“There’s been a lot of speculation as far as the stadium’s completion and there being something tied into my contract. There’s nothing like that at all. This contract got negotiated a long time ago and certainly there were a lot of things talked about. Like I’ve said all along, as long as Rutgers and the State of New Jersey are committed to being the best, we are going to grow responsibly and I think that’s what we’ve done. There was speculation that there is some letter or an addendum to my contract that says there’s a buyout (waiver) and there’s no such thing. Did we talk about it? Yes. Could I of had it if I wanted? Yes. But I’m part of something bigger than just football. I’m part of Rutgers University and I thought the commitment was there so I didn’t want to do things that way. When you’re part of something, there has to be trust.” Visit my blog for more.
Anybody think The Star Ledger will issue some type of statement admitting it published false information now? I think it's unlikely. That paper is so anti-Rutgers it's ridiculous. I hope they get hit hard for this. Bunch of idiots if you ask me.
Im sure they arent going to pull a story just becasue he says the clause isnt there....they must have a source, and they must have trusted the source....they will likely stand by that source....
It would not surprise me if alot of coaches had an escape clause. Urban Meyer had one though it was quite well known. However, I can understand the need for secrecy otherwise fans would be up in arms.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Aug 9 2008, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im sure they arent going to pull a story just becasue he says the clause isnt there....they must have a source, and they must have trusted the source....they will likely stand by that source....</div> You don't know the Star Ledger. Over the course of approximately 2 weeks, they released countless stories spewing lies about the Rutgers football program and the University as a whole (whether it be things like Schiano's non-existent buyout, stating the stadium expansion would not be done, etc). They couldn't have made their agenda anymore clear and they're about as anti-Rutgers as they could possibly be. Then to add to that, they continuously ignore the positive aspects of the football team, such as the fact that it finished tied for 3rd with Duke in the last APR rankings (the only schools listed ahead of Rutgers were Stanford and Air Force), for the first time ever the football team actually made a net profit last season (previously, all it had done was lose the University's money), applications have increased over the past 3 years, leading to higher SAT scores and more selectivity in choosing who can attend the school, and an increased feeling in state pride. There's a reason my family subscribes to the Asbury Park Press and not the Ledger; it's a piece of garbage. And that's why it's struggling to even survive right now. So, I'm asking them to issue a statement that they published false information (which they did). That's not too much to ask, is it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JCB @ Aug 11 2008, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Aug 9 2008, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im sure they arent going to pull a story just becasue he says the clause isnt there....they must have a source, and they must have trusted the source....they will likely stand by that source....</div> You don't know the Star Ledger. Over the course of approximately 2 weeks, they released countless stories spewing lies about the Rutgers football program and the University as a whole (whether it be things like Schiano's non-existent buyout, stating the stadium expansion would not be done, etc). They couldn't have made their agenda anymore clear and they're about as anti-Rutgers as they could possibly be. Then to add to that, they continuously ignore the positive aspects of the football team, such as the fact that it finished tied for 3rd with Duke in the last APR rankings (the only schools listed ahead of Rutgers were Stanford and Air Force), for the first time ever the football team actually made a net profit last season (previously, all it had done was lose the University's money), applications have increased over the past 3 years, leading to higher SAT scores and more selectivity in choosing who can attend the school, and an increased feeling in state pride. There's a reason my family subscribes to the Asbury Park Press and not the Ledger; it's a piece of garbage. And that's why it's struggling to even survive right now. So, I'm asking them to issue a statement that they published false information (which they did). That's not too much to ask, is it? </div> Star Ledger is the sh*t.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Aug 11 2008, 06:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JCB @ Aug 11 2008, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Aug 9 2008, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im sure they arent going to pull a story just becasue he says the clause isnt there....they must have a source, and they must have trusted the source....they will likely stand by that source....