Butterfield

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:43 AM ^

I heard the AD's response on Sirius XM when I was driving into work today and was impressed - and I don't think he should go.  He suspended the man for three games and required him to take anger management courses in an effort to rehabilitate him, which unfortunately didn't work.  But he took action to help the employee and fix the situation - that's a manager's job and not grounds for dismissal in my opinion. 

Magnus

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:47 AM ^

That is a manager's job, but I think something should have happened to Rice sooner.  I don't think this abuse started this year, and Rice probably should have been fired a while ago.  The AD did what should have been done, but he seems to have been slow on the trigger.

Butterfield

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:50 AM ^

Yeah, and I think he regrets that maybe he didn't act sooner - but he was incredibly honest in the interview I heard and I believe his heart was in the right place - to rectify the situation all along for all parties, including helping Rice become a better human being if possible. 

MikeCohodes

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:07 AM ^

audio for that interview, that sounds like it'd be interesting to hear his defense. Is it more him trying to cover his own ass or is he genuine in it?  I appreciate that the AD tried to rehab the employee, as you are correct managers should attempt to do so, but some actions so far cross the line that an immediate termination should be one of them. Rice's actions were way across the line. Also, this wasn't an instance where there was disputing accounts of what happened (which might've caused hesitation over whether or not to fire Rice), there was clear video evidence of his transgressions. Rice should've been shown the door months ago. The AD comes across to me as having not done enough back when this first came to his attention, putting the program's coach above the players and the institution, similar to what we saw in Happy Valley.

gbdub

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:27 AM ^

Agreed. If it was verbal abuse only, that's something where I think a short suspension and counseling is appropriate. And I agree with the AD that the punishment was more severe than given credit (3 games = 3 weeks cut off from program, $50k fine PLUS lost pay, counseling and monitoring of program).

But this was repeated physical abuse (chucking basketballs at players, shoving, and kicking). Anybody who doesn't know that that is way over the line in this day and age lacks the judgement to be in charge of 18 yr olds. It's not like this was a guy that blew his fuse once and laid hands on a guy. This was repeated and systematic.

gwkrlghl

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^

my next question would be: so did Rice stop doing that? Did you follow up to see that everything was ok with players?

I mean, Rice was obviously fired only because ESPN got hold of the tape and it went public. If ESPN didn't, would the AD have been happy to turn a blind eye and allow him to continue abusing players knowing that they had their CYA firmly in place? This isn't terribly different than what happened at Penn State. Things happened, some minor response was taken, and then what? The offender was allowed to go back to normal. Not an appropriate response in my opinion (Obviously child molestation is a bit different than abusing college kids but the point remains)

MGoBender

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^

Wait, what evidence is there that the coach continued this action after his suspension?  This is a serious question, as I was under the assumption that all the video was from prior.

What if he has not done anything since. What if he did turn a new leaf?

I still think he needs to go, but I think your argument is that by not firing him you are allowing him to continue his actions, which is not necessarily guaranteed to happen.

gwkrlghl

April 3rd, 2013 at 12:19 PM ^

I was just asking if the AD had followed up on his early actions, like did he make sure the problem was resolved? Or did he turn a blind eye knowing he had covered his behind.

You asked if there was evidence he continued, but I haven't seen any evidence that he didn't. Maybe I haven't read enough quotes or articles, but I haven't seen the AD say "After the dsicipline, we followed up and made sure that the problem was resolved"

jcouz

April 3rd, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^

The AD and the President saw the same video that we all saw.  Can we agree that the only reason Rice ended up getting fired is because the public and media are in an uproar?  This guy would still be the coach if that video never went public.  The AD and President need to go just due to the fact that they, without the help of public outcry, were willing to allow Rice to continue to coach at their school after viewing the video that we all saw.  I could never trust those two to make important decisions for my University if they were willing to allow Rice to continue as coach.

iawolve

April 3rd, 2013 at 12:21 PM ^

the firing considering Rutgers pending move to the B1G, we don't want that crap in our conference and I am sure he probably went straight to the top without bothering with the AD. The AD showed some poor judgement in this one and seems like a knucklehead.

