Skip to content

Report: Cristobal accepts Rutgers job

Beef 'O' Brady's St. Petersburg Bowl - Florida International Panthers v Marshall Thundering Herd Getty Images

It appears Rutgers has found a replacement for Greg Schiano.  And, as a result, FIU will now be forced to commence their own search for a new head coach as well.

The New Jersey Press Media is reporting that RU athletic director Tim Pernetti has offered the job to Mario Cristobal and the (former?) Golden Panthers head coach has accepted.  The website goes on to state that “only the details of the contract need to be settled.”

Following up on the report from NJPM, Steve Politi of the Newark Star-Ledger tweeted that “Cristobal will be your new Rutgers coach.”  Cristobal interviewed for the position over the weekend, although reports out of South Florida indicated that the coach hadn’t even spoken with the school.

A Rutgers official would not confirm the reports to CFT that anyone had accepted the job, but did acknowledge that an announcement “regarding the status of the search” could take place at some point later today.  Any contract over $300,000 — the contract for a new coach will likely push into the high six figures if not stretch into seven figures — must be approved by the school’s board, which could delay, but not derail, an announcement.

It had previously been reported that Cristobal and RU interim head coach Kyle Flood had emerged as the two finalists for the job.  The report of Cristobal accepting the position comes exactly four days after Schiano officially accepted the head coaching job with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Permalink 6 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: American Athletic Conference, FIU Panthers, Rumor Mill, Rutgers Scarlet Knights, Sun Belt Conference, Top Posts
6 Responses to “Report: Cristobal accepts Rutgers job”
  1. woebegong says: Jan 30, 2012 12:41 PM

    That’s the way to do it folks. Now two schools, just prior to national signing day have lost their head coach. And they say that college ball isn’t just about the money.

  2. LogicalConsideration says: Jan 30, 2012 1:04 PM

    Come on, woebegong, you are better than this. Yes, sometimes coaches are sleazy in how they change jobs, but it seems like from the complaints these days, they are expected never to change jobs. So, I’m going to point out issues with certain times of year. Then, please respond with when and how you think they should change jobs.

    *Febrary 1/Signing day through May—coach takes new job, will get accused of lying to newly signed class of recruits. And few competent coaches out there who don’t already have jobs.
    *May through August/Start of season—coach takes new job, gets accused of abandoning team on cusp of season and few competent coaches out there to fill vacancy. Forces school to hire/promote an interim coach which screws with existing team AND recruiting until at least December.
    *Start of season through Thanksgiving—unless a coach stinks (and therefore no one is hiring him), no one leaves in middle of season, except occasionally for a health reason.
    *Thanksgiving through end of bowl games—most heavy time for coaching changes. Bad coaches get fired, schools start recruiting the good ones. If mishandled, it can disrupt a team losing a coach while preparing for a bowl.
    *End of bowls through signing day— really this is a continuation of the previous segment. The problem is that there is a cascade effect. Top tier schools that are performing poorly fire their coach. They then try and get the best available in their price range, usually from a tier slightly below. That second school now has to find a coach, usually by raiding a third school. And on and on. It is further complicated by the fact that the NFL season is still going on and so many of those vacancies are not coming open until late December or January. If you are a college coach with any interest in the pros, you have little chance until then. And none of these coaching searches are completed overnight. So it takes forever and pushes some decisions until right up on signing day.

    Given all this, what would YOU have them do? And it has to be something practical that accounts for the issues above.

  3. woebegong says: Jan 30, 2012 1:10 PM

    I am not complaining that they are changing jobs since that is inevitable. It is just the timing right now. Couldn’t they hold off at least a couple more days, and contact the recruits that are tied to the school and coming just to be coached by them. There should at least be some kind of rule that would allow a athlete to do the same thing if the coach does it. 6-3 days before signing day is a little hard to stomach. Can these kids that committed get a college to accept them at this late date, or are they now stuck with a new coach, who most likely will have new assistants and maybe a new offensive or defensive scheme. Where is the fairness to the athlete in this case?

  4. LogicalConsideration says: Jan 30, 2012 2:23 PM

    You have a point about fairness to the athlete, but I guess I’d say a couple of things.

    1. This could be devastating to a school. I’m talking about completely derail its football program. What if 1/2 or more of an entire signing class changed to somewhere else?

    2. Nothing requires these kids to sign on Signing Day. Nothing at all. That’s merely the first day and the one where the 5 stars can get the most media attention if they do. They actually have until April 1, 2012 to sign a letter of intent. It appears to me that by exercising a tiny bit of self restraint, a recruit could wait until early March by which time (barring unusual circumstances) every head coaching vacancy in both Div. I FBS and the NFL will be filled. They can make certain the coach will be there.

    3. It follows from #2 above that if anything, Schiano did them a favor by resigning when he did. He COULD have waited until after Signing Day and left Rutger’s top recruits holding the bag. Also, any other school that was in the running for a Rutger’s kid could keep recruiting them up until the Quiet Period (reduced contact) that was yesterday (Jan 29) only and the Dead Period (January 30-Feb1 (Signing Day)). At the least, those other schools should have called to say, “Hey, no need to sign Feburary 1. Why don’t you wait and see who they hire at Rutgers?”

    4. Despite #2 and #3 above, it probably would be best for everyone if football’s Signing Day (and subsequent period) didn’t start until at least March 1 to let the NFL go through it’s post season firing and hiring. Really, no reason not to push it back until April 1. Plenty of non-athlete kids don’t select a college until the end of school/beginning of summer. It shouldn’t be too much of a hassle for anyone. Basketball has a similar problem. Mid-April to Mid May signing period. But since these are signings for enrollment in the next Fall Semester, that may be unrealistic.

  5. pdmjr says: Jan 30, 2012 4:27 PM

    Who would want to coach Rutgers?

    The Big Least. Moving from Miami to Jersey

    Is this guy nuts?

  6. woebegong says: Jan 30, 2012 4:36 PM

    I understand your point but a lot of colleges do fill up their quota on signing day, and suppose it is the guys second choice and because he took the first one, he can’t get into his second choice. I guess it is the price you pay though.
    A big selling point for my team UGA though is the coach and from the AD on down, the kids are assured, that he will be around, in spite of crap the press likes to generate. It does make a difference to a lot of these kids.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!