</div> You don't know the Star Ledger. Over the course of approximately 2 weeks, they released countless stories spewing lies about the Rutgers football program and the University as a whole (whether it be things like Schiano's non-existent buyout, stating the stadium expansion would not be done, etc). They couldn't have made their agenda anymore clear and they're about as anti-Rutgers as they could possibly be. Then to add to that, they continuously ignore the positive aspects of the football team, such as the fact that it finished tied for 3rd with Duke in the last APR rankings (the only schools listed ahead of Rutgers were Stanford and Air Force), for the first time ever the football team actually made a net profit last season (previously, all it had done was lose the University's money), applications have increased over the past 3 years, leading to higher SAT scores and more selectivity in choosing who can attend the school, and an increased feeling in state pride. There's a reason my family subscribes to the Asbury Park Press and not the Ledger; it's a piece of garbage. And that's why it's struggling to even survive right now. So, I'm asking them to issue a statement that they published false information (which they did). That's not too much to ask, is it? </div> Star Ledger is the sh*t. </div> That's why it's losing $30 million a year, right?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JCB @ Aug 11 2008, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Aug 11 2008, 06:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JCB @ Aug 11 2008, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Aug 9 2008, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im sure they arent going to pull a story just becasue he says the clause isnt there....they must have a source, and they must have trusted the source....they will likely stand by that source....</div> You don't know the Star Ledger. Over the course of approximately 2 weeks, they released countless stories spewing lies about the Rutgers football program and the University as a whole (whether it be things like Schiano's non-existent buyout, stating the stadium expansion would not be done, etc). They couldn't have made their agenda anymore clear and they're about as anti-Rutgers as they could possibly be. Then to add to that, they continuously ignore the positive aspects of the football team, such as the fact that it finished tied for 3rd with Duke in the last APR rankings (the only schools listed ahead of Rutgers were Stanford and Air Force), for the first time ever the football team actually made a net profit last season (previously, all it had done was lose the University's money), applications have increased over the past 3 years, leading to higher SAT scores and more selectivity in choosing who can attend the school, and an increased feeling in state pride. There's a reason my family subscribes to the Asbury Park Press and not the Ledger; it's a piece of garbage. And that's why it's struggling to even survive right now. So, I'm asking them to issue a statement that they published false information (which they did). That's not too much to ask, is it? </div> Star Ledger is the sh*t. </div> That's why it's losing $30 million a year, right? </div> Do you think I care how much money the Ledger is making or losing? If they printed monkey sh*t and made $30 mil would it make it a better paper?
The whole anti-Rutgers bias thing is silly. Just because they post something negative or don't suck RU's proverbial cock doesn't make it anti-RU biased.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 11 2008, 06:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>All newspapers are losing money. Star-Ledger is anti-Rutgers, that's a new one.</div> No newspapers are losing as much as the Ledger and the Trenton Times.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Aug 11 2008, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The whole anti-Rutgers bias thing is silly. Just because they post something negative or don't suck RU's proverbial cock doesn't make it anti-RU biased.</div> It's not that they post something negative, it's that they fail to post the positive at the same time.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JCB @ Aug 11 2008, 05:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 11 2008, 06:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>All newspapers are losing money. Star-Ledger is anti-Rutgers, that's a new one.</div> No newspapers are losing as much as the Ledger and the Trenton Times. </div> Does that mean the Trenton Times is anti-Rutgers too? The Record's in trouble too, that means they're anti-Rutgers, but not as much as Star-Ledger because they don't lose as much money.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Aug 11 2008, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What are some examples of this anti-RU bias?</div> I'll try to get the links now if I can find them. Some date back a few weeks and might be hard to find. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Does that mean the Trenton Times is anti-Rutgers too? The Record's in trouble too, that means they're anti-Rutgers, but not as much as Star-Ledger because they don't lose as much money.</div> I never said they were anti-Rutgers because they're losing money. I said it was a garbage newspaper in general. KC responded with, "Star Ledger is the shit." I then responded with the fact that they are losing $30 million a year (more than any other paper) to prove my point. People don't want to buy crap paper. Make sense now? Reading comprehenion, Real. Reading comprehension.