Was the salary pool being offered Cristobal less than what Schiano was getting? One would think that, since Cristobal would have been making more than a million less, there would have been some flexibility on the assistant coaches pool.
The Next Two Years are Free
- Thread starter rutgersal_rivals139582
- Start date
Off course, no one will ever admit to this, but I believe this is what happened. The Big Guy wanted expenses reduced.
There were rumours that Schiano was going to be asked to take a paycut, and this could have partially inspired his decision to seek other opportunities.
when the NFL comes calling, every nobody will jump at the chance. pay cut or pay raise, he was outta there. Flamed out quickly in the NFL but a career move he had to take.
That's insane if true.
Whoever suggested that needs a basic management lesson. You just don't do that.
That's where the AD needs to step up and say "No. I'm not doing that. Not asking him to take a pay cut" and then leaves.
McMurphy reported on Twitter that Rutgers and Cristobal couldn't agree on contract length or money.
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/report-cristobal-not-going-to-rutgers/?amp
My understanding at first Mario was willing to take what RU offered, but then came back wanting more.
The reports at the time said he was expected to be named HC , then the rumor/report of demanding more money was heard.
Wife not wanting to leave Florida was suggested by many on this board as the real reason, but I can't remember reading about that anyplace but message boards and just opinions being given without valid sources backing it up.
I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a pay cut ( believe he had a few years before his contract expired ) but more of a cut in program funding cutting assistants pay and reducing the number of support staff.
Can't back that up because it is just my opinion, but what the University was spending on athletics was being criticized at the time ( and continues to this day) along with demands of cutting the Athletic Department's budget because spending on sports far exceeded the revenue being brought in.
Before Greg left for Tampa , there were posters here criticizing his salary claiming it was too high.
I don't see why people eoplr make a big deal about that. It's a far better deal, of course he's going to take it.
the timing pissed people off, most understood going pro was a chance few HCs got, but with signing date so close most that objected to his leaving were mad because of the possibility of the great recruiting class he brought in not signing a RU LOI and going elsewhere because he left
It was also rumored they were going to ask him to sacrifice his left testicle, and that the Democratic legislature was going to require Rutgers to start sharing their wins with NJIT and Montclair State.
Don't you love rumors?
Many thanks for citing a real source! At any rate, there doesn't seem much foundation to the idea that the problem was the pool of money for assistant coaches -- they probably never got to that stage because the issue of the contract length and amount of money for Cristobal was much more fundamental.
Like others, I think those rumors are total crap. No one turns down an NFL opportunity.
Someone, though, made the decision not to meet Cristobal's demands. I don't think there's a way to know who or why it was. If @MADHAT1 is right in suggesting that Cristobal increased his demands after an initial agreement, then it wouldn't be surprising that he was told to go fly a kite.
Flood was a D1 HC, coached in the NFL, at Bama and now at Texas as OC. Tell me about your accomplishments, other than being an internet troll.
The programs funding was going to be cut because with Syracuse, Pitt, and WV leaving the Big East, the payout we were going to get was going to be cut from $6M - $7M to $2M, or whatever ridiculous number.
Even Rutgers would not be foolish enough to breach a contract with its most well-known employee. It would never be able to hire a head coach again. Beside, $4 million (even assuming that number is true) was not that much in the scheme of things given that the athletic program was receiving $26 million in subsidies -- there are plenty of ways to distribute that kind of cut. https://www.nj.com/news/2012/02/rutgers_university_faculty_cal.html
Last edited:
#1 the salary wasn't $4 million, it was around $2.5 Mil , if my memory is correct. ( edit the article you posted a link to had his total compesation at $2.5 Mil, so memory served me correct)
The cut in salarey wouldn't be on the table unless the contrast was expiring and the cut would be for what the University offered to stay.
As for the $26 million in subsidies, asI said before the push to cut that was going strong and with that cut, the reduced conference sharing revenue the RU Athletic Department had to trim some of the budget, which in itself was under attack and complained about for the amount spent compared to revenue made.
So don't think Schiano would be told his salary would be reduced , that would not be the case, unless his contract was expiring and he was in negotiations to extend it or get a new deal.. (I beleive he had a few years left before his contract was up)
Greg would be told the funds for his assistants and support salaries was being reduced and funds for recruiting purposes would be cut.
Schiano ( my opinion) left knowing the funds to run his program would be an on the cheap style and that would make it hard to run a winning program.
I doubt his salary was the reason, but his program's funds being cut made him feel it was best to cut and run than try to make a steak on a hamburger budget.
