2026 College Football Thread

[MU82]

Who was hiring Greg Schiano because he had back-to-back 7-6 seasons that he warranted an extension with a big payout?  Whoever the AD is, Schiano having 3 of his kids on the payroll is another red flag of incompetence at Rutgers.

This. It's an absurd buyout number for mediocrity.

If the self-important Cruz/Saban commission really wants to "save" college sports by limiting people's earning power and freedom of movement, they should start with the coaches.

[JWags85]

Who was hiring Greg Schiano because he had back-to-back 7-6 seasons that he warranted an extension with a big payout?  Whoever the AD is, Schiano having 3 of his kids on the payroll is another red flag of incompetence at Rutgers.

FWIW, it was after the first 7-6 season in 2023, not the second in 2024.

I mean, isn't this the same thing we went through with the Wojo discussions?  Extensions to roll contracts over to demonstrate consistency/continuity to recruits and whatnot?  There are plenty of extensions in both CBB and CFB that aren't purely to prevent poaching.  You reward the success and legit progress he had from 2020-2023, signify you're sticking with him for the future, etc... Feels pretty straightforward. 

And again, it aged extremely poorly, but at the end of 2023, post-TB, Schiano had a really good tenure at OSU with top 10 defenses annually and was regularly regarded as a top recruiter in the country.  He only ended up back at Rutgers and not a much better P5 job cause of the Penn St stink on him (rightly or wrongly).  Then he went and turned around a dogcrap Rutgers program to respectability again in under 4 years.  I dont remember the intricacies of the 2023-2024 coaching carousel, but its not absurd to think that Schiano could have been an option for a number of good jobs, even if not the top option.  So while I think its mostly the reasons in the paragraph above, its not like they extended him after a 5-7 regression in 2025 when clearly he'd be unattractive.

As for the actual money, again it looks way worse after the regression last year and the disaster this year, but the raise was pretty modest and paced with the market.  $6MM didn't even get him to top 10 in the B10 and I think barely top 40 nationally, even behind a bum like Barry Odom.  Same with the buyout, very much in line with other middling P5 coaches/programs.  I think its less a Schiano/Rutgers issue and more how contracts and buyouts in CFB have seemingly become funny money. It's not much more than Mike Lockesly's buyout was at Maryland last year (which is partially why he coached this year) and he's never been a good coach.

So yes, given how completely FUBAR the books are at Rutgers, they shouldn't be giving out buyout including extensions to anyone (or probably even paying coaches $5MM).  But again, from a football performance perspective, I don't think it was all that bad if it was any remotely healthy or solvent P5 athletics program.  There weren't glaring signs in 2023 that it was gonna go sideways like it has.

All of his kids on staff, with zero outside experience anywhere else, is a good point though.  They'll likely be selling insurance to other Rutgers alums by 2030 unless Dad crushes the transfer market this spring.

This. It's an absurd buyout number for mediocrity.

Again, its mediocrity for the Schiano 2.0 tenure given the last 1.5 years.  But at the time, he had taken Rutgers from a 1-11 (0-9) season to 7 wins and a bowl win in 4 years, including the COVID season.  He wasn't setting the world on fire, Rutgers wasn't suddenly challenging for a B10 Championship berth, but he was doing what nobody had been able to do for almost a decade since before he left (once Flood turned over Schiano's roster).

David Braun won COY that year going 8-5 which included losing to Rutgers and having only 1 win over a B10 with better than a .500 record.  But that was also far from mediocre cause NW was in shambles when he took over as well.

Alright, thats enough defending Ol' Greg, people gonna start thinking I'm Mike Teel's burner

[Uncle Rico]

FWIW, it was after the first 7-6 season in 2023, not the second in 2024.

I mean, isn't this the same thing we went through with the Wojo discussions?  Extensions to roll contracts over to demonstrate consistency/continuity to recruits and whatnot?  There are plenty of extensions in both CBB and CFB that aren't purely to prevent poaching.  You reward the success and legit progress he had from 2020-2023, signify you're sticking with him for the future, etc... Feels pretty straightforward. 

And again, it aged extremely poorly, but at the end of 2023, post-TB, Schiano had a really good tenure at OSU with top 10 defenses annually and was regularly regarded as a top recruiter in the country.  He only ended up back at Rutgers and not a much better P5 job cause of the Penn St stink on him (rightly or wrongly).  Then he went and turned around a dogcrap Rutgers program to respectability again in under 4 years.  I dont remember the intricacies of the 2023-2024 coaching carousel, but its not absurd to think that Schiano could have been an option for a number of good jobs, even if not the top option.  So while I think its mostly the reasons in the paragraph above, its not like they extended him after a 5-7 regression in 2025 when clearly he'd be unattractive.

