I know it may prove useful in the event it allows us to fire Flood for cause, but is anyone else worried it might bring along another round of reputational damage? Call me paranoid (or just a beaten down Rutgers fan, same thing), but I'm sort of expecting something pretty bad.
The second investigation. Is anyone else bracing themselves?
- Thread starter ClassOf02v.2
- Start date
I've said I'd be surprised if he's fired for cause unless something really egregious comes out. I should amend that. What's the reason most here bring up for cause? They see it as a way to fire Flood by paying little to nothing in severance. I think that is unlikely. So I shouldn't focus on the semantics of for cause/without cause the main thing is I don't see us letting him go and paying him little or nothing. A negotiated buyout that could be a little bit less than what he's owed? That's possible but I don't expect it to be nothing or some small amount unless it's really something egregious.
Meeting the professor in Princeton wasn't leaked.
The outside gmail account wasn't leaked.
The fact Dance Appreciation was actually failed in the spring semester wasn't leaked.
The academic fraud issue with Barnwell's paper wasn't leaked.
The leaks all minimized Flood's involvement. The fact the leaks have gone dry are ominous.
The outside gmail account wasn't leaked.
The fact Dance Appreciation was actually failed in the spring semester wasn't leaked.
The academic fraud issue with Barnwell's paper wasn't leaked.
The leaks all minimized Flood's involvement. The fact the leaks have gone dry are ominous.
This is kind of the reason I posted the OP. I'm just bracing for something bad. The for cause/without cause firing is irrelevant. I just wonder how many episodes of Outside The Lines are going to be dedicated to whatever is contained in the report.
That was a 3-4 week investigation and while the details werent leaked, the investigation was. And actually the Dance Appreciation thing was leaked - it wasnt in the report, someone else dropped that, although potentially after the report came out. And the outside email was leaked as well - it came out BEFORE the report came out.
This investigation has been going on for two month and no doubt, given that the press KNOWS of the investigation - they have been pestering every lead they have out there. Every leaker they know.
So either RU has dramatically tightened up on the leaks, or there isnt much to leak.
If there is something damaging, then they will pin it on Flood with no real damage to anyone other than Flood - who is on his way out (and definitely will be if there is something really damaging.)
Ominous in terms of what? Not being combative, just curious.
We aren't on the level of UNC or anything crazy like that, and Flood will be coaching his last away game this Saturday as the HC of Rutgers.
Not being good at your job is usually enough "cause" for most employers.
This. The "bad news" will be forgotten but all except local reporters because they will tie it to flood and he will be gone.
I think we are all waiting for the report. Even if it is bad, that is ok, since Rutgers can fix it by giving us the greatest Christmas gift of them all... a new HC.
I heard that the report will have uncovered that flood conducted nude practices and threw balls at the heads of players... errrr. Never mind. Wrong sport.
If I remember correctly Rice, Hiill, Pernettti, and Mulcahy all got their money remaining on their contracts or close to it. No matter what, if anything else comes out , Flood will get All that remains on his contract IF a change is made. If not his agent Jimmy Sexton and Lawyer will make things miserable for RU and still win in court.
If it were anything bad, Flood would've been fired mid season. They wouldn't risk another Mike Rice "you should have done more" situation. The fact that flood is still here tells you all you need to know.
Man, I've been (trying to tell) you guy for 2 freakin' years that Flood wasn't the guy some here made him out to be, so don't be shocked when (whichever) news comes out, to further prove me right about him! SMH
Maybe ominous is a poor choice of words. Whoever framed the first investigation as "no big deal" has gone quiet. Maybe they've lost as much faith in their source as we have in his coaching ability.
Really surprised that so many don't know how the world works. If things "come out" there is no way Flood gets the whole buyout.
If he's fired for cause, Flood will seek payment and RU weighs the cost to litigate vs a reduced settlement and Flood likely gets a reduced amount. The cause firing WILL have saved money. If he seeks 1.7 hypothetically and will cost 350k to try, would they pay 800? Maybe-depending on the damage they thought discovery would produce. What would be for public consumption is a settlement reached and posters would conclude that RU rolled over which is far from the truth.
Actually, I think Flood will be back next year..... The investigation will uncover nothing.
How much did we save on Pernetti, Rice, Hill, Waters, etc when you add up the billable hours and the actual payouts. Not much - plus it made us look like a bunch of idiots.
It's like a divorce- the only ones getting rich are the lawyers. Rutgers loves paying lawyers to dole out common sense opinions. It's common practice in government entities and one reason why our taxes are so high.
If the decision is based on merit, then Flood is absolutely GONE.
And for anyone who says he'll be back because the investigation won't uncover anything, that shouldn't in any way keep KF from being shown the door. If/when he's fired, the bottom line cause will be that he's in over his head and is completely unqualified for a D-1 head coaching job.
