Rutgers AD fiasco shows how incompetent college administrators can be

No one can really blame Julie Hermann for taking the job of Athletic Director at Rutgers when it was offered to her. After all, it wasn't up to her to divulge any details of "negatives" in her career history that might have prevented from being hired in a new job. That would be the responsibility of the people in charge of hiring - i.e., the college administrators at Rutgers University.

The level of incompetence of administrators and faculty at colleges and universities when it comes to hiring people for jobs borders on the bizarre. The situation at Rutgers is only one example.

First, the university wastes thousands of taxpayer dollars by paying an "executive search firm" to try to find a suitable candidate as its next athletic director. When in reality, the search committee of Rutgers administrators, faculty, and students could simple have advertised the opening and contacted other athletic departments at colleges around the country to inform them of the open position for minimal expense (not to mention, most people who work in college athletics would have known that there was an open position at Rutgers just by listening to the news).

Then, one of the members of the search committee on her own identifies Hermann as a candidate. So much for paying the search firm to provide a service. How come they didn't identify Hermann?

According to one published report, the process of hiring Hermann was rushed through the search committee, to the dismay of several committee members. Plus, no one at Rutgers did any kind of background check, which may have turned up the controversy of her tenure as a volleyball coach. The Star Ledger newspaper found out about the volleyball coaching controversy. Apparently, Rutgers did know about the discrimination lawsuit that was filed against Louisville when Hermann was there. It didn't seem to matter in the decision making process, as do many outlandish things that occur in the college sports world. College coaches and sports administrators get paid millions, jump from one job to the next, all the while claiming that they are working in the best interests of "student athletes." Yeah right.

Rutgers president Robert Barchi did the politically convenient thing by firing former athletic Tim Pernetti. Defending the hire of Hermann and not publicly admitting that Rutgers fouled up the vetting process is also a politically convenient move. But why should we expect anything more from the incompetent college administrators?

Christopher J: New baseball book available online

Christopher J: New baseball book available online: Here’s a new baseball book, available for 99 cents, at Smashwords.com: Christopher J, Author of The Perfect Game Sample or purchase The P...

Yanks' 24-14 record proves you don't need stars to win games

The Yankees have one the best records in the major leagues at the moment, with a 24-14 won/loss record. this with many of their highly paid "stars" on the disabled list - Kevin Youklis, Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Mark Texiera, and Curtis Granderson. Yet with all the millions those guys are getting for doing rehabilitation exercises, the current team has been winning games with journeymen and cast-offs from other teams.  How? Clutch hitting. Infielder Jayson Nix has been steady defensively and while he has only 7 RBI's, they have come at important times. Same for first baseman Lyle Overbay, who has been reliable in the field and has driven in 22 runs, most at crucial spots in games. Outfielder Vernon Wells has also provided a number of clutch hits.

The Yankees' pitching has also been steady. Hiroki Kuroda has dominated in his starts, and the young pitchers have showed that it's been worth it to give them a chance. Adam Warren has been lights-out as a reliever, and David Phelps, Vidal Nuno, and Preston Claiborne have also baffled opposing hitters.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Yankees' high priced beef returns. Nix will be relegated to the bench, and Overbay will probably be designated for assignment, while Wells will see his at-bats shrink. But will the team keep winning?

Consequences minimal for NCAA, Rutgers basketball

Much ado nothing.  Rutgers may have a Division I basketball program, but it was never consistently competitive, with talented players going elsewhere to play ball. So the fallout and blowback to Rutgers and the NCAA is minimal. That's how it is in college sports, where no one in the high levels of the university, like the President is accountable. The folks who claim to have “integrity” in higher education are always the first ones to run and hide when things fall apart. As long as there's an athletic director and a lawyer to take the fall, the college presidents can avoid responsibility like they do for everything else. There's no leadership from the NCAA and college presidents, and all anyone cares about is keeping the money making aspect of college sports intact. Money that the athletes will never see, of course. Yes, many receive scholarships, but their entire college career is really about the sport that they play in, so that free ride to a degree does have a cost.  The college presidents and whoever runs the NCAA? They certainly can't be bothered with minor issues such as the welfare and well-being of the student athletes.

The attention is all focused on Eddie Jordan now, and what he can do turn the basketball program around and recruit talented high school players. Too bad Rutgers didn't hire Jordan instead of Mike Rice the last time around.

NCAA offers zero leadership

How does one get a job with the NCAA?  How did they start and what is their purpose? I need to do some research. It seems like whenever there's some sort of problem in college athletics, like the Rutgers basketball situation, the NCAA doesn't offer any leadership. Their leadership is in their back pocket. It's in their wallet. I'd like to know what the salaries are for some of the upper level employees at that place.

In college football and college basketball, the coaches are the stars. How come coaches can get out of their contracts to take a job in professional sports, but college athletes have to sit out a year if they want out of their scholarship in order to go play at another university? How come coaches get paid whatever is remaining on their contract if they get fired, but an athlete's scholarship is renewed year by year?

I hope college athletes really enjoy the sport that they're playing. Wouldn't seem worth it otherwise.

Above the law: How come baseball players who fight on the field are not arrested?

Most baseball brawls start when a batter is hit by a ball thrown by a pitcher. The batter might charge the mound and assault the pitcher, and then all players and coaches from both teams dive into the fray. There's usually lots of pushing, shoving, and grabbing, and punches are thrown, but they don't always land on their intended targets. Once in a while a player is badly injured, as what happened recently with Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Zack Grienke.

A question I have is, how come players who fight on the field are not arrested and charged, as they would be if a fight occurred off the field? Do baseball players, and other professional athletes, have some sort of immunity on the field?  A lawyer out there has to answer this question for me.  If two employees of a company have a fistfight in the office, the police are called, and someone might get arrested. How come baseball players can't be arrested? The field is their "office." It's still a public place. There's lots of witnesses.

Personally, I think guys who charge the mound after getting hit by a pitch are babies. Maybe if Carlos Quentin didn't stand so close to the plate he would not have led the National League in 2012 and the American League in 2011 in the "Hit By Pitch" category with 17 and 23, respectively. Batters who crowd the plate thinking that gives them and edge should be prepared to be moved away by a pitcher who is going to throw inside.

In any case perhaps the legal types out there can advise as to why pro athletes who fight on the field are never arrested.

Yanks' Gardner not making a difference in centerfield so far

Baseball's sabermatricians often talk about range factor, zone fielding, and runs saved when calculating defensive statistics. I'm not sure if any of it actually translates into wins on the field for a team, but if it does matter, it doesn't seem like the Yankees made the right decision about moving Brett Gardner to centerfield and shifting Curtis Granderson to left field this season.

While it's somewhat of moot point being that Granderson has missed the first month of the season due to a broken arm and Gardner has had to play centerfield, since the Yanks have no one else who could really do it everyday, taking a look at Gardner's defensive stats seem to show that he hasn't made much of a difference.

In 19 games and 172 innings to date Gardner has been minus 6 in runs above or below average that a fielder is worth based on the number of plays made. Over the course of a 162 game season that means he would cost the Yankees 40 runs.  Hardly the type of stat that you would want from your regular centerfielder. His current range factor is 2.30, only slightly above the league average of 2.26.

While it's obvious Gardner's speed allows him to cover a lot of ground and get to balls that other fielders would not, at the moment the statistics don't support the idea that he is an outstanding defensive centerfielder.  On the other hand, it could mean that sabermetrics don't mean all that much. As long as the fielder doesn't make any obvious errors on fly balls or throws, perhaps the .04 percentage difference in range factor isn't going to translate into a championship for a baseball team.