Originally posted by lbodel:
People need to get off this "Morgan chooses to focus on minor sports".
Purdue does not focus on minor sports significantly more than any other similar caliber athletic department.
What I do NOT disagree with is that Morgan has been "on the cheap" with many things related to football and men's basketball. But I don't think whether those Olympic sport projects were there or not, it would have been any different for FB/MBB.
Morgan was able to do a coaching transition with Keady's blessing/steering that worked out pretty well for him. You can get an up and coming coach who went to Purdue, had great name recognition by fans, was coached by Keady and wanted to coach at his alma mater - to come in and sit out for a year and then become a coach for a relatively modest amount.
Then Burke tried to do the same thing with Tiller - except Tiller didn't steer towards Hope, Hope didn't go to Purdue, had a little name recognition but certainly not anything close to a connection like Painter, Hope wasn't "coached by" Tiller (although to be fair he worked with him before), etc. It was a complete bust.
Then Painter is coach for a bit, doesn't have what he needs and is entangled in these rules (which apply across the board to sports), etc. and literally has to threaten to leave Purdue in order for the AD to step up.
Then for football, you have to fire a coach and spend competitive money on a new coach - and Hazell wasn't some bust hire, but I don't think he was what we needed when he was hired (I was pretty "meh" on the hire). But again, you're trying to hire a new coach who knows resources hadn't been there - but had to rely on promises, so the fact that the resources weren't there before probably hurt us on some coaching candidates.
So overall, I agree that Burke is quite reactive vs. proactive. And I think he's made a lot of poor decisions. People defend his actions saying there wasn't the money or what not - when both the football and men's basketball situations were magically solved with some extra effort in a relatively short amount of time. So yes, the money and resources are there - it's not that they ARE NOT there because of Olympic sports.
I think Burke has some tremendous positives to his role as athletic director. It is not an easy job by any means and I think he's done some great things and there's always that "better be careful what you wish for" when it comes to pushing someone out or complaining about someone. And while this also falls on his shoulders, I think part of Purdue's problem more-so is the administration that has stayed the same. It's great to have long-standing staff members, but only if they're doing a tremendous job and set-up to do a tremendous job.
For example, Nancy Cross has been a topic of conversation on here. She's a Boilermaker through and through and a nice person in general. Whether she has the skill set to be overseeing fundraising at Purdue - I don't know. However, look at what she's responsible for. She's the senior women's administrator (which is typically 1 job in its own), she oversees fundraising, AND she oversees 5 sports! That's WAY too much responsibility for 1 person to adequately do those jobs.
However, it's also weird because at most institutions, the person who oversees fundraising also oversees other external factors like tickets and marketing. At the end of the day, those 3 intertwine significantly. That's not how it's set up at Purdue.
