ADVERTISEMENT

Anyone else worried? No recruits this week. TIC

I expected a bunch of prospects who attended our camp to commit , and they did. many of those 4/5 stars will be added later in the year after we show them what we're made of.
 
I expected a bunch of prospects who attended our camp to commit , and they did. many of those 4/5 stars will be added later in the year after we show them what we're made of.

Agree. The coaches wouldn't take a verbal commitment right now if a player that wasn't seen as a player who is a plan A guy right now. The key is 'right now.' If Brohm shows some real progress and spats off some key wins, there is always a chance to get a higher ranked kid to commit. However, most of the guys that are committed...especially the DB's...seem to be able to potentially play multiple positions given time (especially safety and LB).
 
According to the H&R report, as it stands, we would only have 1 scholarship left to give for this current class. Now, we all know that will change and fluctuate quite a bit, but it could be an indicator of why things have slowed, at least for now. I'd imagine that we will end up taking at least 20 total, if not all the way up to 25, but that all depends on defections that are likely.

I think our remaining needs out of this class stand as others have said. DL and LB are most important. I'd like to see DT Branson Deen and DE Madison Norris from Indy. That would give us 2 DE and 2 DT. I think we also need at least 2 more LB. Best case scenario would be Chase Kline from Ohio and Justice Dingle from Kentucky. I would guess the DB recruiting is complete, though you could see Trice projecting as an OLB type if a guy like Donald Johnson (4-star DB from Indy) wanted to jump on board.

Outside of that, you would think we'd take at least 1 RB. I think we've offered several but the one I've seen mentioned the most is Caleb Steward from Florida. Elsewhere on offense, I think we will see 1-2 more WR. Terez Traynor from KY is a top target, though he's supposedly a UK lean. Although he gets mentioned for DB a lot, I think Reese Taylor, ATH from Indy would likely project as a slot type receiver due to his height (5'10) and the staff's priority on tall DB's. Not sure on any other high priority WR targets. I wouldn't mind taking TE Keaton Upshaw from OH if we have the space.

With 4 OL this year and 4 last, it's possible that part of the class is done, though you can't rule out more as that has to be a focal point of recruiting. Their strategy is interesting, seemingly recruiting primarily tall, lean and athletic tackles. 6 of the 8 total are listed as tackles. Obviously, not all will end up as such, but we will be tall across the board and quite athletic.

So I think the staff is hoping for around a 20 man class, which would leave us with 6 spots to fill. 2 DL, 2 LB, 2 offensive targets. Just a guess of course. Hopefully they can get more of what they are wanting as they find out which current guys are bought in or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNTBoiler
Marcus Caldwell - 3 star RB - has an offer and is high on Purdue. Let get him on campus!
 
According to the H&R report, as it stands, we would only have 1 scholarship left to give for this current class. Now, we all know that will change and fluctuate quite a bit, but it could be an indicator of why things have slowed, at least for now. I'd imagine that we will end up taking at least 20 total, if not all the way up to 25, but that all depends on defections that are likely.

I think our remaining needs out of this class stand as others have said. DL and LB are most important. I'd like to see DT Branson Deen and DE Madison Norris from Indy. That would give us 2 DE and 2 DT. I think we also need at least 2 more LB. Best case scenario would be Chase Kline from Ohio and Justice Dingle from Kentucky. I would guess the DB recruiting is complete, though you could see Trice projecting as an OLB type if a guy like Donald Johnson (4-star DB from Indy) wanted to jump on board.

Outside of that, you would think we'd take at least 1 RB. I think we've offered several but the one I've seen mentioned the most is Caleb Steward from Florida. Elsewhere on offense, I think we will see 1-2 more WR. Terez Traynor from KY is a top target, though he's supposedly a UK lean. Although he gets mentioned for DB a lot, I think Reese Taylor, ATH from Indy would likely project as a slot type receiver due to his height (5'10) and the staff's priority on tall DB's. Not sure on any other high priority WR targets. I wouldn't mind taking TE Keaton Upshaw from OH if we have the space.

