I think the only way the school administration will take some action regarding the football program will be if the Big 10 threatens to drop Purdue football. Purdue football is becoming more of a joke every day, and an embarrassment for the Big 10, so something needs to be done, but I don't believe the Administration will take any action unless forced to do so!
Big 10 should drop Purdue football!
- Thread starter cantonman2
- Start date
Dumb, never going to happen, or come close to happening. They've kept IU around for how long? I understand being pissed, as a fan base we all should be, but don't throw out crazy ideas that in no way shape or form will ever happen.
I disagree.
The big 10 Football is NOT the issue. THe issue is the BTN issuing $45M / year to the University without any performance requirements. Why should the university change anything when it is rewarded for sending an spam sandwich in front of TV and being rewarded as if it was Fillet Mignon.
I suggest a few TIC solutions
1. The Bowl expenses for Bound teams expense be withheld from the NON bowl bound university check from the BTN. - we have to have some reward / punishments built in here.
2. Any BTN FBL team that fails to win 10 games in a 3 year period loses 2/3 of the BTN revenues for succeeding 3 years.. An incentive to make at least poor effort to be competitive.
3. If the teams which fail to achieve point 2 above for 5 successes years, the University much repay 100% of the BTN revenues for the 5 year period and plus repay the BTN 50% of the current AD retirement fund future value. - If the University isn't going to take athletics seriously, you have to start hurting the Bureau-c"rats" in a clear and unmistakable way.
The Big Ten needs losers to work. They don't care who the losers are, the 1980s Northwestern Wildcats or the 2010s Boilers. As long as OSU and MU are great, PSU and Wisconsin compete, and the rest have a flash now and then, all is right.
There's a point to be made here that is much different than in the past pre-B1G network with the ever increasing revenue stream being driven by viewers. If the alumni loses interest who wants to watch a Purdue game other the opposing teams supporters that enjoy watching us get out brains beat in. We just won't get televised much and when we do will be forever doomed to the non prime time noon time slot.
I think the larger point is that the BTN revenue sharing model incentivizes a cost-minimization approach to football for the schools that aren't willing to do what it takes to try to compete in the top half of the conference.
We could go to all in-state scholarships only, pay coaches just slightly more than MAC salaries, and scrap the $60M Mollenkoph addition, and still come in 13th or 14th in the B1G, and still rake in our equal share of the BTN $s.
But our leadership is so incompetent, we will instead spend major $s on recruiting and still end up with the worst classes in the B1G, and we'll pay coaches millions of $ but they'll still be among the lowest paid in the B1G, and we'll build the $60M addition to Mollenkoph but only, now, when it's too late to provide any meaningful recruiting advantage over our B1G brethren. And after we've spent all those $millions, Purdue football will still be the 13th or 14th worst program in the B1G.
Obviously we can't drop football and the B1G isn't going to call us out. But we could announce -- or make it clear -- that we are dropping out of the arm's race. (This is what Northwestern effectively did in the 70s before they later changed course.) We could claim we're doing so based on principle, although the real reason would, of course, be because we're cheap.
We could go to all in-state scholarships only, pay coaches just slightly more than MAC salaries, and scrap the $60M Mollenkoph addition, and still come in 13th or 14th in the B1G, and still rake in our equal share of the BTN $s.
But our leadership is so incompetent, we will instead spend major $s on recruiting and still end up with the worst classes in the B1G, and we'll pay coaches millions of $ but they'll still be among the lowest paid in the B1G, and we'll build the $60M addition to Mollenkoph but only, now, when it's too late to provide any meaningful recruiting advantage over our B1G brethren. And after we've spent all those $millions, Purdue football will still be the 13th or 14th worst program in the B1G.
Obviously we can't drop football and the B1G isn't going to call us out. But we could announce -- or make it clear -- that we are dropping out of the arm's race. (This is what Northwestern effectively did in the 70s before they later changed course.) We could claim we're doing so based on principle, although the real reason would, of course, be because we're cheap.
Last edited:
The B1G didn't drop a program that spoon fed children to a child rapist. I think we're safe for now.
We did announce that we would not engage in the arm's race. I don't know if the hiring of Hazell was a rescinding of that position. But it's a crazy position to take in the first place. The amount of money and visibility that football drives dwarfs the other sports. Look at all the free publicity on prime time TV that the contenders get aside form the money. Not to mention pride and enthusiasm on campus. The revenues are obvious -- well maybe not obvious to those in charge.
