Anyone else see the NYT article about Shoop's firing?
- Thread starter Boilerbrewer
- Start date
If we were 10-2, 9-3, hell 7-5 he might still have a job. Bottom line is he sucks as an OC and that's why he got canned, nothing more or less. His track record of success (ha) in the NFL and now in college and the subsequent results tell the story of John Shoop.
Doubt this was the only reason for termination as our offense was very poor. But if there is smoke.... I wouldn't mind seeing some real media make Morgan squirm. Agitate him if nothing else.
Sounds to me like Stacy Clardie had better sleep with the lights on. Morgan and his goons are not happy.
Interesting angle, but I am afraid the real issue is the lousy recruiting and coaching in this historically bad program. Perhaps Shoop should try the high school level.
Interesting angle, but I am afraid the real issue is the lousy recruiting and coaching in this historically bad program. Perhaps Shoop should try the high school level.
This is true. So conflicted as I did not care for Shoop as a playcaller and I do not care for Morgan Burke as an AD or a human being. Would love to tell him to "get a clue."
Complete garbage . . . . The culmination of the "Participation trophy" vs real life
If the approach is for everyone to feel good and wins and losses don't matter, than give him a blue ribbon and pat him on the back.
I'm sure they are great people. But honestly, their job is to do everything they describe in that article AND show progress on the field
Ask any sales guy who has been let go because they didn't hit their numbers, if their wife who advocated salesmans rights made a difference. . . I think not.
Following that approach Purdue and all other football teams should be playing in the Football playoffs. And we shouldn't be worried about playoff seeding. However that is contrary to anything else that happens in the real world. There are winners and losers and their is excellence and there is mediocre and poor performance. In the real world you are rewarded (or not rewarded) accordingly. In this situation. Your offense doesn't perform. You don't get the opportunity to work at Purdue.
Sorry for the venting. This crap is so tiresome.
If the approach is for everyone to feel good and wins and losses don't matter, than give him a blue ribbon and pat him on the back.
I'm sure they are great people. But honestly, their job is to do everything they describe in that article AND show progress on the field
Ask any sales guy who has been let go because they didn't hit their numbers, if their wife who advocated salesmans rights made a difference. . . I think not.
Following that approach Purdue and all other football teams should be playing in the Football playoffs. And we shouldn't be worried about playoff seeding. However that is contrary to anything else that happens in the real world. There are winners and losers and their is excellence and there is mediocre and poor performance. In the real world you are rewarded (or not rewarded) accordingly. In this situation. Your offense doesn't perform. You don't get the opportunity to work at Purdue.
Sorry for the venting. This crap is so tiresome.
When the results of one's job are as poor as Shoop's, it's a bit difficult to claim some political disagreement is the sole cause of their firing.
I'd say that the most harmful aspect of the article, at least for recruiting purposes, might be the fact that no athletic department personnel, other than Shoop, signed the letter condemning racism on campus, even when many athletes supported the protests.
But if you read the comments on the NYT piece, most readers (probably rightfully) see it as the writer imposing a political narrative onto Shoop's firing rather than acknowledging that his offense never lived up to expectations.
But if you read the comments on the NYT piece, most readers (probably rightfully) see it as the writer imposing a political narrative onto Shoop's firing rather than acknowledging that his offense never lived up to expectations.
So no one else in the entire AD signed this letter... well, maybe there isn't such a huge problem on campus. It's sad how so many people want to create drama.
I did think it was odd that Stacy would text Shoop's wife about a possible firing. Of course, I can't imagine them not expecting him to be fired.
The unavoidable truth is that Shoop was fired (and Hazell should have been fired) because he sucks at his job- NOT because of his views on student-athlete rights... This myopic, totally misplaced hatchet job of an article has no place unter the masthead of a supposedly competent news organization.
This guy obviously never watched a Shoop offense.
And I wonder how the reporter found out that Stacy was the one who texted shoop's wife.
Also- shows you how tied her hands are that she couldn't report it. Wonder what else she knows that she can't report.
All of this is bs. First MB and DH find some "fall guys" to blame for their own failures and then one of the "fall guys" tries to deflect the facts about his failures in play calling and recruiting to try to make a case that he was fired because of his politics. What a fkg mess MB has allowed to fester and continue for another year at least.
Maybe this will turn into a huge PR nightmare and Burke will get canned over it. One can only hope.
Boy,what a load of garbage.Are we supposed to believe Hudson and Carter were also canned for something like supporting athletes rights?This team had no offensive identity for three years .That was reason enough for Shoop to go.
Obviously Shoop contacted the NYT and orchestrated this piece, likely as an opportunity to advance his beliefs.
What really is eye opening to me in hindsight now is how much of a cancer this guy really was, not only incompetent in coordinating the offense, but also planting these "me first" seeds in the minds of the players. If your players aren't selling out for the team, you aren't getting their best. Look at the teams playing today - Iowa and MSU. If you watched them play the thing that stands out is how hard they play. They aren't necessarily the most talented in the Big Ten, but those coaching staffs shape their players to sell out for the team, eliminate these types of distractions, play 100% full throttle, and if necessary run thru a brick wall without thinking about where their next concussion is coming from.