With 4 OL this year and 4 last, it's possible that part of the class is done, though you can't rule out more as that has to be a focal point of recruiting. Their strategy is interesting, seemingly recruiting primarily tall, lean and athletic tackles. 6 of the 8 total are listed as tackles. Obviously, not all will end up as such, but we will be tall across the board and quite athletic.

So I think the staff is hoping for around a 20 man class, which would leave us with 6 spots to fill. 2 DL, 2 LB, 2 offensive targets. Just a guess of course. Hopefully they can get more of what they are wanting as they find out which current guys are bought in or not.

Steward is out

 
Would / could a player like Allstott slide over to RB ? he was sort of a running QB in high school, and we've added two other passing QBs last year and to this year's class. With Sindelar and Sipe, I have to believe Alstott will never see any playing time at QB.
 
Would / could a player like Allstott slide over to RB ? he was sort of a running QB in high school, and we've added two other passing QBs last year and to this year's class. With Sindelar and Sipe, I have to believe Alstott will never see any playing time at QB.

Alstott doesn't have the ability to play RB in college. Doesn't have the size nor does he have the speed and elusiveness. Just because his last name is Alstott doesn't mean he has the same ability of his father. I believe if Brohm didn't believe Alstott didn't have some ability to build on to potentially make him starter, he would have pulled the scholarship offer and found a player of another position to provide depth in the 2017 class.

 
I'm too enthralled with the player draft they're doing to be worried about recruiting. Can't wait for picks 90-100!
 
  • Like
Reactions: boilerbusdriver
Alstott doesn't have the ability to play RB in college. Doesn't have the size nor does he have the speed and elusiveness. Just because his last name is Alstott doesn't mean he has the same ability of his father. I believe if Brohm didn't believe Alstott didn't have some ability to build on to potentially make him starter, he would have pulled the scholarship offer and found a player of another position to provide depth in the 2017 class.


Can't yank the schollie of the son of a prominent alum.

Wr might be an option for him
 
  • Like
Reactions: boilerbusdriver
Having watched tape on both incoming QB's, Alstott would appear to be the more athletic of the two. Sipe is more of the pocket passer. I would imagine Brohm felt Sipe was the better QB, but wasn't about to withdraw the scholarship from a legacy kid. I think obviously that's a very smart move. You have enough flexibility with football scholarships to do that. I could see Alstott as a WR pretty early in his career. He is a good athlete, so it could work out well for him and could add to the trick play arsenal of Brohm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boilerbusdriver
Alstott doesn't have the ability to play RB in college. Doesn't have the size nor does he have the speed and elusiveness. Just because his last name is Alstott doesn't mean he has the same ability of his father. I believe if Brohm didn't believe Alstott didn't have some ability to build on to potentially make him starter, he would have pulled the scholarship offer and found a player of another position to provide depth in the 2017 class.

Give the kid chance and let him get on campus. He has 4.6 40 speed, 6'2" size and has dads desire to live in the weight room till he gains bulk. This guy will not only contribute but will start by junior yr either at WR, RB, S or LB . Pulling a scholarship offer would be a monumental error that would make the Gene Keady vs Rick/Richie Mount episode look minor in comparison.
 
My comment was not made as a slight on Alstott. But rather, looking at our current class and with only 6 scholarships left to give, I was wondering if Alstott with his athletic ability could become a RB.
 
Give the kid chance and let him get on campus. He has 4.6 40 speed, 6'2" size and has dads desire to live in the weight room till he gains bulk. This guy will not only contribute but will start by junior yr either at WR, RB, S or LB . Pulling a scholarship offer would be a monumental error that would make the Gene Keady vs Rick/Richie Mount episode look minor in comparison.

I didn't say the offer should have been pulled. What I said was had Brohm felt the kid couldn't contribute at QB, he would have found a player of another position that is of greater need.

