Doom and Gloom aside.....what really needs to happen...

[pboiler18]

I'll first address the truths of where this program stands....these are mostly irrefutable facts that help me put a frame of reference on why this program is as bad as it is right now.

1. Purdue is a TOUGH school to recruit to. Yes, this coach SHOULD be doing better, but so should his predecessor.....and so should have Tiller from about 2006-Hope. That said, being the 2nd (and in danger of dropping to 3rd) football school in a talent poor state is not a great situation to be in as far as recruiting is concerned. Tiller was successful because he went toe to toe with other 2nd tier BIG schools in Illinois, IN, OH, MI and PA and won those battles occasionally. Until we have a coach that can do this, we won't be any better than 6-6 or 7-5, no matter how good of an Xs and Os coach we have. That's just the hard facts.

2. This current staff has proven they can't hack it. Recruiting is poor. Talent development is spotty, especially in veteran units. Depth is non-existent. The most complicated scheming and play-calling gets is a blindfolded GA in the back of the booth spinning a wheel and the coaches calling whatever comes up, no matter the down, distance, time, score, position on the field or situation. Shoop looks to be in the midst of ruining his 4th QB and the 5th, Sindelar has to be....or needs to be telling the training staff his knee is just too banged up to go in Coach! haha.

3. A lot of bitching is made about Hazell's "massive" contract and buyout. Yeah, he makes about $2,199,999 more than he should....but that said, his salary still puts him at the bottom of P5 conference salaries....so ARE WE getting the performance we are paying for? Well, we are a bottom P5 team...and are paying a bottom tier P5 salary so maybe. $2.2mil just doesn't buy what it used to on the coaches market. Purdue will most likely have to pay $5mil to a real impact coach and more than $2.2mil to the next MAC flavor of the month it would try to hire.

4. I think Purdue has A LOT of bargaining power as far as how it's coaching situation plays out. I think you could ask Hazell if he'd rather have $6mil and potentially be a head coach for the next 3 years or have $6mil and struggle to find work as anything more as a position coach for the rest of the career. IMO, he'd be stupid to take the money and run vs. listening to and working with Burke and the AD and fan base as a whole on what changes need to be made to the program. I think Purdue is equally better off with 2 scenerios......A. being keeping Hazell, extending him for a few years but GREATLY reducing his buyout and stretching it out over time as well.....and oh yeah, making him dump Shoop and Hudson and SOME of the position staff and going out and getting better guys or B. Just fire him and move on if he is unwilling to make all of the above changes.

Option A. seemingly works out for everybody. Hazell gets 1 more year to prove himself, Purdue reduces his buyout over the long term if he doesn't right the ship and we no longer have to deal with "Weird Beard" and his even more baffling scheme and non-existant QB development. Option B. only really screws Hazell. He's out of head coaching most likely forever....and might even be out of coaching all together for a few years a la Hope because he's been so bad.

5. If we do hire a new head coach, it's 1000% gotta be somebody who can recruit A LA Tiller. We NEED exciting offensive talent to fill the stands again. Even the Curtis Painter teams that couldn't stop anybody on D were fun to watch because we constantly scored and consitently moved the ball, even vs. good teams. Go to the BIG 12 strategy of trying to score every play and win a shoot out in the 50s every week. IF we had a strategy like that, this team would have very likely flirted with a bowl this year, even in its current personnel make up. The Air Raid, spread based philosophy is the only one that's going to work here and get fans excited.

6. Morgan Burke is A problem, but not THE problem with this program. Yes, he screwed us many years ago....but I think he is honestly working to put us in a better situation monetarily as well as competitively. His mistake was that he hired 2 bad coaches. I honestly think he only hired 1 bad coach (Hope) but has allowed Hazell to bring in some TERRIBLE assistants. Anyhow, I dont get the rants about pinning this all on Burke. Yes, we have reaped what we sowed 10 years ago with crappy facilities, assistant pay and hires....but Burke put a real and honest effort forward when hiring this coach and there were factors out of his control that have made this a bad fire. I'm not advocating he be made AD for life. I'm also not advocating that he be strung up in front of the Brees center and tared and feathered. All I am saying is that Burke knew he screwed up and has tried to fix it. He didn't and should probably be forced to retire NOW because of it.....but pinning this all on him isn't telling the whole story. It truly is a perfect shit storm of bad hires, bad coaches, bad strategy, bad luck and a fickle and frugal fan base that has led Purdue football to this place.