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JCB @ Aug 11 2008, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Aug 11 2008, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What are some examples of this anti-RU bias?</div> I'll try to get the links now if I can find them. Some date back a few weeks and might be hard to find. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Does that mean the Trenton Times is anti-Rutgers too? The Record's in trouble too, that means they're anti-Rutgers, but not as much as Star-Ledger because they don't lose as much money.</div> I never said they were anti-Rutgers because they're losing money. I said it was a garbage newspaper in general. KC responded with, "Star Ledger is the shit." I then responded with the fact that they are losing $30 million a year (more than any other paper) to prove my point. People don't want to buy crap paper. Make sense now? Reading comprehenion, Real. Reading comprehension. </div> Very classy response. "That's why it's losing 30 million," is a weak response as well. Print journalism as a whole is suffering, so to bring up the Star-Ledger's money troubles is moot. Star-Ledger is in the NY market, competing with the Times, the Journal, the Post, the Daily News, the Record and a bunch of other local newspapers. Of course it's going to suffer. And in response to the report that he has an escape clause, in order to disprove that, you quote Coach Schiano himself and demand a retraction? Just because he denied it wasn't there, hopefully it wasn't.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 11 2008, 07:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JCB @ Aug 11 2008, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Aug 11 2008, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What are some examples of this anti-RU bias?</div> I'll try to get the links now if I can find them. Some date back a few weeks and might be hard to find. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Does that mean the Trenton Times is anti-Rutgers too? The Record's in trouble too, that means they're anti-Rutgers, but not as much as Star-Ledger because they don't lose as much money.</div> I never said they were anti-Rutgers because they're losing money. I said it was a garbage newspaper in general. KC responded with, "Star Ledger is the shit." I then responded with the fact that they are losing $30 million a year (more than any other paper) to prove my point. People don't want to buy crap paper. Make sense now? Reading comprehenion, Real. Reading comprehension. </div> Very classy response. "That's why it's losing 30 million," is a weak response as well. Print journalism as a whole is suffering, so to bring up the Star-Ledger's money troubles is moot. Star-Ledger is in the NY market, competing with the Times, the Journal, the Post, the Daily News, the Record and a bunch of other local newspapers. Of course it's going to suffer. And in response to the report that he has an escape clause, in order to disprove that, you quote Coach Schiano himself and demand a retraction? Just because he denied it wasn't there, hopefully it wasn't. </div> So you're telling me, "The Record's in trouble too, that means they're anti-Rutgers, but not as much as Star-Ledger because they don't lose as much money" is the opposite of classy? It's childish if you ask me. You knew that my mentioning of the money aspect of the Ledger (or any newspaper for that matter) had nothing to do with it's view of Rutgers, yet you posted that anyway. So don't talk to me about class or weak responses. Bringing up the Star Ledger's money trouble isn't moot; everybody is suffering, but no one is losing as much as the Ledger. All those papers compete with each other, so your argument makes no sense; in fact, it helps my argument. If the Journal has to compete with all those papers as well, why isn't it losing as much as the Ledger? Same goes the for Times, the Post, etc. It's because the Ledger is the worst of the bunch, which is exactly my point. No one wants to buy it. And Schiano refuting the report should be enough proof in and of itself for the Ledger to retract it's report. Why shouldn't it be? Do you think Schiano is lying? Why would Schiano lie about it? Does it give him any sort of advantage? I don't believe so, but if you think it does, I'd love to hear it. The Ledger was the only paper (after all, we do have so many metro area papers, right?) to report this "secret buyout." No one else even mentioned it. They were wrong, and a simple acknowledgment that they were wrong isn't asking for a lot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JCB @ Aug 11 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you're telling me, "The Record's in trouble too, that means they're anti-Rutgers, but not as much as Star-Ledger because they don't lose as much money" is the opposite of classy? It's childish if you ask me. You knew that my mentioning of the money aspect of the Ledger (or any newspaper for that matter) had nothing to do with it's view of Rutgers, yet you posted that anyway. So don't talk to me about class or weak responses.</div> You're the one that bought the Ledger's financial problems. I didn't. Why would you bring it up if you didn't want to tie it to its' percieved lack of quality on your part, which in turn you would try to tie to this story. