A.D. search
- Thread starter nagemj02
- Start date
Careful My daughter can whip the average boy in her class on the court and she helped me coach a middle school aged team this past winter. I was impressed. She also knows Krav Maga so run if you say that to her!my bias. When he started posting I couldn't believe he had the feel and knowledge for the game to be a ...drum roll please....girl...
It was a portion of the BTN money. It wasn't "pulled" from anyone's budget. You have to keep in mind - as much as we may disagree with the overall decision - the BTN money was coming in at a rate much higher than was projected. Purdue was basing its budget on a lower projection, so the overall budget was not significantly affected. Now, it would have been nice to have the extra cash, sure.
But it also goes back to - even if you were given some extra money for assistants in that time with Hope as coach. Are you going to have a higher profile assistant than head coach? It's not like Hope was getting paid that much to begin with. And Hope's hire was totally Burke's idea - he wanted to re-do the Keady/Painter transition. I don't put that hire on Cordova at all. And quite frankly, we saw the AD operate the same prior to and after her. So to put the blame on her for all of this is kinda silly. You don't have to like her and she did not go above and beyond to improve the AD - but she wasn't a villain either that created our football problem.
Cut the crap and lets get back to the A.D. search.my bias. When he started posting I couldn't believe he had the feel and knowledge for the game to be a ...drum roll please....girl...
Thanks for the response, Ilbodel. I tend to agree that while Cordova may have certainly not been the best ally for the Athletic Department, her role in the demise of athletic results on the field/court (especially football) is overstated at times IMO.
I also agree that the BTN revenue did take some of the heat off with declining attendance, which would have otherwise caused a much bigger budget shortfall problem......or at least a heavy constraint on available resources......
I'm not searching and have no idea who could be in the running. How do we get back to something we never had?
So, a long drawn out discussion of a topic about which there is absolutely no information and even less knowledge on which to base pointless speculation is so interesting to you that we can't poke a little fun?
Don't really know names, but finding a good AD is not an easy chore. From my dealings with universities, you have varying types of ADs:
1. The experienced/serious AD candidate. These are people who mean business and who will probably make some unpopular moves, in theory for the better. They tend to overhaul and change things and you see some turnover, with some coaches, but more so staff.
Pros: We need to get down to business with our football program. We don't have time for fluff, learning on the job, etc. That being said, if you don't have it personally, if you're well regarded to have a very strong #2 that handles a sport like football, that's fine too. Easier said than done. I think Purdue needs needs a staff overhaul and need to think overall strategy on some key topics.
Cons: Obviously too much change can eventually get to being a bad thing. Purdue's AD has operated basically the same way for 25 years with Burke. I know it's easy for people to criticize him, but at the same time a lot of good things have happened and for the most part, Purdue's done it in a respectable way. A ton of change in a short period of time can make people uneasy - although granted, we aren't looking at things like conference changes and such. These types of ADs, hired at an older age, can also be a more short-term solution. A lot of times you'll see them come in - fix a major thing - and then be done. Not necessarily a con.
2. The less-experienced/up&coming candidate. You don't see this as much with Big Ten level institutions, but hiring a "rising star" - similar to Illinois, although that situation was somewhat unique given Illinois was also his alma mater and he played football there. These people also instill change and have more of a futuristic/"hip" vision. You may see more things done along the lines of branding, uniforms and deals of that nature.
Pros: Purdue could certainly use an injection of branding and hipness. I think Purdue's improved a bit, but the gameday experience is still lagging/cheesy. In addition, having the swagger and confident branding is something Purdue's lacked. While you're likely to see a whole new senior level staff no matter what happens given many of them came in with Burke and are in similar retirement positions, you'd likely see fresh faces.
Cons: As I pointed out with Illinois, it is rare for this person to be a "Purdue" person. You'll likely find someone who has strong allegiances to other schools, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Where it can be a problem is that they don't necessarily see things from Purdue's perspective and you can lose the fans by making things cookie cutter/bringing in ideas from other schools. With a young AD, you likely also see a young staff - which means it's a stepping stone job for both the AD and staff. In a lot of these situations, you get people who are looking at building their resume and not necessarily putting the school first. In addition, you also aren't looking at people staying long. Given that taking to Purdue to the next level is going to be a process - not sure that would be best.
3. The non-athletic department experienced AD. This could come in many forms - from private business to former coaches, to former players, other sports leagues, conference officials, etc. Again, one of the more prime examples you think of in this case (other than MB of course) is Barry Alvarez. Again, somewhat of a unique situation just as Illinois' AD. Obviously it's hard to characterize these because it somewhat depends on what the background is exactly. The former player/coach, whether it's a Purdue guy or not, is intriguing but I think with a school like Purdue - it's a tough call. While football is obviously the big fix right now, the basketball program is Purdue's premiere and more steady over the years. You don't want a situation where you get a football guy who just obsesses with football and not necessarily ignores basketball, but doesn't necessarily see the overall picture (and that's not necessarily just other sports, but other departments). With a corporate guy, at the end of the day athletic departments may be run like businesses, but they are not very formal places like a corporate world.
Pros: This niche obviously has a much bigger overall candidate pool. Not coming from working within another athletic department would also mean they could adapt their work better to Purdue and fit their styles in with Purdue (as I've always preached, there are few athletic departments that are truly similar in that they are all set-up so unique, different pros and cons to them, etc.).
Cons: The last thing you want is someone who doesn't get athletic departments. Bad management can doom an athletic department when people don't seem like they get it. As I mentioned, athletic departments are basically a cooperation, but they don't have the feel of one. Some corporate practices don't really work in athletic departments and you can see a big waste of money instead of just hiring good/smart people. Of course, this is not exclusive to this group - but the last thing you want is someone who used to be a coach that just does not get what people in the athletic department do because coaches are very siloed in they often get whatever they ask - even though it may mean turning someone's job or department upside-down (and they don't necessarily see those ramifications when they are a coach). You don't necessarily get a realistic perspective as a head coach of how things really work.
Obviously there is options for crossovers among these categories and there are other categories as well. There's also factors whether you want a Purdue person vs. outside. Then among that, you also have Purdue person ala alumni, former player/coach, etc. - and you have people who have worked at Purdue (or both) - like a Greg Christopher.
Purdue's a tough situation right now with football where it's at - especially because there is literally 0 room for error financially, but it also has a lot of potential in a very strong, supportive and financially stable conference. Obviously if an AD comes in, maintains/improves basketball, while also improving football - you can see Purdue do some big things. Keep in mind if Purdue was just at it's "average" level of football interest under Tiller - we'd be doing pretty darn well for ourselves financially.
Good analysis. The AD is the COO of athletics. The next one will have to deal with some departments that are winners and some that are losers. The difference is, this executive won't be able to sell off the businesses that haven't been contributing to the bottom line.
I think we all have fairly low expectations. It's like when Hope was fired and Hazell was hired. To be perfectly honest, he was a well received hire on here. In reality, there were a lot of holes in his resume and he got a pretty sweet contract compared to his peers that year, which obviously has signs of desperation by Purdue. But we had such low expectations after Hope...
I was one of those who had high hopes for Hazell (and hope he proves us all wrong this year). But what you describe is a great example of people wanting change because they aren't happy, and thinking anything is better than the current situation. Making changes out of desperation rarely works out.
Have any names surfaced in the search for the A.D. Article says nearing the end but I have yet to hear who is being considered. Will they settle or are they going after any big fish.