7. Yes, you don't want to hear it....but on the whole....Purdue alumni suck as far as football support. I love Purdue but i'm not an alum. I'm an alum of an SEC school that is on par with Purdue academically (in US NEWS rankings) but has a real and actual football team that is heavily supported by both alums AND locals alike. Giving, ticket buying, support, merchandise, general interest just aren't where they need to be to support a winning BIG football team for Purdue. That can be worked on. That can be developed. That said, I think the current coach has done more for the Purdue brand (except winning) than any other coach for Purdue besides the legends like Tiller and Mollenkopf. If he were winning, I think the Purdue image would be VERY strong under this head coach. Hes not....and it's all for not....but this is one area where our current coach doesn't suck.

I think the doom and gloom approach to this program is silly. We suck....but we've sucked in the past and resurrected and done well in stretches again. Who knows when the next stretch will be....but coming on this board and insisting the staff and AD as a whole should be burned to the ground or commit ritual suicide is getting old.

 

[Bigohh]

What is really getting old is watching a pp football team every Saturday. All of the situations you listed happened on the watch of MB. That is where the responsibility for the current disaster lies. If you are curious where all of the athletic dept resources that should have been directed toward fixing some of the problems you listed, drive out Cherry Lane to the end and look at the monuments to non revenue sports that have used up much of the funds that could have addressed many of the problems you listed.

 

[lbodel]

I'll first address the truths of where this program stands....these are mostly irrefutable facts that help me put a frame of reference on why this program is as bad as it is right now.

1. Purdue is a TOUGH school to recruit to. Yes, this coach SHOULD be doing better, but so should his predecessor.....and so should have Tiller from about 2006-Hope. That said, being the 2nd (and in danger of dropping to 3rd) football school in a talent poor state is not a great situation to be in as far as recruiting is concerned. Tiller was successful because he went toe to toe with other 2nd tier BIG schools in Illinois, IN, OH, MI and PA and won those battles occasionally. Until we have a coach that can do this, we won't be any better than 6-6 or 7-5, no matter how good of an Xs and Os coach we have. That's just the hard facts.

2. This current staff has proven they can't hack it. Recruiting is poor. Talent development is spotty, especially in veteran units. Depth is non-existent. The most complicated scheming and play-calling gets is a blindfolded GA in the back of the booth spinning a wheel and the coaches calling whatever comes up, no matter the down, distance, time, score, position on the field or situation. Shoop looks to be in the midst of ruining his 4th QB and the 5th, Sindelar has to be....or needs to be telling the training staff his knee is just too banged up to go in Coach! haha.

3. A lot of bitching is made about Hazell's "massive" contract and buyout. Yeah, he makes about $2,199,999 more than he should....but that said, his salary still puts him at the bottom of P5 conference salaries....so ARE WE getting the performance we are paying for? Well, we are a bottom P5 team...and are paying a bottom tier P5 salary so maybe. $2.2mil just doesn't buy what it used to on the coaches market. Purdue will most likely have to pay $5mil to a real impact coach and more than $2.2mil to the next MAC flavor of the month it would try to hire.

4. I think Purdue has A LOT of bargaining power as far as how it's coaching situation plays out. I think you could ask Hazell if he'd rather have $6mil and potentially be a head coach for the next 3 years or have $6mil and struggle to find work as anything more as a position coach for the rest of the career. IMO, he'd be stupid to take the money and run vs. listening to and working with Burke and the AD and fan base as a whole on what changes need to be made to the program. I think Purdue is equally better off with 2 scenerios......A. being keeping Hazell, extending him for a few years but GREATLY reducing his buyout and stretching it out over time as well.....and oh yeah, making him dump Shoop and Hudson and SOME of the position staff and going out and getting better guys or B. Just fire him and move on if he is unwilling to make all of the above changes.

Option A. seemingly works out for everybody. Hazell gets 1 more year to prove himself, Purdue reduces his buyout over the long term if he doesn't right the ship and we no longer have to deal with "Weird Beard" and his even more baffling scheme and non-existant QB development. Option B. only really screws Hazell. He's out of head coaching most likely forever....and might even be out of coaching all together for a few years a la Hope because he's been so bad.

