No coach should ever be compared to his predecessor? Every coach in college football is compared to his predecessor. It's part of the deal of being a football coach and part of college football fandom. And it doesn't matter whether it's Brohm replacing Hazell, Tiller replacing Colletto, Hope replacing Tiller, Day replacing Urban Meyer, Frank Solich replacing Tom Osborne, Ray Perkins replacing Bear Bryant. Some comparisons are just much harder than others and some are much easier. Some people replace legends and some replace historically-awful coaches.
Saying Purdue should be "as good as IU, Rutgers, Vandy, Duke" is ludicrous. You mentioned some of the absolute worst football schools in NCAA history. You mentioned a bunch of non-Power 5 schools. Talk about setting a low bar. Many of the schools you listed aren't close to being peer schools to Purdue in football.
Saying Purdue can't be a consistent Top 10 team is also ludicrous without some clarification about "over what period". Purdue can and will again start being ranked (I believe under Brohm), and I believe he will have some teams ranked in the Top 10. Is that sustainable over 3 years, 5 years, 10, years, 20 years.....? The answer is "it depends". It depends on Purdue's willingness to invest in the program. It depends on having leadership that actually cares to maintain and grow a consistently winning program. It depends on the Purdue fanbase actually supporting the team and not jumping off the bandwagon after 1 bad game or a couple of bad games out of three.
It's a good thing you're not the AD at Purdue. Without giving a coach like Brohm, who came to Purdue with a .750 winning percentage, a 4 or 5 year deal to start, you don't get him to come here at all. You end up being able to hire more coaches like Hazell. And the cycle of losing continues. No good to excellent coach will want to work at a place that doesn't show commitment to them. What you're describing is a lack of commitment to winning.
I'm sorry, wolegib, but a lot of what you said in your original post is nonsense, IMHO, and it's a damn good thing you're not the AD, the President, or on the BOT at Purdue. Your way of thinking would relegate Purdue football to being among the very worst programs in the BIG and in the country, perhaps permanently.
Brohm is trying to help Purdue football rebrand and rebuild after some very dark years and has immediately showed some positive returns. He'll be the first to admit that we are not where he sees us getting, yet. But he and his staff will do everything in their power to make Purdue football significantly better. He's the right fit for our school. Rebuilds like this one take some time, and it's a minor miracle that he's led Purdue to two straight bowl games in his first two seasons, finishing second in the BIG West last season.
That's probably one of your best posts ever. You offer a differing opinion. You provide backing of your points. You stay on topic and you don't throw insults at the opposing poster. You stay on topic and attack the post, not the individual.
I don't share your optimism for Purdue football. I included certain schools for a reason and yes, some were not power 5 schools. I don't ever expect Purdue to ever be able to compete with OSU, Mich, or Alabama. however, I do expect Purdue to be as good as the other teams I mentioned. and unfortunately, in many cases, we're not. Purdue should be better than UK and Cincy in football. Purdue should be better than Minn and IU. To be blunt, with what Purdue spends on athletics, we should be better than a lot of schools. The same applies to all Purdue sports.
And while many always compare Purdue's present to it's past, I believe that comparison is flawed for many reasons. To be successful, you have to win games. In my opinion, to measure the ability of your team's success, you must compare your team to your opponent to gauge your chance of winning. Additionally, if you have improved your team 10 fold, but your opponent has improved his team 20 fold, have you really improved your team? Yes, you are better than your past, but you have not improved your standing in the world. If you significantly improve your team, but your record remains the same or less, have you really improved your team? Was last year's team better than the previous year's team? How do you measure improvement? I use the W/L record. Ultimately, isn't that what team sports are supposed to be about ? Winning? Lombardi's packers teams were very boring, but they had one thing in common - championships. Wooden's team were similar. Shouldn't that be the goal?
When you give a coach a sizable raise for his accomplishments, should you not expect greater results? or are you satisfied with the accomplishments he achieved? if you pay a coach top dollar, are you paying for the present and the rebuild with hopes the future will be better? and that's where I disagree with most. if I pay top dollar, I want top dollar return. I don't want to spend Lexus money for a Camry. My expectations become higher. By the salary standards of his day, Hope was a rather cheap hire. and he produced mediocre results. Purdue got what it paid for. neither Hazell or Brohm were a cheap hire. From a business perspective, Hazell was a very bad investment, and we unloaded it before losing any more money. on the other hand, Brohm is a very expensive growth stock. We expect his future return will pay significant dividends, so we keep him.
An analogy: As an investor, I invest in a lot of small and mid-cap funds. I've been burned several times by market fluxes and downturns in the market. We've had some very bad years. To cover for potential losses, I have diversified my holdings to include a lot of low risk and low gain funds. I'm no longer expecting a high return, but I'm also not losing any money.
Applying that analogy to Brohm. he's a growth stock. He has displayed a great gain over the previous years. Has he reached a plateau? or will he continue to improve? That's an unknown. As long as he creates a .500 or better record, I will continue to praise him. however, if he doesn't continue to grow to a higher plateau, he may become too expensive for my taste. in the 80's and 90's, Fidelity Magellan was a tremendous mutual fund and provided a great return for investors. however, they also charged a very high fee which reduced your overall profit/return. Like all funds, Fidelity Magellan suffered a couple of losing seasons. and because their fees remained high, people turned away and looked for other funds with a better overall return. I look at Brohm the same way. I expect higher returns than what he's currently generating. How many years am I willing to accept the returns he's providing? I'm not sure.
I've said many times I like a lot of the things Brohm has done at Purdue. I also am on record as hating Hazell 2 months after he was hired. But as an alumni who is constantly asked to make contributions, I'd like to know that I'm receiving a decent return for those contributions. Otherwise My contributions will be directed to the music and cancer research. And I went on record when Hazell was hired, that going .500 should not be the focus or goal and nor should it be the norm or thought of as acceptable. I chose Purdue for my academic education because I thought it was better than the norm. and I expect that to hold true for its athletics programs. I don't expect Purdue to reach OSU athletic standards. But we should be equal to UW, Illinois, IU, Northwestern and Iowa. and no way should Cincy ever be better than Purdue.
Those are my opinions on Brohm.