But with teams not being able to schedule FCS opponents, MAC/Mid-Major improving, and a 9 game conference schedule, we need a road apple on the schedule.
My point is, if we're not going to play to win, then football provides none of the benefits you mention; in which case, we're better off following a cost-minimization model. What we do now is the worst of both approaches, we get the same results a cost-minimization approach would yield, but we end spending nearly as much money as other schools that are seriously trying to compete.
A real cost-minimization model would make do with existing facilities, pay just over MAC salaries for coaches, limit scholarships to in-state student-athletes only, load up on non-conference away games for the paydays, and sell off B1G home games to those with big stadiums. We could play 4 home games when IU is here and 3 when IU is away. Think how much we could save on wear tear of R-A stadium! Plus, with the minimal attendance, we could shut 2/3rds of the concessions and half the bathrooms -- again, saving more money to "invest" in swimming, diving, women's softball, etc.
Last edited:
Is it really $45M for each school? Even with paltry FB ticket sales, it seems with other expenses considered, that we should be able to dump Hazell and his staff with buy-outs and be able to find someone competent that can come in here with similar compensation.
I agree with you and I think that's kind of where we were at when Hope was coach. There seemed to be a tacit recognition that were not going to try compete for the B1G title let alone being nationally ranked. That's when the "we're not going to engage in the arms race" statement was made. Win enough games to get a bid to the Pizza Bowl and take the B1G money and run. And if you read statements that come from Daniels or the BOT none of them make any illusions of pursuing excellence or winning athletic programs. At best, the goal seems to be simply being competitive. I think that Hope was let go because he didn't represent the university in a professional manner that was deemed acceptable and secondarily because of the home thrashings we were taking in conference- the classic over-promising and under-delivering. Trouble is there's no easy path to get back to the Hope model if that's truly to goal.
And also no longer pursuing excellence in academics, pursuing affordability instead.
I agree with much of what you say -- but I take strong exception to your view that Hope was let go because he didn't represent the university in a professional manner. Of all the bum raps Hope took from our fans, the most inaccurate was the claim that he was some sort of hillbilly rube. I attended at least a dozen JPC events during his tenure and never once did I observe Hope present himself in anything less than a high professional manner. Sure, he doesn't have the IQ of a Bill Walsh, but neither do many coaches. Hope's players loved him and their parents respected him as a straight shooter with no BS. He may have been successful at Purdue if he'd been given the budget to hire a first class staff. But no, having the lowest paid HC in the B1G wasn't enough for Morgan, he had to have the lowest paid staff as well! And we are still living with the consequences of that foolishly myopic financial perspective, and after yesterday, there can be no doubt the end isn't in sight.
Exactly, you're 100% right on this, but most Purdue alums won't realize this until it's too late -- just like they didn't realize what Cordova was doing to football until it was too late.
You sum it up pretty good.... It is all about money!!! It is not going to change until everyone refuses to go to the games and also refuses to watch it on TV. Until you cut off the stadium money and the TV monies generated through advertising revenue from companies, then things will never change. While I still think of myself as a capitalist, college sports is a prime example as to how people and organizations are abusing the capitalist system..... And then, turn around and say that we are doing it in the name of higher education. This is another example of "Neoliberal" policies run amuck....
I don't know if the perception of Hope as a rube had anything to do with his firing but it was out there. Hazell comes across a lot more polished and you hear from a lot of folks how much that is appreciated. Form over substance at its best.
Hope was Tiller's hand-picked successor and Burke being an HR guy liked the idea of a succession plan coming together. I'm sure that his more than reasonable compensation helped. How we ended up throwing a multiyear, big money contract at Hazell is a mystery. You would think that somebody had to consider what options would we have if he didn't work out especially with a guy with such a limited resume.
I'm still betting that if we finish with 3 more losses, Hazell's gone.
and we are the team that looks like we had sanctions leveled on us.
Tiller wanted Spack and Burke wanted Chryst. But Tiller had veto power since whoever would have to serve as his assistant HC for a year. Danny was the compromise, unfortunately for him.
Thanks. It's getting to be ancient history and hard to remember the details. Only worth the discussion in trying to decipher what this administration's goals are for the football program and the real likelihood that they will stay the course.
Similar threads
