Tag:Phil Mushnick
Posted on: February 8, 2010 8:14 pm

Phil Mushnick and Rutgers' Recruiting

Came across an interesting quip by Phil Mushnick of the New York Post today.  Phil apparently is upset with Rutgers University.  He doesn't like the fact that Rutgers offered nine scholarships to football recruits from Florida.  Now if Phil has anything against Florida,  I don't know.  But he certainly seems upset with Rutgers.  Well let's look at exactly what Phil said:

"Rutgers' recruiting a-tax the senses Your tax dollars at work: Only nine of the 25 recruits who last week signed to play football at Rutgers, a New Jersey state college, are from Jersey. The same number, nine, were recruited from Florida. . . ."
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more

Notice the ellipsis at the end of Phil's witty remark.  Usually this means we can expect more.  God I hope so, it's been a boring winter. 

So let's look at Phil's premise.  Offering football scholarships to out of state high school students should offend New Jersey taxpayers.  So Phil's thought is Rutgers should only recruit New Jersey football players?  Sounds like a good idea.  Of course Phil, you know there are certain academic requirements even for football players right?  Well at least at Rutgers there are.  So you do know Rutgers can't give a kid a football scholarship if he doesn't have the grades right?  Even if he is from New Jersey.

Ok how about NJ kids with good grades that are good football players.  Well let's look at the top 30 NJ football players for 2010 according to Rivals Recruiting.  Out of the top 30 players, Rutgers got 5 of them.  Not that RU wouldn't have liked more.  In fact Rutgers offered scholarships to nine more of these thirty players according to Rivals.  Problem is Phil, they chose to go somewhere else.  Schools like Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin, West Virginia,  Maryland, Kansas, and Florida State love to recruit NJ kids.  So much so that's where some of these kids went.  Now Rutgers even went so far as to offer kids that weren't on the top 30 list.  RU got 4 more NJ recruits this way.  So while Rutgers gave NJ kids 9 scholarships it offered at least nine more of them.  So out of it's 24 scholarships (not 25 as you erroneously noted) at least 18 were offered to NJ kids.  Roughly 72%.  Is that ok for your tax dollars Phil? 

Now I don't want you to think it's some fluke that Rutgers offered that many scholarships to NJ kids this year.  So let's look at last year shall we?  Last year 10 out of Rutgers' 24 scholarships went to NJ athletes.  According to Rivals, Rutgers offered at least 12 more scholarships to NJ students who chose to enroll elsewhere.   That's almost 88% Phil.

In fact these percentages are much higher since I can only confirm through Rivals what scholarships Rutgers offered to the top 30 NJ players.  As you can see from 2010, Rutgers offers kids that aren't on the top 30 list as well.  I have no idea of how many of those kids decided to go to another school.  So as you can see, Rutgers usually uses or at least offers the overwhelming majority of its scholarships to New Jersey kids.

Now Phil, if you can somehow use your legendary powers of persuasion to convince Notre Dame, Penn State and the rest to return those 9 NJ players that went elsewhere, I'm sure Greg Schiano would be eternally grateful. And Phil, do us all a favor and stick to insulting Mike Francesa.  Because you're not funny at all when you don't know what you're talking about.

Posted on: March 8, 2009 12:59 am

A Scintillating Rebuttal

Well for those of you who have been waiting here's Phil Mushnick's rebuttal.  Rutgers' fan Karen sent a copy of this blog to the eloquent Mr. Mushnick.  Here's his response:

           Phil.Mushnick to me
show details 8:33 AM (14 hours ago) Reply

"Karen - why not remove the false pretense and admit the obvious? You're an RU football fan (so am I), but you're the kind one who doesn't care how they do it as long as they win. I took a shot at RU and that's your ONLY gripe with me. Rah, rah, rah! If I'd written similarly about other schools - which I have, and for 30-plus years - you'd have had no gripe. Rah. - mushnick"  

Like I said, scintillating.  One thing I've noticed about Phil's e-mail responses.  Every one has to mention how long he's been writing, if that's what you can call it.  And that may be the problem.  You see Phil, it's not the 70's anymore, when you could write whatever you wanted and never get called on it.  Welcome to the internet Phil.  See, we fans can actually talk back now, especially when you say things as stupid, uninformed, and untrue as you have.  So to copy your magnificent prose, "why not remove the false pretenses and admit the obvious?"  You got caught parrotting untrue allegations of the Star Ledger and you're not enough of a professional to admit it. 