 

joeyb

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^

Wasn't he previously punished for this? It seems like the AD should be fired as well for not firing the coach sooner and only doing so after the pressure from the media overcame him.

MightyMatt13

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:36 AM ^

I disagree about firing the AD, but the big story for me is that AD seeing this video and I'm sure even more than OTL has, making the decision to suspend/fine/try to fix the guys attitude, initially stand by him when OTL released the video, and then folding to the media pressure and firing him. Very poorly managed on so many levels and certainly isn't what an incoming coach wants to see from the current leadership....but overall he was fired and I believe that was the right thing to do. Would have been nice if OTL did this while coaches were still available and before everyone committed to stay put after Minni asked em tho lol

MGoBender

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^

File this under "Obvious."

OT: I know this is the Internet and all, but I am always surprised by people in general jumping to the "X should be fired" outrage - in reference to the University President, not the coach. Do people just not realize that a University president has little to no daily interaction with any coach?  In fact, the Rutgers President probably met the basketball coach on just a few occasions.

The link's author says "Fire the President" which is about the lowest common denominator thing to write.  DAMN THE MAN FIRE THEM ALL.  Please.  As soon as someone starts yelling "Fire him." I want to say "What if you were judged by the angry mob?"

This is in no way a defense of the coach, who clearly crossed about every line he could in "coaching."  He was a disgrace to the game and needed to go.  But saying anyone else should be fired, including the AD or the President, especially, is just being an angry mob member reacting with little evidence.

snoopblue

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:43 AM ^

Haha unfortunately Rutgers will still be terrible next year. If you want to be that kind of coach, you at least have to win and then MAYBE you'll get a pass.

goblue81

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^

Agreed the AD should go as well.  Not firing him last fall - wrong.  Hedging for a day when the video became public yesterday - wrong.  He should be shown the door...

goblue81

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^

I know what my eyes showed me.  The video tape didn't lie.  There is no place for physical assault in college coaching.  Yes, it is assault.  Go to a mall and yell obscenities at strangers and throw stuff at their heads.   See where you end up.

Change the scenario... If this was a high school basketball practice, the guy is fired immediately.  The parents show up with pitch forks.  The sheriffs show up with handcuffs - assaulting a minor - yeah some kids parents would go there.  How dare he do that to "kids"?!?

Scenario B...  If this was a pro basketball practice, the guy is fired immediately.  Because A) Kobe tells the GM to fire him or  B) Sprewell chokes the shit out of him.  There is no way a GM lets that fly.  You have to keep your prima donnas happy.  Seriously as a coach would you throw a ball at Ron Artest's head?  No. Why? Because that dude is crazy and you'd probably get your ass kicked.

So, it doesn't fly in high school or the pros (for albeit different reasons), but its a small infraction (3 games and counseling) in college where the kids look more like adults, but are still really are kids and won't fight back.  

The AD basically said "oops my bad" in not firing him in the first place.  "oops my bad" doesn't cut it when it comes to the safety of "kids" - just ask Penn State.

MGoBender

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:51 AM ^

For fuck's sake don't compare this to the Penn State situation. That's a slap in the face to those victims.

You make a lot of arguments for firing the coach. Which happened, by the way.

I see an AD that took action and tried to rectify a person. I would have took more severe action, but the only evidence I have is the rightfully damning video.  I don't know any other sides of the story or testimony from players, etc.  I'm not saying that stuff forgives the video, but it might be a reason as to why an AD decides to try to take rehabilitating action instead of immediately terminating.  We may never know if the AD's plan of action would have worked.  Maybe it did since December.

My point is, he took some action. Maybe it wasn't extreme enough - however ADs are under a lot of pressure to keep their money making teams steady. Had he taken no action and truly swept it under the rug, then sure, fire him too.  But it's not like he ignored the situation.

mackbru

April 3rd, 2013 at 12:11 PM ^

You're kidding, right? The guy fired the coach only after OTL aired the footage. The timing tells you everything. A coach who abused kids, verbally and physically, doesn't deserve counseling. He deserves to be fired. Some things are just over the line. And, according to all indications, the guy was doing it for years. The AD should be fired, too. His crocodile tears are bullshit.

might and main

April 3rd, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^

Where's the slap in the face to the PSU victims? 