5. If we do hire a new head coach, it's 1000% gotta be somebody who can recruit A LA Tiller. We NEED exciting offensive talent to fill the stands again. Even the Curtis Painter teams that couldn't stop anybody on D were fun to watch because we constantly scored and consitently moved the ball, even vs. good teams. Go to the BIG 12 strategy of trying to score every play and win a shoot out in the 50s every week. IF we had a strategy like that, this team would have very likely flirted with a bowl this year, even in its current personnel make up. The Air Raid, spread based philosophy is the only one that's going to work here and get fans excited.

6. Morgan Burke is A problem, but not THE problem with this program. Yes, he screwed us many years ago....but I think he is honestly working to put us in a better situation monetarily as well as competitively. His mistake was that he hired 2 bad coaches. I honestly think he only hired 1 bad coach (Hope) but has allowed Hazell to bring in some TERRIBLE assistants. Anyhow, I dont get the rants about pinning this all on Burke. Yes, we have reaped what we sowed 10 years ago with crappy facilities, assistant pay and hires....but Burke put a real and honest effort forward when hiring this coach and there were factors out of his control that have made this a bad fire. I'm not advocating he be made AD for life. I'm also not advocating that he be strung up in front of the Brees center and tared and feathered. All I am saying is that Burke knew he screwed up and has tried to fix it. He didn't and should probably be forced to retire NOW because of it.....but pinning this all on him isn't telling the whole story. It truly is a perfect shit storm of bad hires, bad coaches, bad strategy, bad luck and a fickle and frugal fan base that has led Purdue football to this place.

7. Yes, you don't want to hear it....but on the whole....Purdue alumni suck as far as football support. I love Purdue but i'm not an alum. I'm an alum of an SEC school that is on par with Purdue academically (in US NEWS rankings) but has a real and actual football team that is heavily supported by both alums AND locals alike. Giving, ticket buying, support, merchandise, general interest just aren't where they need to be to support a winning BIG football team for Purdue. That can be worked on. That can be developed. That said, I think the current coach has done more for the Purdue brand (except winning) than any other coach for Purdue besides the legends like Tiller and Mollenkopf. If he were winning, I think the Purdue image would be VERY strong under this head coach. Hes not....and it's all for not....but this is one area where our current coach doesn't suck.

I think the doom and gloom approach to this program is silly. We suck....but we've sucked in the past and resurrected and done well in stretches again. Who knows when the next stretch will be....but coming on this board and insisting the staff and AD as a whole should be burned to the ground or commit ritual suicide is getting old.

A few quick things....

1. Recruiting strategy is spot on - we have to recruit the midwest. We can't put all of our energy, when it's an upward climb to begin with, on recruiting nationally. HOWEVER, I would disagree with you that Indiana is "poor" in talent. Indiana is certainly not talent rich, but there's plenty of talent in the state to form a base each year. There's a lot of solid 3 star players in the state.

2. I don't know how much I agree on the offensive focus. You referenced Curtis Painter types of teams. Those teams literally beat teams they were supposed to and lost to (often badly) everyone else. That's when Purdue stopped being competitive. So no, I don't think that's the magic answer. I think Purdue fans want to see Purdue be competitive with good teams. That doesn't we have to go into overtime with top 5 teams. But that era you referenced is also when Purdue had a long streak of not beating a top 25 team. I know this won't be popular, but I think defense will get us further than some flashy offense (look at IU - again, obviously a better situation than we find ourselves now, but they've struggled to build a foundation with an offense-focused program).

3. I disagree with you on Purdue's fan support of football. Purdue's support is definitely at a low right now, but it took almost 10 years of it to be surpassed by schools like Illinois and IU. Purdue's fan support is fine. Is it ever going to be Michigan/Ohio State/Alabama levels? Absolutely not. But even Michigan State has attendance issues with a 70k stadium with top 10 teams.

 

[pboiler18]

A few quick things....

1. Recruiting strategy is spot on - we have to recruit the midwest. We can't put all of our energy, when it's an upward climb to begin with, on recruiting nationally. HOWEVER, I would disagree with you that Indiana is "poor" in talent. Indiana is certainly not talent rich, but there's plenty of talent in the state to form a base each year. There's a lot of solid 3 star players in the state.

