Can Rutgers, Seton Hall win on the court of public opinion with handling of basketball coaches?

BY JOE FAVORITO

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

ON N.J. SPORTS MARKETING

What a week for Rutgers and Seton Hall hoops! The two programs went in opposite directions with regard to their head coaching situations, and from at least one perspective may have ended up in the same place, at least in terms of the message sent to the casual fan and the supporter alike.

Seton Hall sent a clear message of zero tolerance to all in the firing of Bobby Gonzalez. The spokespeople for the university did not push for blame and took on all accountability in making the change on Wednesday morning. Seton Hall is bigger than its basketball program, and the changes that were made will (hopefully) get the philosophy of the university in tune with what the goals are of the athletic program — providing quality student athletes and staff who are reflective of the student body and can be engaging to all those in the community - as well as being successful in athletics.

There was no hesitation or even rush to judgment. The university did not act in haste. They were clear in spelling out the reasons for the dismissal, and in their view gave the staff every chance to help change course. The result was a change that will be perceived to be for the betterment not just of sports, but for the university as well.

Can blame be placed at the university's feet for letting the situation fester? Was there collateral damage — namely the reported loss of athletic director Joe Quinlan, who seemingly lost a power struggle with Gonzalez early in the season, or players who may be on the outs in the transition to a new coach? Yes. However what was clear is that this was a unified decision, one that had very little backlash, and that Seton Hall has moved on. All of which can make the best of a bad situation.

Further down the N.J. Turnpike we have Rutgers, which sent the message through Athletic Director Tim Pernetti that they were going to stay with consistency and give head coach Fred Hill another year. For a program that has had such turnover previously, the announcement also sent a clear message to casual fans and ardent supporters — we too will not rush to judgment and will reward a coach who has worked hard and will give Hill the benefit of the doubt to play out his own hand.

Again there was no deviation from the line for Rutgers officials. The message was clear and delivered in a very timely manner, as opposed to dragging out the decision and creating more hearsay. Like in the case of Seton Hall, could the decision have been made sooner and any issues be put to bed faster about the future of the program? Perhaps. However, what was clear in the timing is that this was not a rush to judgment and that the timing gave ample weight to the pros and cons of the situation.

Some naysayers may say that Seton Hall in making a change now actually avoided the inevitable that Rutgers will face in a years time ... that of making a coaching change. However, the fact remains that although the universities made polar opposite decisions, they made them in the correct manner and with a unified voice. Some may disagree with each decision (perhaps Rutgers' more than Seton Hall's) but one thing is clear. The decision came from the top and was without deviation. In these times of hesitancy and mixed messages, both universities scored points by getting the proper message clearly across.

Joe Favorito has over 23 years of strategic communications/marketing, business development and public relations expertise in sports, entertainment, brand building, media training, television, athletic administration and business. Visit him at JoeFavorito.com.