Tag:Bob Mulcahy
Posted on: June 6, 2009 11:06 am
Edited on: June 7, 2009 12:11 am

Check For Flying Pigs and the Temperature in Hell

Bob Mulcahy and the Star Ledger.  Write down on paper  your first thought when you read this next sentence.  Star Ledger writer Mark DiIonno (yes, the same guy who gave Rutgers the black eye over the Navy game) will write a lengthy article praising Bob Mulcahy, extolling his virtues and favorably reviewing his career.  My thoughts ran to flying pigs and hell freezing over.

Well it's happened.  Mulcahy was honored by a council of the Boy Scouts of America with their award for "Distinguished Citizen of 2009" at the Baltusrol County Club.  In attendance?  Former Governors Tom Kean, Brendan Byrne, Senator Dick Codey, Greg Schiano, Vivian Stringer and many more.  Was this banquet surprising?  Not if you knew Bob Mulcahy and what he's done for New Jersey, the Meadowlands, and Rutgers University. 

Former Gov. Tom Kean called him one of the most "decent, honest, ethical people I have ever met in my life."

Sen. Dick Codey called him, "the finest man I have met in public service."

Rutgers football coach Greg Schiano said three men had shaped his life. "First, my father, second, Joe Paterno, and third, Bob Mulcahy. (Please don't start with the Schiano to Penn State effluvium again.  He's not going.)

So what's shocking?  That someone at the Star Ledger recognizes this.  Yes, the paper that actually caused Mulcahy's downfall due to their baseless witch hunt, prodded along by a person whose surname begins with the last letter of the alphabet.  (No, not Zorro, he had personal honor and integrity).  Now the SL did manage to hook links to their shameless "investigative" reporting to the article.  Still, it was a decent article nonetheless and a fitting salute to Mulcahy.

So maybe closure is at hand as the article notes.  Maybe Bob is ready to move on.  If so, Godspeed Bob Mulcahy and thank you for all that you did for Rutgers.

And perhaps, the Star Ledger is ready to move on.  Their crack investigative reporters can't ride this non-story any  longer.  They must search for a new muckraking target.  May I suggest one?


Alright, alright Star Ledger lawyers, here's the link.  http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno

Posted on: January 18, 2009 12:14 pm
Edited on: January 18, 2009 5:40 pm

I Have A Dream

Don't get excited.  It's nothing as lofty as Dr. King's hope for an end to segregation.  My goals are much more modest.  My dream is a newspaper that's neutral about Rutgers football.  They don't have to pro-Scarlet Knights.  Just neutral.  You know, reporting facts correctly, not having political vendettas, not being a mouthpiece for a disgruntled, out of state Bob Mulcahy wannabee.  That's all.

Sigh.  What has triggered this longing for a newspaper instead of scandal sheet?  Come on, you already know by now.  So let's get into it.  What's the latest piece of pure unadulterated sewage published by the Star Ledger?  Not content on depriving Rutgers University of the best athletic director in its history, the SL has now weighed in on what qualities the new AD should have.  No they didn't come right out and say his initials should be GZ.  But they did pick up two of Georgie's pet peeves and espoused them as their own.  What a surprise.

The Star Ledger in its infinite wisdom has come up with five qualifications for the new AD.  In typical SL fashion, three are reasonable while the other two are garbage.  You see this way the SL can claim that their coverage is "balanced."  Let's start with the three no-brainers. 1. Must be able to raise money. 2.  Must improve the RAC .  3.  Must inspire coaches to obtain Big East supremacy.  Now who could argue with those?  What a thoughtful column.  The SL is supporting Rutgers right?  In fact any seven year-old sports fan could have come up with these.  What's the alternative?  We want someone who can't raise money, definitely won't improve facilities, and tells RU coaches NOT to win?  Didn't take any thought at all to come up with these.  But they do provide the subtle camouflage of a "balanced" piece.

Now let's look at what this column is really about.  Next qualification?  Must reinstitute the six cut sports.  You remember the six sports that Bob Mulcahy recommended cutting and Prez Dick McCormick and the Board of Governors agreed to, then fired Mulcahy for cutting?  Yeah those.  Men's lightweight crew, men's heavyweight crew, men's and women's fencing, men's swimming and diving, and men's tennis.  Now who could be against this?  I'm not.  I think it would be great to have these sports back.  Why did Rutgers lose them  in the first place?  Was Bob Mulcahy accidently struck with an oar in his childhood and hated crew?  No, two reasons.  The State of New Jersey cut $80,400,000 from Rutgers' budget.  And, Title IX says a university must provide equal sports opportunities for men and women.  Under the prior setup, Rutgers spent much more on the men.  So how, O wise Star Ledger do you propose bringing these sports back?  Are you going to make an $80,400,000 donation?  Are you going to get Title IX repealed?  No.  So why bring this up again?  Hey isn't this one of things George Zoffinger had a hissy fit about?  Oh yeah.

Qualification #2.  Just say no to Greg Schiano.  Like he's some kind of illegal drug or something.  What's the supposed problem?  Greg Schiano pushed for the stadium expansion.  What's wrong with this, it's not funded by a single taxpayer dollar?  Oh, the Star Ledger, that bastion of fiscal responsibility that's almost bankrupt is upset that Rutgers is issuing bonds to fund the construction.  And this is Schiano's fault.  Hmm I seem to recall that the Governor of New Jersey promised $30M in loans from NJ, then backed out after the voters voted down his stem-cell research project.  See the gov's thinking was if the people won't support an religious hot potato like a stem-cell research project, they obviously won't support expanding Rutgers' Stadium.  Yeah, I never understood that one either.  So the gov said don't worry, I will personally  raise the $30M myself.  And  then went out and raised $1M.  So since this all happened after Rutgers was halfway through the expansion and had a huge whole in the ground, Rutgers not surprisingly had to find the funds somewhere.  Did they cut any other sports?  Did they take money away from academics?  No, they issued bonds to make up the difference.

Yep, clearly Greg Schiano's fault.

Wait a minute.  Wasn't Georgie Zoffinger the only Board of Governors member who was against the expansion, even when the gov was promising $30M in loans?  Yeah, that's why I thought.  So SL your latest journalistic endeavor is nothing more than a rehash of Georgie's pet peeves. Why don't you just come out and say that Zoffinger should be made AD?  You're not really fooling anyone you know.  Seriously, give George a by line.  Show some journalistic integrity.  Here are the five criteria for Rutgers AD that you really propose:

1.  Must be a supporter/donor/graduate of Penn State.

2.  Must not live in New Jersey in order to avoid paying NJ taxes.

3.  Must be on record saying that Greg Schiano will go to Penn State when Joe Paterno retires.

4.  Must be disgruntled because Mulcahy originally got the AD job over him.

5.  Must have Star Ledger in his back pocket as his personal public relations firm.

Jerry Izenberg where are you?  We miss you dearly.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com