2. I don't know how much I agree on the offensive focus. You referenced Curtis Painter types of teams. Those teams literally beat teams they were supposed to and lost to (often badly) everyone else. That's when Purdue stopped being competitive. So no, I don't think that's the magic answer. I think Purdue fans want to see Purdue be competitive with good teams. That doesn't we have to go into overtime with top 5 teams. But that era you referenced is also when Purdue had a long streak of not beating a top 25 team. I know this won't be popular, but I think defense will get us further than some flashy offense (look at IU - again, obviously a better situation than we find ourselves now, but they've struggled to build a foundation with an offense-focused program).

3. I disagree with you on Purdue's fan support of football. Purdue's support is definitely at a low right now, but it took almost 10 years of it to be surpassed by schools like Illinois and IU. Purdue's fan support is fine. Is it ever going to be Michigan/Ohio State/Alabama levels? Absolutely not. But even Michigan State has attendance issues with a 70k stadium with top 10 teams.

I don't think you are off base but...

on 2.... we have tried to build that defensive team and failed miserably. We have to WIN to get better recruits. That starts by running an offense that helps us beat teams we have better talent than. We could have EASILY beaten Marshall, BGSU and Minny in shoot outs. That happens and we are sitting at 4-2 and likely going to a bowl. We should worry about building a better D when we are recruiting better and actually getting players to build that better D. That won't happen until we win....and won't happen until we put points on the board.

on 3. I don't think you are off base here either....BUT, people on this board talk like WE SHOULD have the support like Mich and OSU and conversely should be able to recruit, hire, fire like those programs do and that's just not feasible here. While I think we should fire Hazell and swallow his buyout, Purdue needs to be very careful on who it hires next, so as to not get into a situation where we get to be paying our past coaches more 5 years down the road than we are our current coach (There are several teams in CFB doing this now).

The ridiculous thing about the market is that we will most likely have to hire the next coach at $3mil+ and likely with the same buyout structure that Hazell had to land them. It's not necessrily bad negotiating....a lot of it is what the market dictates for college coaches. We won't get a proven winner NOR a MAC flavor of the year offering an incentive laden, small buyout contract to the next guy. I think the only guy in the world who would come to Purdue with a cheap and friendly contract is Spack....and while he's a better coach than either Hope or Hazell IMO, there is nothing that guarantees he can put a winner together here at Purdue and would only be taking the discount because it's his alma mater. I'm not advocating we hire him necessarily....but he IS the only guy we could hire on Purdue friendly terms IMO.

 

[threeeputtt]

I don't think you are off base but...

on 2.... we have tried to build that defensive team and failed miserably. We have to WIN to get better recruits. That starts by running an offense that helps us beat teams we have better talent than. We could have EASILY beaten Marshall, BGSU and Minny in shoot outs. That happens and we are sitting at 4-2 and likely going to a bowl. We should worry about building a better D when we are recruiting better and actually getting players to build that better D. That won't happen until we win....and won't happen until we put points on the board.

on 3. I don't think you are off base here either....BUT, people on this board talk like WE SHOULD have the support like Mich and OSU and conversely should be able to recruit, hire, fire like those programs do and that's just not feasible here. While I think we should fire Hazell and swallow his buyout, Purdue needs to be very careful on who it hires next, so as to not get into a situation where we get to be paying our past coaches more 5 years down the road than we are our current coach (There are several teams in CFB doing this now).
Why $ 3 mill? There has to be an up and comer that can be done for a reasonable amount with bonuses that make it worthwhile that don't bankrupt you if he fails. If he succeeds you bump him up quickly. Everyone wants to spend big $$$ but the landscape of failures everywhere. There are many ways to skin this cat and none guarantee success or failure.
The ridiculous thing about the market is that we will most likely have to hire the next coach at $3mil+ and likely with the same buyout structure that Hazell had to land them. It's not necessrily bad negotiating....a lot of it is what the market dictates for college coaches. We won't get a proven winner NOR a MAC flavor of the year offering an incentive laden, small buyout contract to the next guy. I think the only guy in the world who would come to Purdue with a cheap and friendly contract is Spack....and while he's a better coach than either Hope or Hazell IMO, there is nothing that guarantees he can put a winner together here at Purdue and would only be taking the discount because it's his alma mater. I'm not advocating we hire him necessarily....but he IS the only guy we could hire on Purdue friendly terms IMO.