4.6 speed, unless you are Richie Worship's size, is far too slow. He may make a good safety as a few former QB's st Purdue have gone on to success on the defensive side.
 
As of June 24th, we have the #42 recruiting class. For comparison, MSU is #39.

The new coach is already doing better than the old regime.
 
As of June 24th, we have the #42 recruiting class. For comparison, MSU is #39.

The new coach is already doing better than the old regime.


The #42 rating is great. But rather than doing better than or being compared to the old regime, we need to focus on comparing our team to our current rivals. We're not going to play any games against ourselves. Part of that ranking is because of the number of our commitments . We have about 6-8 openings left to add a couple of prized recruits who are taking a look and see approach. there's a 4* db Donald Johnson out of Indy looking at us. We already have a bunch of DBs, but he would be a tremendous addition, and there is some pretty stiff competition for him coming from ND and Iowa. It would sure make me happy if Brohm could steal him from ND. it would be nice to help solidify that final ranking with a couple of 4 *s, and some solid 3 * players.

Unlike the past, looking at targets and offers, there are a lot of quality Indiana players who list Purdue with WARM interest. it appears they like what they see, but it may take a couple of wins on the field to win them over.

I realize that our commitment list will change a lot between now and signing day. but I believe with the earlier signing date, a couple of wins in those first 3 non-conference games will go a long way to securing some top recruits. Because of the earlier signing date, I see a lot fewer flip and flops for Purdue this year.

Ohio is a MUST win game. Beating Missouri would be a recruiting coup. Louisville and Michigan are going to be very tough games - hope we look respectable. I see the minn game as our key game of the season. you all know how negative I am. I don't think Minn is as good as others say, and that they can be beat. if we could somehow pull out that game, I think some of those players currently watching may give us a second look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boilerbusdriver
The #42 rating is great. But rather than doing better than or being compared to the old regime, we need to focus on comparing our team to our current rivals.
While true to a point, we haven't played any games yet so the only thing we can truly compare is new vs old regime.
 
As of June 24th, we have the #42 recruiting class. For comparison, MSU is #39.

The new coach is already doing better than the old regime.
I'm optimistic as well, but there is really no good, objective way to compare recruiting classes until they are signed. Player ratings change with senior year performance. Classes fill at different rates. And then there are decommits.. I don't bother counting the chickens before they hatch because even DH2 had some decent looking classes at this point in the calendar year, prior to decommits. With all that said, by average recruit rank our class is only tied for #72, which is improvement from a month ago, but mostly on the same trajectory to be in the bottom group in the conference, which should be no surprise considering the state of the program. What is important is within 2-3 years the staff should have enough quality depth to elevate the program through player development.
 
Last edited:
Burke scheduling that Louisville game was insane.
Scheduling the Missouri game was insane! Hell, the last few years Missouri has been to the SEC Championship game and been ultra competitive in the SEC. last year was a wreck for some reason but Pinkel knows what he is doing. Had Missouri had a normal season in 2016, Purdue could likely have ended up playing 3 non-conference teams that made bowl games, one played in their conference championship, and one returns the Heisman winner. Burke is a dufus.
 
Scheduling the Missouri game was insane! Hell, the last few years Missouri has been to the SEC Championship game and been ultra competitive in the SEC. last year was a wreck for some reason but Pinkel knows what he is doing. Had Missouri had a normal season in 2016, Purdue could likely have ended up playing 3 non-conference teams that made bowl games, one played in their conference championship, and one returns the Heisman winner. Burke is a dufus.
Pinkel is no longer the coach at Mizzou, he retired in 2015 due to lymphoma diagnosis. Barry Odom is the HC now, believe they were 4-8 in his debut season.
 