The best - the absolute best move is to dismiss Flood - no fuss, no muss, send him to HR fill out his forms, clean out his office, cut him his check & bid him adieu. ... gone - done - turn the page...
Unless there is a newly discovered 'front-page of the NY Times' like yucky scandal with legal ramifications, just cut the cord & leave the whole 'for cause' thing alone -
If there was a 'for cause' firing attempt based on stuff that was already somewhat internally known back in September, Flood would fight it & it would be so stinking messy & RU would look infinitely dumb as it got fought out in court.
Unless there is a newly discovered 'front-page of the NY Times' like yucky scandal with legal ramifications, just cut the cord & leave the whole 'for cause' thing alone -
If there was a 'for cause' firing attempt based on stuff that was already somewhat internally known back in September, Flood would fight it & it would be so stinking messy & RU would look infinitely dumb as it got fought out in court.
They could have fired Flood for cause in September. Rutgers wouldn't need additional reasons to fire him for cause later in the year, and the fact that they didn't implies he's not going anywhere in December.
Last edited:
Disagree buddy. If Rutgers - mind you, Rutgers, no other school - fired him mid-season it would have, regardless of right or wrong, brought unnecessarily MORE bad press to the university. By hiring an external team to investigate into more of his wrongdoings, and waiting to be 100% positive that firing with "cause" will not be any sort of an issue, IMHO, AT THIS TIME, AT THIS SCHOOL, is the right way to do it (and this is coming from a guy who wanted this bozo gone 2+ years ago...).
In other words - IMHO - RU/Julie are "smartly" waiting until all the "ducks" are lined-up and, in September, honestly, they weren't quite there just yet. I'd say coming into the season the RU Football "community" - press included - was maybe 50/50 on the guy. I'd say by September's end they were 70/30 Flood can go. Now, in all honesty, I'd say it's 95/5 Flood SHOULD go.
See where I'm going with this?
(*** this is nothing but a stupid theory, on my behalf, party "tongue-in-cheek," that I just find interesting could play out, perfectly-timed, as such...)
Last edited:
We disagree on a lot of things. How is it possible we've been friends for more than 25 years?
I don't see the line you're drawing between firing Flood mid-season and "more bad press," and there's absolutely no grey area in the firing of Flood in September "for cause," based on what was revealed by the school's retained investigator's findings.
Due respect to your humble opinion, I think you're trying to craft a scenario where it makes sense that they didn't fire him in September in order to "more justifiably" fire him in December, and it's a reach. Setting aside the fact that I like the guy and don't want to see him fired (but stopping short of calling him a good head coach), the Rutgers you're talking about -- "AT THIS TIME, AT THIS SCHOOL" -- isn't going to suddenly "smarten up" and orchestrate a two-month long conspiracy to fire Flood with "better" cause in December than they had in September. You had most of the press and the community -- and the faculty -- calling for Flood to be dismissed three months ago, at a point when Flood barely had a friend in the world outside of his team and his immediate family.
Even worse, according to your theory, Rutgers convened this inquiry for the express purpose of finding a reason to fire Flood, as opposed to an independent investigation of the operation of the football program, implying that it is supposed to come up with "more of his wrongdoings," whether or not they exist.
Either way, I'm happy at the end of the season. If they fire Flood, I'll be his successor's biggest cheerleader (literally). If they don't, I'm proud to stay I've stood behind him through all of his challenges. I don't care who coaches this team; I just want them to win more often. Not being much of an expert on coaching talent, I leave it to the professionals to act on my desire to see more wins. As far as Flood is concerned, I like the way he talks about Rutgers, how he treats his players, and that he lives in Middlesex Boro. How Jersey is that? I absolutely love the guy; I just want him to win more games. However Hermann figures we need to get there, I'll trust in her leadership and judgment.
Yeah really! I laughed at that potential.
If they want you gone, you will be gone! And, cause will be found no matter where it is. It's the nature of the beast. The school just wants to make sure all ducks are lined up, just right. It's the Rutgers way.
It's not about what the investigation will "uncover". It's about what is already known, and how it is being handled. There is a lot more to the situation that unfolded at the beginning of the season that has not yet come to public light. Right now, the NJ DA's office and the University are determining how it will be managed.
At the end of the day, Flood will be gone. He can't escape this unscathed, and a three-game suspension is not commensurate with the actions he took (and failed to take). Also, depending on the legal actions that are taken, it is altogether possible that a number of our players will either be arrested or removed from the team. The legal issues are much bigger than has been publicly disclosed.
At the end of the day, Flood will be gone. He can't escape this unscathed, and a three-game suspension is not commensurate with the actions he took (and failed to take). Also, depending on the legal actions that are taken, it is altogether possible that a number of our players will either be arrested or removed from the team. The legal issues are much bigger than has been publicly disclosed.
You do realize that they had already planned to further investigate him, after the initial findings, right?