What really is eye opening to me in hindsight now is how much of a cancer this guy really was, not only incompetent in coordinating the offense, but also planting these "me first" seeds in the minds of the players. If your players aren't selling out for the team, you aren't getting their best. Look at the teams playing today - Iowa and MSU. If you watched them play the thing that stands out is how hard they play. They aren't necessarily the most talented in the Big Ten, but those coaching staffs shape their players to sell out for the team, eliminate these types of distractions, play 100% full throttle, and if necessary run thru a brick wall without thinking about where their next concussion is coming from.
I do think it accurate in that I can see Morgan doing exactly those things. Morgan is a slimy guy. I also think Shoop was well liked by his players. I have never heard a bad word from any collegiate players about him. Like I said before, in the end this article made me dislike both even more.
No offense, but just because players like a coach doesn't mean they bust their butts for him. Players need to be motivated, not coddled.
Shoop and I must have been watching different games. Also, in year three who's fault is it you are playing first year players? He needs to go away. In my eyes, he just made himself unemployable. Well deserved!
That is fair. I have just heard first hand the players found him genuine and really liked him on a personal level. I don't think he failed to motivate, I just think his scheme was not good and it was too complicated for players to understand.
If the Shoops can get Morgan Burke fired, it would greatly be appreciated.
I hadn't thought of that when I reacted to the article-- good idea!!!!
How's this for a takeaway: "Burke is an oppressive dinosaur who callously tramples on free speech and individual freedoms" -- The proof is in the article.
At a time when so much of our public discourse is fueled by inaccuracy, this should fit right in...
How's this for a takeaway: "Burke is an oppressive dinosaur who callously tramples on free speech and individual freedoms" -- The proof is in the article.
At a time when so much of our public discourse is fueled by inaccuracy, this should fit right in...
The most concerning thing to me in the article would be Blough's comments. He doesn't sound happy at all.
If his friendship with Shoop is more important than winning football games, he is more than welcome to transfer. Sindelar may be a much better QB anyway.
So Hazell is a racist because he didn't sign the letter? Was he even asked to sign it? Was it even circulated throughout the department? This is self-serving distortion from Shoop, all to promote his wife's "career" as an advocate for athletes -- since he knows he'll never coach again in the college game -- and the NYT is glad to help since it supports their political narrative.
Last edited:
Any way you slice this it is bad publicity for the university. What the unavoidable conclusion is to this is that Hazell and the entire staff should have been fired - because it is a performance issue -- cut and dried.
Not so sure -- the article also points out that our football players are real college students and that we don't subsidize athletics will student tuition dollars or anything else. Not to suggest that this is good publicity but it's not all bad -- Morgan is the one who really comes off as the villain.
I'm fairly certain Blough wants to win as badly as anyone. And that is what's concerning. I'm probably reading way too much into it but it doesn't appear DB thinks Shoop was the reason for our failure this year.
The folks that read this article will remember Purdue, not Burke. Purdue looks inept. Burke is Purdue. He acts on behalf of the University and makes us look cheap and petty.
Hope this clown reporter didnt waste too many of the New York Times resources coming up with the earth shattering scoop that Burke is cheap and petty.
Had the main point been that Burke is cheap and petty, I wouldn't have had an issue with the article.
First of all, the article implies Shoop was fired because he supported the Purdue student rally. However, the rally had nothing to do with "athletes' rights", so the article is probably misnamed. However, there were professors that signed that letter to Daniels as well, were they fired also?
Secondly, has the guy who wrote this article ever had to sit through a Purdue football game? Does he know that being successful on the field far outweighs anything else in big time athletics? Does he know that the DC was likewise fired? Does he know that most of the fanbase wanted Hazell gone?
Players are always going to stick up for their coach. Of course Blough liked Shoop - he was probably recruited by him. But that last line makes me angry because this is so obviously a situation where Purdue has had a horrible on-field product for 3 years ... to blame this firing on anything else is irresponsible journalism.
Another thing that needs to stop is the "Purdue has a young team" comment. Burke actually mentioned this too, so it's just the clueless NYT journalist. By my count of the depth chart below, 17 of the 22 starting slots were upperclassmen. That's a veteran team, not a young team. Of course, the two most talented players on offense are freshman, but that's an indictment on the amount of talent we have, not how young we are.
http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/purdue/91717
If Shoop had "championed" our "athletes rights" to get to the end zone, he might still be here.
Purdue is INEPT in football, from the PU President, to the BOT, to the AD, down to the team and the fans!
Now, does that ineptitude cast a negative light on the rest of university, including academics, implying that Purdue is an institution satisfied with just going through the motions, rather than being the best it can be?
Maybe? And that's why some on here have argued that the President and the BOT should take more of an interest in PU football, beyond just making sure that everything is done as frugally (i.e., cheaply) as possible.
Also there is the concern that it is not just in athletics that things are being done as frugally (i.e., cheaply) as possible in striving for affordability instead of excellence.
This isn't just some abstract theory. There is research that shows correlations between winning football games and increased alumni donations, enhanced academic reputation, increased number of applicants, etc.