ok, looking at my other posts, scheduling both the Louisville and Missouri games were insane moves. Even Ohio is not a pushover. Please tell me again why Purdue couldn't schedule Western Ill ? or SIU or Indiana St ? I realize they are not Division 1 schools, but it's not like Purdue was going to go to a Bowl game this year. and what is insane was Burke scheduled both Louisville and Missouri knowing Purdue was having hard times winning a game. At least, couldn't we play some MAC teams? or the perennial loser of the ACC or BIG 12 , like Kansas and Iowa State?
 
ok, looking at my other posts, scheduling both the Louisville and Missouri games were insane moves. Even Ohio is not a pushover. Please tell me again why Purdue couldn't schedule Western Ill ? or SIU or Indiana St ? I realize they are not Division 1 schools, but it's not like Purdue was going to go to a Bowl game this year. and what is insane was Burke scheduled both Louisville and Missouri knowing Purdue was having hard times winning a game. At least, couldn't we play some MAC teams? or the perennial loser of the ACC or BIG 12 , like Kansas and Iowa State?
Big ten rule says member schools cant schedule FCS opponents going forward.

Also, Purdue needed to replace the ticket revenue generated by a marquee opponent like Notre Dame. Iowa St and Kansas wont draw anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bippus33
Big ten rule says member schools cant schedule FCS opponents going forward.

Also, Purdue needed to replace the ticket revenue generated by a marquee opponent like Notre Dame. Iowa St and Kansas wont draw anyone.


I'm not buying into we needed a marquee opponent to draw people. two years ago, it was reported that 80% of our athletic income was coming from our BIG 10 network contract. The difference in 60,000 and 30,000 fans may seem like a lot of revenue, but when compared to the total budget, it's rather small. Last year for homecoming, more than half of fans were from Iowa. and the other half was empty. When burke made the deals with Missouri and Louisville, Hazell was still our coach. And it wouldn't have made any difference who our opponent was. Iowa St would have drawn just as big of a crowd as Missouri. Although Louisville would have probably thought of it as a home game. Eventually you guys will warm up to playing ISU ! We could schedule the m every year . I know Iowa does. if they're good enough for Iowa, they're good enough for me.
 
I'm not buying into we needed a marquee opponent to draw people. two years ago, it was reported that 80% of our athletic income was coming from our BIG 10 network contract. The difference in 60,000 and 30,000 fans may seem like a lot of revenue, but when compared to the total budget, it's rather small. Last year for homecoming, more than half of fans were from Iowa. and the other half was empty. When burke made the deals with Missouri and Louisville, Hazell was still our coach. And it wouldn't have made any difference who our opponent was. Iowa St would have drawn just as big of a crowd as Missouri. Although Louisville would have probably thought of it as a home game. Eventually you guys will warm up to playing ISU ! We could schedule the m every year . I know Iowa does. if they're good enough for Iowa, they're good enough for me.
AD has been operating in the red the last few years. Also, the increase in network revenue has already been earmarked for capital projects. They need the revenue from the games
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bippus33
AD has been operating in the red the last few years. Also, the increase in network revenue has already been earmarked for capital projects. They need the revenue from the games
Bobinski has been very clear getting attendance up is a major priority for him. I don't get all of this teeth gnashing over the schedule. I'd much rather see us play a tough schedule than the cupcakes IU plays. This year isn't about a bowl game. It's about starting to build a competitive culture and one way to do that is benchmarking us against the teams we want to emulate.

I'm actually going to the Mizzou game this year in Columbia and I think we can win. But even if we don't, the team will benefit from playing a SEC school on the road. And I bet we are favored next year against them in WL.
 
AD has been operating in the red the last few years. Also, the increase in network revenue has already been earmarked for capital projects. They need the revenue from the games
I see both sides of this debate but lean toward the need to schedule on the light side when the program is struggling to put wins on the board and gain momentum. In the long run a 6 win season and bowl game appearance will lead to more ticket sales (and merchandise sales) than getting your doors blown off en route to another 3-4 win season. And unless the opponent is a big name, regional team like ND, UM, or OSU, ticket sales are still going to be low as seen in recent years. Mizzou isn't going to move the needle.

