Having been encouraged to put finger to keyboard again by friends (who were encouraged by alcoholic beverages to make this recommendation) I offer this update of The Barbarian Report. Although the Star Ledger hasn't given me much material lately (apparently they're too worried about survival as evidenced by the merging of their Trenton bureau with the Record), journalistic integrity or lack thereof continues to abound in other places as well. Is Kenny Britt a prima donna? I don't know, I've never spoken with Kenny. Aditi Kinkhabwala, who has, doesn't think so. All I can say is I've never seen this kid preen, gloat or do anything to embarass his team or an opposing player during a game. Could Schiano be entitled to more credit for this than Kenny? Maybe because no RU player engages in these antics. As for the latest journalistic falsity, Aditi notes a blog that claims that Kenny was suspended this year for insurbordination. The blog is WRONG. Sources close to the team indicate that the suspension had nothing to do with insurbordination or anything remotely prima donna like. Amazing how all these people who are seeing Britt for the first time are parroting this prima donna line when the reporters who covered him for three years never mentioned this problem.
On to the new AD. I find it extremely difficult to figure out what we're looking for in a new athletic director because we still haven't been told what was wrong with the old one. I assume that building a successful football program was a good thing and we want to continue this. Otherwise, as one sage poster noted, we'll have a wonderful stadium with 55,000 empty seats. The question of money looms large in the selection. First, RU needs someone who can get it. The football program is sound, now Rutgers has to build a bigger fan base to support it and expand it further. Double decking both endzones would probably bring capacity to around 70,000, which I believe Schiano once mentioned was the ultimate goal. However, I doubt this will ever happen without a substantial alumni fundraising operation.
The other impact of money could have played in the dismissal of Bob Mulcahy. I heard it expounded well for the first time by the sage poster noted above. It's called the Big Donor Theory. Now even though I still feel Mulcahy was correct in cutting some of the non-revenue generating sports, there may be a big donor or donors for these sports that feel(s) differently. And these donors, along with the infamous George Xanadu (That's not his last name? Sorry I get my Z sounds confused) were responsible for the firing. So the thinking goes, if the new AD agrees to bring back big donor's sport, big donor agrees to be, well, a big donor again. If the new AD brings back one or more of the cut non-revenue sports, this theory gains some validity in my book. So we're looking for an AD that can raise money and will agree to bring back (your choice) crew, fencing, men's swimming and diving. Where's the money for this sport come from? Why Big Donor of course. My money's on the crew team. There have been stories that enough money was raised to fund the crew team on a year to year basis but that Mulcahy wouldn't do it unless there was a permanent endowment. Mulcahy's thinking probably was, I don't want have to cut this sport again two years from now if the money disappears. Personally I'd like to see the crew team back as long as there is money to support them. The oldest varsity sport at one of the original colonial colleges deserves to stick around if at all possible. I still haven't figured out how this gets around Title IX problems though. Is big donor gonna kick in more money for women's sports too?
What's the last thing we need in an AD? Somebody who doesn't believe what happened to Mulcahy will ever happen to him. And that my friends is the tough sell.
By the way Fire, if you recognized yourself in the above, it is purely coincidental.