I was sickened by the Penn State scandal.   But there were multiple dimensions to it, including the institutional control issue, and cover up by the AD and the president who clearly prioritized other issues above kids' safety.  It sure looks to me like the Rutgers AD and president have done the same thing. 

The AD needs to be fired today.  And the president should be explaining right now why he should keep his job.

Magnus

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^

"Hedging for a day when the video became public yesterday - wrong."

I don't see what this has to do with anything.  Whether it was publicly or privately released, it shouldn't have changed his actions.  The guy deserved to be fired (or not), regardless of whether just a few people knew about it or millions of people knew about it.

goblue81

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^

He was defending his choice to retain Rice with the actions he took in the fall for a day.  Then the heat got a little hot as the media exposure swelled.  He only fired him because 99.9% of people with common sense thought he should be fired.  He only backed down on his stance when it became public.  This shows the AD is 1) indecisive 2) has a poor moral compass 3) spineless and wouldn't stand behind his decision etc...

The AD is a position of leadership, and he has displayed none of the qualities I demand from people in those positions.

ijohnb

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:47 AM ^

worry Mike, you can always get hired to coach..... well, nowhere, ever again now that I think about it. 

That must have been worth it.

justingoblue

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:05 AM ^

but let's say he saw the same video we did. Is anyone thinking this behavior could be fixed with sitting two games (was he barred from practices before those games?) and the amount of anger management that could take place during that timeframe? It seems like he erred on the side of the coach, at least from what I've heard, and that's just not ever the right decision in a case involving abuse.

I would feel differently if he had suspended him for the rest of the season while having counseling sessions or sent him to an anger management facility for a month or however long the most intensive programs are.

gbdub

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^

According to the AD, his suspension included all team activities. And supposedly the counseling/monitoring was ongoing.

The issue to me was that this didn't look like a guy "losing his temper" - this just looked like a bully who saw nothing wrong with his actions. I don't think any single incident on the video would necessarily warrant an immediate firing, assuming the guy handles his suspension well, but the repeated nature of the offense merits canning, I think.

wile_e8

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^

Cover up - they knew about these videos back when he was suspended and tried to hide the reason for his suspension until the videos came out. Spin control - once the videos came out they initially tried to defend the decision to keep him instead of firing him. It was only after 24 hours of outrage made it clear what they should have done in the first place did they actually do it. It shouldn't take a national media flogging to make the AD say "Maybe we shouldn't keep a coach that throws basketballs at players heads."

bluesalt

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^

But I also didn't see anything that said his attempt to help his coach fix his behavior didn't work. Yesterday afternoon he was saying that he'd seen all the video, taken action, and that if something new came up would take more action. What new came up in the last 12 hours aside from the politicians getting involved? He hasn't even been coaching for the last few weeks. If the AD was doing his job monitoring the situation, there should have been nothing new since the season ended. And likely there wasn't anything new, other than political pressure to make a different decision than he made the first time.

I'm not sure the AD deserves to lose his job, but if Rice is able to get his full severance since nothing new happened since Decemeber when he was first punished, I would change my opinion.

umumum

April 3rd, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^

Unless you have some other source, it seems you are taking the AD's explanation---trying to rehabilitate him--as gospel.  It may be true; but given time and motive, his explanation is at least as likely self-serving spin.  If he truly believed his rehabilitation plan was appropriate and working (if it was I assume he would have said so), then he should stand by Rice now.  Since he isn't, then I'd suggest the decision to fire occurred only because the video came to light and/or to protect himself.  Also, while we don't know all the facts, the decision to fire the "whistleblower" Eric Murdock doesn't help his cause.

Schembo

April 3rd, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^

This was the only choice they could've made.  There is no way he was going to be able to recruit players with this out in the public.