As for the actual money, again it looks way worse after the regression last year and the disaster this year, but the raise was pretty modest and paced with the market.  $6MM didn't even get him to top 10 in the B10 and I think barely top 40 nationally, even behind a bum like Barry Odom.  Same with the buyout, very much in line with other middling P5 coaches/programs.  I think its less a Schiano/Rutgers issue and more how contracts and buyouts in CFB have seemingly become funny money. It's not much more than Mike Lockesly's buyout was at Maryland last year (which is partially why he coached this year) and he's never been a good coach.

So yes, given how completely FUBAR the books are at Rutgers, they shouldn't be giving out buyout including extensions to anyone (or probably even paying coaches $5MM).  But again, from a football performance perspective, I don't think it was all that bad if it was any remotely healthy or solvent P5 athletics program.  There weren't glaring signs in 2023 that it was gonna go sideways like it has.

All of his kids on staff, with zero outside experience anywhere else, is a good point though.  They'll likely be selling insurance to other Rutgers alums by 2030 unless Dad crushes the transfer market this spring.


Again, its mediocrity for the Schiano 2.0 tenure given the last 1.5 years.  But at the time, he had taken Rutgers from a 1-11 (0-9) season to 7 wins and a bowl win in 4 years, including the COVID season.  He wasn't setting the world on fire, Rutgers wasn't suddenly challenging for a B10 Championship berth, but he was doing what nobody had been able to do for almost a decade since before he left (once Flood turned over Schiano's roster).

David Braun won COY that year going 8-5 which included losing to Rutgers and having only 1 win over a B10 with better than a .500 record.  But that was also far from mediocre cause NW was in shambles when he took over as well.

Alright, thats enough defending Ol' Greg, people gonna start thinking I'm Mike Teel's burner

I went back and looked.  He didn't have any options. He wasn't getting a top job anywhere else

[The Sultan]

The thing that plagues athletic departments with these extensions is that they are usually completely unnecessary. Where was Greg Shiano realistically going to go? He went 7-6 and won the Pinstripe Bowl? Did they think that Florida or LSU was going to jump at him suddenly?

And the other thing is that their current President and Athletic Director are now saddled with this. Their predecessors made this deal and got all of the "glory" that came with it. Now the current people have to fix it.

The people who make the bad decisions rarely face the consequence of those decisions because they have moved on to their next place. Their past president is now heading the Luce Foundation and its billions of assets. Tough life.

[JWags85]

The thing that plagues athletic departments with these extensions is that they are usually completely unnecessary. Where was Greg Shiano realistically going to go? He went 7-6 and won the Pinstripe Bowl? Did they think that Florida or LSU was going to jump at him suddenly?

The thing I thought of after my post is that the sort of extension I was talking about is probably even more completely unnecessary given NIL and player movement.  Who cares if the university is committed to your coach for the next 4-5 years you're in college if there is a good chance you'll transfer anyways. It's an extension that could be argued to have meant varying levels of importance 5-10 years ago.  But now? Not at all.

[The Sultan]

The thing I thought of after my post is that the sort of extension I was talking about is probably even more completely unnecessary given NIL and player movement.  Who cares if the university is committed to your coach for the next 4-5 years you're in college if there is a good chance you'll transfer anyways. It's an extension that could be argued to have meant varying levels of importance 5-10 years ago.  But now? Not at all.

Right. For a top coach like Cig or Smart? Yes. For a replacement level Shiano? Nope.

[MU82]

The thing that plagues athletic departments with these extensions is that they are usually completely unnecessary. Where was Greg Shiano realistically going to go? He went 7-6 and won the Pinstripe Bowl? Did they think that Florida or LSU was going to jump at him suddenly?

And the other thing is that their current President and Athletic Director are now saddled with this. Their predecessors made this deal and got all of the "glory" that came with it. Now the current people have to fix it.

The people who make the bad decisions rarely face the consequence of those decisions because they have moved on to their next place. Their past president is now heading the Luce Foundation and its billions of assets. Tough life.

Yup to all of this.

It reminds me of when the Bears felt they had to extend Dick Jauron after he finally had a decent season even though he still had a year left on his contract. Predictably, the Bears went right back to being terrible, but they felt they had to give him yet another year because they didn't want to eat all of the contract.

I mean, who was gonna swoop in and steal Jauron away from them? And even in the highly unlikely case that someone did, he was gonna be irreplaceable?

And what you said about saddling the next school administration with a mediocre coach on a bad contract is so true.

[Uncle Rico]

Rubio using taxpayer money to go watch Florida play football

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/11/11/flying-by-pricey-military-jet-marco-rubio-never-misses-florida-game/

[CreightonWarrior]

The thing I thought of after my post is that the sort of extension I was talking about is probably even more completely unnecessary given NIL and player movement.  Who cares if the university is committed to your coach for the next 4-5 years you're in college if there is a good chance you'll transfer anyways. It's an extension that could be argued to have meant varying levels of importance 5-10 years ago.  But now? Not at all.

the con job Matt Rhule did on Nebraska was hilarious.