And Phil,  Rutgers doesn't need fans like you.  Fans that believe anything that's written in the media without confirming it.  Fans that think Rutgers runs a "dirty" program.  Fans that will badmouth the football program merely to sell newspapers.  Good bye Phil.  So much for accuracy in the media.


Posted on: March 4, 2009 11:34 pm
Edited on: March 5, 2009 2:24 pm

Hypocrite Thy Name is Phil Mushnick

Taken out behind the woodshed today?  Phil Mushnick of the New York Post.  Our man Phil has been writing a column for the New York Post since the flood.  He supposedly prides himself on accuracy and often in his column takes sportscasters to task who are inaccurate .  Take for example Hall of Famer Joe Morgan.  A few years ago Joe was telling a story during a baseball broadcast about the Philadelphia Phillies late season collapse in 1964.  Joe, who never will be confused with Vin Scully or Bob Murphy, got a few things mixed up.  Morgan's mistake?  He said that 1964 was his rookie year and he had an RBI single which extended the Phils losing streak to nine.  Joe was wrong, as our buddy Phil gleefully pointed out.  Joe was a rookie in 1963.  Furthermore his then team, the Houston Astros didn't play the Phillies during their famous losing streak in 1964.  Phil took Joe to task for this inaccuracy.  Ok, fair enough, if you're putting yourself forward as an expert on baseball on a national broadcast you should have your facts right.  So Phil's crusade for accuracy in the media is a good thing.

But if you're going to promote yourself as a champion of media accuracy, you damn well better be accurate as well. Phil pulled his own Joe Morgan a few days ago.  In his March 1 column, Phil cherry-picked inaccurate stories from the good old Star Ledger and referenced "taxpayer funded, under-the-table deals on behalf of Rutgers football  and coach Greg Schiano."  Phil, here's a tip old buddy that someone who has 35 years experience in the media should know.  If you're going to accuse somebody of something, do your own research and make sure it's right.  "Taxpayer funded?"  Wrong, the deal was for part of Schiano's salary to be paid by a sports marketing company that sells Rutgers' advertising.   This is "private funding."  Says who?  Says the Star Ledger Phil. the newspaper you cited for "revealing this" in 2008.  When did the Star Ledger call it private funding?  In a December 6, 2006 article by Matthew Futterman of, you guessed it, the Star Ledger.  So if you'd bothered to check your facts Phil, you'd have found out that the Star Ledger in the summer of 2008 "revealed" an "under-the-table" agreement with Schiano that had been made public knowledge and commented on, favorably in fact, by the Star Ledger in 2006.  Phil then takes this great Star Ledger find and uses it to support his statement the Rutgers got "caught being dishonest or flat-out lying."

Phil then continued his regurgitation of Star Ledger fabrications by calling the new Rutgers AD, Tim Pernetti, a "Schiano shill," which is basically what the Star Ledger said in an editorial last week.  Phil has some experience in this area.  Because by parrotting the Star Ledger's factually untrue pablum, he's made himself into a shill for the Star Ledger. 

Now Phil has the reputation as a champion of accuracy in the media.  So a few Rutgers fans e-mailed him about his error.  Here is his response to one of them:

RB - some folks prefer to root for clean programs, others don't care - unless the team loses. McCormick brings in the head coach's head cheerleader to oversee and reform the situation? You support that? Fine. - mushnick (I don't let the Ledger do my thinking, not for the 35 years I've been covering sports. RU never refuted the paper's findings; it admitted to them. So why your problem with the truth? Because it;s good ol' RU?) 

Wow Phil, just wow!  Rather than dealing with the SL's inaccurate reporting upon which he relied, Phil just gets nastier and infers that Rutgers is a dirty program.  Why?  Because "RU never refuted the paper's findings."  Uh Phil, were you aware that then Rutgers AD, Bob Mulcahy wrote to the Star Ledger refuting this and they refused to print the letter?  Yeah, I thought not.  So I guess the theory is if a paper prints lies,  unless you can convince them to print your rebuttal, the lies become the truth?   Interesting take I must admit. 

Phil, if you are a true champion of an accurate media, do your own research on this issue.  I'd be happy to help you out with it for free if you'd like.  Until then I'd avoid the subject if I were you.  Because you don't know what you're talking about.



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