & organizational anarchy guarantees that making a change would lead to a major festival of stupidity and a multi-year commitment to a worse choice
(2.) keep him if there is already a very very well thought plan for change that has a strategically brilliant move penciled in for the end of next year .
Otherwise - start making calls / lists / putting out feelers/ lining up benefactors / - a month ago! make & constantly refine the plan & land a visionary coach with a plan for winning
Wasting another HC cycle? What exactly do you think is happening now? -And when it comes to false hope and smoke & mirrors, the guy we presently have at the helm pulls those things out of his back pocket every week during his press conferences to try to justify the current sad state of Rutgers football...right after he's masterminded our latest public execution on the football field.
So you'll change the name and face, and get the exact same results. You'll cheer for a year or 2 and then get out your pitchforks as you ***** and complain about every loss. Good luck with that.
Hey, if anyone's EARNED the pitchforks that are being brought out it's your boy Kyle. He has nobody to blame but himself. -Although the staff he put together has helped a bit too.
Actually he does have someone to blame and that's the Administration of the University. But you're too slow to realize that.
I've heard this from other sources as well -- that as a recruiter the high school coaches are not behind him. However I fear that Rutgers will just have him work out his contract instead of firing him.
Wanting better is wanting either changes in the Administration and/or re-prioritization of goals to achieve athletic success, which would require matching efforts of other universities in the conference. Changing the Head Coach and continuing to cheap-out is nothing more than a shell game.
Why would you think that? Flood had NO RESUME to get the head coaching job. He was hired to save a recruiting class with the hope that he could learn on the job and become a decent coach. Now, some might say having a good record of beating the teams he was EXPECTED to beat means he's a decent coach. Others look at the blow out losses to teams we will face each year and think otherwise. I'm in the latter camp.
Virtually any head coaching search will come up with someone entering the job with more experience than Flood has. This is not a matter of starting over with a different name. Flood will be lucky to get hired as a head coach elsewhere -- certainly lucky if he ever winds up with a P5 team again. He's got recruiting, team depth, and the fanbase morale on a downward spiral. This is JUST LIKE the Shea era. If people disagree that the average fan sees this, just talk to people at the games. I can't imagine the majority will be happy at the way things are going.
Why would he blame the people that hired him, it's because of the administration he's here...he should be thanking them not blaming them.
Are you saying Flood sucks because the University won't spend money on coordinators? because that's the only argument you have.
.
Since you don't fire the current coach until you have a plan in place, including funding, you will do it right, or you back off. I don't understand the notion that you fire first and then learn who's not interested, and that you can't afford them.
If you read, my comments have nothing to do with Flood's qualifications for the job. I actually agree with you and will add that he was hired to save some money compared to Schiano's compensation.
Where we disagree is you see anybody with more experience as a better option and that's not the right answer if the university wants to win. The school is competing against highly competent and experienced Head Coaches/staffs (Michigan, Michigan State, OSU) with Universities and environments that support the programs. Unless you're prepared to spend a ton of money for an experienced and proven HC, and have the Admin. re-prioritize its goals when it comes to Athletics, the results will not differ by much.
Anyone on here that voted to keep Flood knows nothing about football and needs their head examined.
They are using a hypothetical future negative situation to justify retaining a present known negative situation.
It's like saying, "I don't want to undergo surgery to remove my cancer, because the surgery might kill me".
Ridiculous and stupid logic.
I see 262 votes to let him go so far but only 101 donations in the gofundme campaign. Come on guys vote with your wallet. Even $1 donations are fine since the donor numbers are more important to show the school a sizable portion of the fanbase wants a change.
This is pretty much like a petition more than anything else and goes to the RU foundation anyway. So RU benefits either way. It is also tax deductible.
https://www.gofundme.com/FireFlood
This is pretty much like a petition more than anything else and goes to the RU foundation anyway. So RU benefits either way. It is also tax deductible.
https://www.gofundme.com/FireFlood
The logic can also be viewed as you have cancer and if you continue to treat the cancer the same way (i.e underpaying for a HC with the hope and prayer that Rutgers will have hired an up and coming success; or continuing to not invest in an old and antiquated infrastructure because you're concerned about media and political ramifications), then chances are the cancer will not go away, although you may believe the new HC is a miracle cure.
Anybody who brings up Barchi, JH or anything else when discussing whether to keep Flood or not either:
1) Does not understand simple root cause analysis.
or
2) Has an ulterior motive of deflecting the issues in order to keep Flood.
1) Does not understand simple root cause analysis.
or
2) Has an ulterior motive of deflecting the issues in order to keep Flood.