Here are the big name draws to Ross-Ade the past 3 years (besides ND):

2014: #8 Mich St 40,217
2014: #25 Wisconsin 35,068
2015: Va Tech 45,759*
2015: Nebraska 31,351
2016: #6 Wisconsin 30,465
2016: #24 Penn St 33,157

*Indiana St game drew 41,158 the week prior
 
Looking at the post above, Indiana St was one of our highest attended games. One could say it was because a lot of fans from Indiana St came to see their team play. And a lot of Purdue fans came to see us win in a blow-out. As for the ND games, what % of attendance do you believe came from ND ? obviously, for a ND fan, they could probably get better and cheaper seats by coming to Purdue.

I can see the AD's desire to fill the stadium. A full house creates an atmosphere. it also fills the hotels, restaurants, and increases t-shirt sales at Follett's. And when Purdue wins, those sales go up even higher. I hate to say it, but I've come to WL on several football weekends in the past 3 years and was able to reserve a room the same week.

Looking above, it's sad to see Purdue's best attendance last year was under 35,000. it's also sad the IU game is not included as a high game for any year. Historically, Wisconsin has always been known as a great road team. That is why they are favorites of Bowl game committees. The rose bowl loved when Wisconsin came to town.

I'd like to see the stadium full. it also makes a great impression on recruits. but I'd also like to come home after a victory. But since we can't play SIU or Indiana St anymore, perhaps we could explore playing some other locally oriented teams that do qualify and are possible win games. That would include more MAC opponents, Kentucky, Vandy, Marshall, UAB, Ball St, Pitt, and some lesser ACC teams. I can understand part of the thinking scheduling Mizzoo and Louisville. Burke probably thought a lot of Louisville fans would come to Purdue. But for a struggling team, the AD needs to help build up the program and winning.

I realize many of you love to see Purdue play a tough opponent! but you would go to the game regardless of who Purdue plays. And you'd make 10-15 posts on this board analyzing the game win or lose. The more casual fan is the one Purdue needs to bring back. And the casual fan wants to go to the game and see a win and eat, drink, and brag at Bruno's after the game.. if you keep scheduling tough opponents, and lose or get blown out, your attendance is not going to rise.

it would be great, once we have an established 8-4 team to take on tougher opponents. I loved the Purdue verses Michigan and Notre Dame games with Mark Herrmann at QB. but for now, I'd prefer a few wins against lesser opponents. nobody likes a blow-out other than the ratings people. and the 5th string guy named Rudy who finally gets t o play a down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilerkid18
Looking at the post above, Indiana St was one of our highest attended games. One could say it was because a lot of fans from Indiana St came to see their team play. And a lot of Purdue fans came to see us win in a blow-out. As for the ND games, what % of attendance do you believe came from ND ? obviously, for a ND fan, they could probably get better and cheaper seats by coming to Purdue.

I can see the AD's desire to fill the stadium. A full house creates an atmosphere. it also fills the hotels, restaurants, and increases t-shirt sales at Follett's. And when Purdue wins, those sales go up even higher. I hate to say it, but I've come to WL on several football weekends in the past 3 years and was able to reserve a room the same week.

Looking above, it's sad to see Purdue's best attendance last year was under 35,000. it's also sad the IU game is not included as a high game for any year. Historically, Wisconsin has always been known as a great road team. That is why they are favorites of Bowl game committees. The rose bowl loved when Wisconsin came to town.

I'd like to see the stadium full. it also makes a great impression on recruits. but I'd also like to come home after a victory. But since we can't play SIU or Indiana St anymore, perhaps we could explore playing some other locally oriented teams that do qualify and are possible win games. That would include more MAC opponents, Kentucky, Vandy, Marshall, UAB, Ball St, Pitt, and some lesser ACC teams. I can understand part of the thinking scheduling Mizzoo and Louisville. Burke probably thought a lot of Louisville fans would come to Purdue. But for a struggling team, the AD needs to help build up the program and winning.