By the way( my opinion again) Star Ledger articles like the one you posted probably helped make it easier for Greg to decide it was best to take the Tampa position then stay and fight budget cuts and an unfriendly local media.
Last edited:
Neither of us can see into Schiano's head, but the difference between what Tampa Bay was offering and what Schiano could get at Rutgers was so great that I doubt that the size of the Rutgers budget mattered. I am old enough to recall what John McKay said when he left the University of Southern California to become the first coach at Tampa Bay: "I got tired of having to fly around the country and do clinics to have the lifestyle I wanted." Pro money is a powerful lure even if a coach, like McKay, is well-supported at his institution.
The Big Man had no problem cancelling the contracts related to the Hudson River tunnel that was supposed to be built. And then using the Federal money to repair the Pulaski Skyway. He came into office promising to cut spending. Wouldn’t be surprised if Schiano got spooked at that time, especially with Rutgers in a failing conference.
Again, the difference between pro and college coaching salaries is so great that everything else was noise. And there's a key difference -- Schiano could sue Rutgers because Schiano and Rutgers had a binding contract -- the Hudson River tunnel did not. The Hudson River tunnel couldn't sue the state -- but Schiano could sure sue Rutgers. And the consequence of that suit would likely be a judgment compelling Rutgers to pay the salary that Schiano lost because of the breach, meaning that Rutgers wouldn't even come out ahead through a breach. I am no fan of the Big Man, as you call him, but blaming him for Schiano's departure is nonsense.
Last edited:
it's astonishing how intelligence and career advancement have little correlation, especially in athletics.
100%. NFL HC jobs are the pinnacle of the profession, don't require year-round hs athlete recruiting, offer much greater resources and higher pay.
I’m not blaming him, but I am saying that Schiano read the tea leaves, saw his position as tenuous, and then decided to cash in. Thankfully, we’ll never know what would have happened, if Schiano was asked to take a paycut.
I'm not blaming him either. Any of us would have done the same thing. All I'm saying is that the increased compensation from being a pro coach was likely almost entirely responsible for his decision. And I would also suggest that there was nothing "tenuous" about Schiano's position. After all, he had a legally binding contract and no one (except for a few dingdongs on this board) wanted him gone.
In addition to having sidestepped the question as to what qualifies you to judge Flood's intelligence, you've added another statement to defend. To wit, what evidence can you provide that supports your theory that intelligence and career advancement have little correlation, especially in athletics?
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just wondering what data you're referencing to support these conclusions. I'm not aware of any objective factual evidence with which one could determine either thing.
Providing us with anecdotal, and especially subjective, "evidence" won't cut it.
Tired of the college recruiting scene might be a major reason, but I feel it was the possibility of having his program taking a big budget hit affecting what his staff would be paid and the cost of recruiting being a budget problem for him as well.
Schiano had a few years left on gis contract and getting his salary cut wouldn't be easy for the AD.
But Rutgers could reduce what Schiano was getting to cover the programs expenses and he decided taking funds away would hurt the quality of coaches and recruits he could bring in.
So with Tampa as an out and his program likely to have its funding reduced , Greg decided to take a $15 million 5 year contract from the Bucs, which in reality was just a $500k a year increase from what he was earning at RU.
That is not objective factual evidence. It's anecdotal and subjective opinion. We're gonna need IQ test results, college transcripts, etc.
We already know these people were accomplished in their respective fields and, while you might disagree, I think such accomplishment is at least somewhat indicative of a reasonable level of intelligence.
You seem to want to define "intelligence" as a measure of how much someone impressed Shelby65. And that's fine and all except that the number of people who will sign on to that particular definition is unlikely to be very significant.
Just out of curiosity, what IQ would you assign to a "sheep-dolt"?
I'm not trying to be contrary just for the heck of it, actually. I think Flood is plenty intelligent. And plenty accomplished. Same with Ash. Same with Schiano. I'd guess it's true of almost all D1 HCs, OCs and DCs. And presidents.
Doesn't mean I think Flood qualifies for Mensa. But not being a genius doesn't mean someone is stupid. Intelligence is a broad spectrum and nobody gets hired as a D1 head coach, or as a coordinator, that is stupid.
I like the concept behind Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (although I would quibble with some of the details). I don't find that IQ or grades or standardized tests are very useful in identifying intelligence.