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Bringing up the Star Ledger's money trouble isn't moot; everybody is suffering, but no one is losing as much as the Ledger. All those papers compete with each other, so your argument makes no sense; in fact, it helps my argument. If the Journal has to compete with all those papers as well, why isn't it losing as much as the Ledger? Same goes the for Times, the Post, etc. It's because the Ledger is the worst of the bunch, which is exactly my point. No one wants to buy it.</div> It's a regional newspaper, it spends more than the other papers, but, they still have to compete with the other papers. The Journal, the Times, the Post etc. are all going to sell in NYC and NJ. Star Ledger won't sell in NYC or outside of NJ. That's just the bind they are in. They need a whole new ownership group and a financial overhaul. And IMO, the Star-Ledger is a much better quality paper than the Post and the Daily News, and is a much, MUCH better paper than the New York Times. The New York Times is nothing more than a liberal propaganda tool. Just because the Ledger doesn't sell as well doesn't mean it's not a better paper. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And Schiano refuting the report should be enough proof in and of itself for the Ledger to retract it's report. Why shouldn't it be? Do you think Schiano is lying? Why would Schiano lie about it? Does it give him any sort of advantage? I don't believe so, but if you think it does, I'd love to hear it. The Ledger was the only paper (after all, we do have so many metro area papers, right?) to report this "secret buyout." No one else even mentioned it. They were wrong, and a simple acknowledgment that they were wrong isn't asking for a lot.</div> So because the Ledger was the only one that reported it and the others didn't it's automatically not true? A supermarket tabloid broke the John Edwards story. They were the only ones that did. It turned out to be true, then the other media outlets picked up on it. This story may or may not be true. But don't tell me that because they were the only ones that report that it's automatically not true. That's ridiclious. I'm not saying its true or not true, but I won't rule anything out. How much sense does it make for New Jersey's biggest newspaper to be anti-state university? Please, JCB, explain that to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 11 2008, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're the one that bought the Ledger's financial problems. I didn't. Why would you bring it up if you didn't want to tie it to its' percieved lack of quality on your part, which in turn you would try to tie to this story.</div> In case you didn't notice, I never brought it up in my main post. It was a side comment to Kid Chocolate's post, which had nothing to do with the Ledger having a bias against Rutgers. I never tried to tie its "lack of quality" into my argument. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It's a regional newspaper, it spends more than the other papers, but, they still have to compete with the other papers. The Journal, the Times, the Post etc. are all going to sell in NYC and NJ. Star Ledger won't sell in NYC or outside of NJ. That's just the bind they are in. They need a whole new ownership group and a financial overhaul. And IMO, the Star-Ledger is a much better quality paper than the Post and the Daily News, and is a much, MUCH better paper than the New York Times. The New York Times is nothing more than a liberal propaganda tool. Just because the Ledger doesn't sell as well doesn't mean it's not a better paper.</div> This may be so; I don't read any of the NY papers so I can't speak about their quality. But the fact that the Ledger is literally surviving on life support right now is striking to me. A "quality" paper struggling to survive doesn't make much sense, does it? So you can see where I'm coming from. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So because the Ledger was the only one that reported it and the others didn't it's automatically not true?</div> Where did I say it was automatically untrue? Please, stop putting words in my mouth. This is all after the fact, when reality starts to set in. The fact that the Ledger was the sole paper to report this buyout makes sense now because it's not true; the other papers didn't publish it because there is no buyout. The Ledger just made it up. Now, all I'm asking for is a statement from the Ledger admitting to the fact that they published false information. And again, that's not asking for a lot, is it? Maybe I'm just delusional, but fessing up to a mistake seems like the proper thing to do here. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not saying its true or not true, but I won't rule anything out. How much sense does it make for New Jersey's biggest newspaper to be anti-state university? Please, JCB, explain that to me.</div> It doesn't make any sense. That's the whole point. That's why I'm all up in arms about this. Rutgers doesn't get the same support from its state that other state universities do. That's why I'm mad, and the Ledger isn't helping. Tell me. Why does the Ledger make stories, such as this false buyout, front page news, but positive aspects about the university, such as the SAT increase or the fact that the football team is top 3 academically in the nation, become back page news? How much sense does that make?