I realize many of you love to see Purdue play a tough opponent! but you would go to the game regardless of who Purdue plays. And you'd make 10-15 posts on this board analyzing the game win or lose. The more casual fan is the one Purdue needs to bring back. And the casual fan wants to go to the game and see a win and eat, drink, and brag at Bruno's after the game.. if you keep scheduling tough opponents, and lose or get blown out, your attendance is not going to rise.

it would be great, once we have an established 8-4 team to take on tougher opponents. I loved the Purdue verses Michigan and Notre Dame games with Mark Herrmann at QB. but for now, I'd prefer a few wins against lesser opponents. nobody likes a blow-out other than the ratings people. and the 5th string guy named Rudy who finally gets t o play a down.
Wole,
I did not not list the games with the highest attendance, just 2 games from each of the past 3 years with "marquee opponents" to demonstrate how little bump we've gotten from opponents not named ND, OSU, and UM. Nevada was our highest paid attendance last year. If someone had the time to run a regression analysis, he would probably find that the date/weather forecast has been the best predictor of attendance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerBulldog
Wole,
I did not not list the games with the highest attendance, just 2 games from each of the past 3 years with "marquee opponents" to demonstrate how little bump we've gotten from opponents not named ND, OSU, and UM. Nevada was our highest paid attendance last year. If someone had the time to run a regression analysis, he would probably find that the date/weather forecast has been the best predictor of attendance.
ISU was band day wasnt it?
 
Was ISU a game they let students in for free?

I can tell you this. I won't pay to see us play an FCS team outside of a season ticket package. Wolegib may get all happy to see us beat ISU, a blind school, or whatever. I would hope most fans aren't so shallow that they think wins over overmatched opponents mean anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerBulldog
ISU was band day wasnt it?
Yep. 2015 ISU and 2016 Nevada. So, band day gets a similar attendance bump as a big name opponent.

I would hope most fans aren't so shallow that they think wins over overmatched opponents mean anything.
News flash. People are shallow. Recruits are shallow. Most fans, let alone the general public, don't spend hours on Purdue sports websites. Outside the teams in the top 25, the average high school recruit is going to see W-L record and bowl appearances, not the strength of schedule or what teams you lost to. Wins and bowl appearances make the recruiting sell easier. You and I may know that IU still sucked last year, but look at the positive press they were receiving for getting to 6 wins. They have a lower ceiling than us because they are IU, but that first baby step out of the gutter is the same for us as it was for them. I want the program to get back to the Tiller years where we are competing with the big boys, but you don't get there from here overnight and you need something to sell to recruits and fans besides hope in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
Yep. 2015 ISU and 2016 Nevada. So, band day gets a similar attendance bump as a big name opponent.


News flash. People are shallow. Recruits are shallow. Most fans, let alone the general public, don't spend hours on Purdue sports websites. Outside the teams in the top 25, the average high school recruit is going to see W-L record and bowl appearances, not the strength of schedule or what teams you lost to. Wins and bowl appearances make the recruiting sell easier. You and I may know that IU still sucked last year, but look at the positive press they were receiving for getting to 6 wins. They have a lower ceiling than us because they are IU, but that first baby step out of the gutter is the same for us as it was for them. I want the program to get back to the Tiller years where we are competing with the big boys, but you don't get there from here overnight and you need something to sell to recruits and fans besides hope in the meantime.

Well I very much disagree that most recruits don't pay attention to who we play. Hell, playing Notre Dame every year used to be something Tiller would sell recruits on.

Also, IU has been trying to schedule themselves into bowls for a long time. I don't think the fact that they finally made it to a couple makes them the blue print for how to rebuild a program. Tiller didn't come in and remove Notre Dame from the schedule to give us some false sense of security and another win. He just improved the program to make that game winnable. Novel idea huh? Even Hope managed to make bowl games with Notre Dame on the schedule.