I think those things can be part of the overall picture. But they don't tell the whole story. We need to factor in all kinds of life accomplishments along with other measures of ability (artistic, linguistic, memory, energy, etc.). Without considering all that, we are left with a potentially inaccurate and incomplete determination of anybody's intelligence.
There isn’t direct evidence, but there is circumstantial evidence. Floods starting salary was $750K. The assistant pool was $1.8M for 2013, so 2012 was likely similar.
Up from $1.8 million last year, the $2.4 million is the most Rutgers has ever spent on assistant coaches. I believe that is a significant decrease from what the pool was in 2011.
Believe what you like, but it is inconceivable to me that Schiano would have stayed if Rutgers had given him even a million dollars more for assistants. The Tampa Bay offer, like all pro offers, dwarfed his Rutgers salary.
So here's a question for you: did Schiano give Rutgers a chance to counter? Did he say, "I will stay if you give me another $500K a year and another $1 million for assistants?" No, he walked. A pro offer is just too good to pass up.
can't say one way are another. Don't know what could have been said. But if football budget was being cut AD giving him a raise while funding for assistants salaries , money for support staff and recruiting cost were being reduced would be hard to explain by Schiano and Pernetti .
Schiano might not have cared that he would be making less, but cared about seeing his program not getting the type of funding needed to run a successful program. Going to Tampa was just leaving a bad situation in his mind for a once in a lifetime job for most HCs
The lure of the pros probably was there, but another factor in his decision to go Pro was being frustrated about his program's budget being cut feeling it wasn't going to be receiving the support needed for him to win there .
With Tampa's offer in his pocket, leaving Greg probably was his best option .
Sometimes money isn't the driving cause, just part of the reason someone leaves where they're at and goes someplace else.
The key words in your post are "once in a lifetime." Very few coaches would turn down that opportunity, no matter what the situation at their school. So, again, I think everything else is noise. But, of course, I respect your views.
yes it's once in a lifetime is hard to pass up, but that doesn't mean RU wasn't Schiano's real dream job and if he felt he had the type of backing needed to win he wouldn't have stayed.
Most feel the pro game is a coach's dream, but there are some coaches that feel they're living the dream where they are and if they feel the support is there nothing , even the pros, will entice them to leave.
I think the list of coaches who would feel that way is very short. Giants of college coaching might feel that there's no point risking their reputation for a pro job, but I don't think anyone else would. It's hard for me to believe that the situation at Rutgers made a substantial difference. But, of course, there's no way to know which of us is right.
I agree intelligence isn’t only IQ, SAT, grades, etc., testing for which has inherent biases. There are other ‘kinds’ of intelligence, sure, which are difficult to measure.
But it’s also true that stupidity is a real thing. No matter how hard one may try to find intelligence in another, some people are devoid of it. Imbeciles, morons and sheep-dolts (my term for stupid people who can’t think for themselves). Those aren’t theoretical labels. Those terms can describe actual people, 100% uncorrelated to their professions.
But, you judge me based on what ? You don’t know if I’m a Mensa member, lawyer, chess whiz or how high the career ladder I’ve climbed ? Isn’t that a contradiction then? I shan’t judge Fludd for lack of evidence but you know me? Are you sharper than those who peg me as a Cuse troll even though I’ve never said a single thing about Cuse good or bad ?
Let’s focus on the words intellect and intellectual. Do you think either this president or the last one are intellectuals ? People of high intelligence are intellectuals right ?
I don’t care if someone is the president, an accomplished football coach, or the world’s best appliance repair tech, etc, those are not indicators of intelligence. Further, Fludd’s actual behavior, vocabulary, thoughts and decisions belie any intelligence no matter how you define it.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he spends hours a day transfixed by cat toys and kindergarten coloring books. Did Bama allow him to have anything sharp in his office ?
He can be that stupid, yet also be a good football coach. One has nothing to do with the other. There are plenty of fine professions people with extraordinarily low intelligence can succeed in. Football coach is absolutely one of them.
Last edited:
Not necessarily. People can be highly intelligent without having the kind of interest in the life of the mind that characterize an intellectual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual I'm not even sure that being highly intelligent is the most important characteristic a president must have.
I agree that intelligence need not be the most important presidential characteristic, or perhaps even important at all. Just look at our most recent presidents. And if not important for the president, then certainly not important for a football coach. That is my point, refuting the other view that high achievement is proof of intelligence no matter how you define it.
I don't know what team our fans watched last year. Was there a single P5 team whose entire offense was worse than ours? There's definately not many.
And offense is half the game and all.