 

[lbodel]

I don't think you are off base but...

on 2.... we have tried to build that defensive team and failed miserably. We have to WIN to get better recruits. That starts by running an offense that helps us beat teams we have better talent than. We could have EASILY beaten Marshall, BGSU and Minny in shoot outs. That happens and we are sitting at 4-2 and likely going to a bowl. We should worry about building a better D when we are recruiting better and actually getting players to build that better D. That won't happen until we win....and won't happen until we put points on the board.

on 3. I don't think you are off base here either....BUT, people on this board talk like WE SHOULD have the support like Mich and OSU and conversely should be able to recruit, hire, fire like those programs do and that's just not feasible here. While I think we should fire Hazell and swallow his buyout, Purdue needs to be very careful on who it hires next, so as to not get into a situation where we get to be paying our past coaches more 5 years down the road than we are our current coach (There are several teams in CFB doing this now).

The ridiculous thing about the market is that we will most likely have to hire the next coach at $3mil+ and likely with the same buyout structure that Hazell had to land them. It's not necessrily bad negotiating....a lot of it is what the market dictates for college coaches. We won't get a proven winner NOR a MAC flavor of the year offering an incentive laden, small buyout contract to the next guy. I think the only guy in the world who would come to Purdue with a cheap and friendly contract is Spack....and while he's a better coach than either Hope or Hazell IMO, there is nothing that guarantees he can put a winner together here at Purdue and would only be taking the discount because it's his alma mater. I'm not advocating we hire him necessarily....but he IS the only guy we could hire on Purdue friendly terms IMO.

On 2 & 3, agreed to an extent. While we obviously won't just ignore one side of the ball or the other, there needs to be an identity established (i.e. I don't feel like much changed between Hope/Hazell).

On your last point, I don't know if I'd agree. NC State hired Dave Doeren, who was probably a more highly sought after candidate, at less than Hazell ($1.8 million) was and a shorter contract. I think Hazell got what he got cause Purdue struck out a few times and we had to land Hazell.

Other coaches that make less than $3 million include: Rich Rodriguez - AZ ($2m), Larry Fedora - UNC ($2m), Sonny Dykes - Cal ($2.5m), Todd Graham - AZ St ($2.5m), Kyle Whittingham - Utah ($2.5m), Dana Holgerson - WVU ($2.8m)

You aren't always going to hit a home run with head coaching hires. And quite frankly, bad hires come at all sorts of price points.

I don't think your mention of Spack is a good idea. Hope had similar results as him as a head coach. We don't need to do that to ourselves - we can afford bigger/better.

 

[pboiler18]

On 2 & 3, agreed to an extent. While we obviously won't just ignore one side of the ball or the other, there needs to be an identity established (i.e. I don't feel like much changed between Hope/Hazell).

On your last point, I don't know if I'd agree. NC State hired Dave Doeren, who was probably a more highly sought after candidate, at less than Hazell ($1.8 million) was and a shorter contract. I think Hazell got what he got cause Purdue struck out a few times and we had to land Hazell.

Other coaches that make less than $3 million include: Rich Rodriguez - AZ ($2m), Larry Fedora - UNC ($2m), Sonny Dykes - Cal ($2.5m), Todd Graham - AZ St ($2.5m), Kyle Whittingham - Utah ($2.5m), Dana Holgerson - WVU ($2.8m)

You aren't always going to hit a home run with head coaching hires. And quite frankly, bad hires come at all sorts of price points.

I don't think your mention of Spack is a good idea. Hope had similar results as him as a head coach. We don't need to do that to ourselves - we can afford bigger/better.

Hope never made it past the first round of the playoffs. Spack made the NC game. I'd say theres a very discernible difference there. That said, I don't think he's the best fit for us. We'd be better than we are now but I don't think the fan base has the patience to weather any more losing seasons and it WOULD take spack some time to rebuild unless he could turn the tide of Indiana/Midwest recruiting like right away.

I think Hazell should have gotten a pass for 2013 results....but his 2014 and 2015 performances say otherwise. Just like I think most first year coaches performances either good or bad aren't indicative of what their whole tenures at a school are going to look like. It just so happens that Hazell was a bad coach.