Finally, these non-conference matchups are typically determined years in advance. We didn't know Louisville would be a top 5 team when we agreed to this. We probably had no idea that Ohio would be near the top of the MAC. I'm also guessing we weren't planning on being in the position we are in when we agreed to this either.

So while I agree that the difficulty of this year's non-conference schedule is not ideal for our program, I don't subscribe to your theory that the best way to build a program is to try to schedule crap teams and try to fool fans/recruits into thinking the team is better than it really is. Keep in mind that we were 3-3 last year when we decided to fire Hazell. The 3 hollow victories over really bad teams and a .500 record weren't fooling anyone because we still weren't good and still got rolled when we played anyone decent.

The best way to build the program is to actually get better. Prove yourself against legitimate competition and that leads to recruiting at a higher level. I think CJB will do that and when he gets this up and running these type of games are going to be alot of fun for us.
 
Honestly, we will probably sit at a bulk of 3* with a few more 2* unless we are able to steal a few games this year that we aren't expected to win. It's only with a couple wins when we are clear underdogs that we will probably pull some of the 4* that we are going after.

If we can't pull off a few upsets, we'll drop in total recruiting ranking (due to the point difference from those 4* to the 3* that sign), still have a "solid" class of 3* recruits for next year and begin this conversation again. It is the most likely pathway given the lower ranks of the past few recruiting classes.

That being said, I'd really like to see CJB and Co. put the fear of God into a few teams this year with schemes and player development. We'd get some headlines, people already like talking about Brohm's offense, and - although not as likely - the attention could have the same affect on flipping some 4* as actually getting the wins.
 
Well I very much disagree that most recruits don't pay attention to who we play. Hell, playing Notre Dame every year used to be something Tiller would sell recruits on.

Also, IU has been trying to schedule themselves into bowls for a long time. I don't think the fact that they finally made it to a couple makes them the blue print for how to rebuild a program. Tiller didn't come in and remove Notre Dame from the schedule to give us some false sense of security and another win. He just improved the program to make that game winnable. Novel idea huh? Even Hope managed to make bowl games with Notre Dame on the schedule.

Finally, these non-conference matchups are typically determined years in advance. We didn't know Louisville would be a top 5 team when we agreed to this. We probably had no idea that Ohio would be near the top of the MAC. I'm also guessing we weren't planning on being in the position we are in when we agreed to this either.

So while I agree that the difficulty of this year's non-conference schedule is not ideal for our program, I don't subscribe to your theory that the best way to build a program is to try to schedule crap teams and try to fool fans/recruits into thinking the team is better than it really is. Keep in mind that we were 3-3 last year when we decided to fire Hazell. The 3 hollow victories over really bad teams and a .500 record weren't fooling anyone because we still weren't good and still got rolled when we played anyone decent.

The best way to build the program is to actually get better. Prove yourself against legitimate competition and that leads to recruiting at a higher level. I think CJB will do that and when he gets this up and running these type of games are going to be alot of fun for us.
Tiller had a hell of a lot more to work with on that 1997 roster than Brohm does in 2017. There will be time for Brohm and his team to prove themselves in coming years. But 2017 is a rebuilding year, 2018 probably likewise. Until the team is to the point of being able to compete against stiff competition, playing a tough schedule does more potential harm than good. When was it too late to reschedule the Louisville game? Who knows, but teams in rebuild mode have done it before. It's not about impressing people by beating MAC teams. It's about avoiding land mines and getting your doors blown off by 40 while you're trying to build something from the ground up. That, recruits and fans will notice and will look past the fact it is a rebuild and say "Oh look, there's the same old Purdue getting waxed again". Those are the things that can kill momentum. I'm not saying there is only one way to rebuild, but a tough schedule out of the gate does make the job harder. Let's just hope for no mortal wounds in year 1.
 
ADVERTISEMENT