Economics of bad football
- Thread starter BoilerStutz
- Start date
I've said it for years, the President at the University is not the problem. It wasn't Cordova's fault, it's not Daniel's fault. When Daniels started, everyone who blamed Cordova for stuff said he'd save us....well guess what, nothing's changed.
A president at a university is NOT focused on athletics. It's a fraction of their job responsibility. The ridiculous things we've heard about the athletic department, like the car rental policies, are not the President of the university making that decision - it's the athletic director.
Until people on this board understand that the athletic director is responsible for the day to day operations of the athletic department and NOT the president, we're not gonna get very far in these discussions.
A president at a university is NOT focused on athletics. It's a fraction of their job responsibility. The ridiculous things we've heard about the athletic department, like the car rental policies, are not the President of the university making that decision - it's the athletic director.
Until people on this board understand that the athletic director is responsible for the day to day operations of the athletic department and NOT the president, we're not gonna get very far in these discussions.
Who selects Burke's performance objectives? Who does Burke's annual performance review? Who determines what the overall goals of the men's major athletic programs are? As a reminder they were articulated to be ethical, academic, and economically self-sustaining by the current president of the university. We are not discussing day-to-day operations but overall goals of the enterprise.
I think most here who have a clue understand that the President doesn't, and shouldn't, run the day to day operations of the athletic dept. That's obviously the AD's job. And no one is saying the President should be "focused" on athletics exclusively. While all university Presidents have a wide variety of responsibilities, they will spend most of their energy, efforts, and fundraising ability (most importantly) on a relatively small number of priorities and inititatives.
The question is, is intercollegiate athletics one of those priorities for the President at Purdue? I can tell you it is at UM and OSU, and that doesn't keep them from being great universities. At Purdue, athletics hasn't been one of those priorities for a President since Hovde. And this is why Purdue is always bringing up the rear of the conference in facilties, etc. If Jischke would have put one-tenth of his fundraising efforts into athletics, Tiller would have had the facilities he needed to recruit head to head with MSU, Wisconsin, etc., and the university would be better off for it today because current fundraising would be more successful if football was competitive. And Cordova is the one who increased internal taxes on the AD, expropriated a large hunk of the BTN $ away from the AD, and forced the AD to contribute to the student leadership center at a time when we had the lowest paid football coaching staff in the B1G and Painter was losing assistants over lack salaries and support.
So no, Cordova didn't set car rental policies, but she, and others before here, did create the financial environment which caused MB to institute such car rental policies out of what he believed to be necessity.
It starts at the top -- with the President and the BOT.
This post was edited on 1/4 9:40 AM by BoilerBonz
When Daniels was named president a lot us were genuinely excited not solely for the prospects of men's major sports getting more attention but because we thought that he would want to put his stamp on Purdue excellence in all of its endeavors. Instead he has used his position to promote his agenda of affordability for higher education. He's been a great disappointment to say the least.
Daniels on athletics......
"You want to pursue excellence in winning, but it's not - as in many places - at the expense of other things that matter"
"The athletic departments that are taking tuition money from some struggling family in order to fund themselves ought to look in the mirror, in my opinion. My view, the athletic department's minimum aim ought to be to break even and not become a drain on the rest of the university"
"We want, within the boundaries of responsibility of keeping the place affordable, to have the kind of facilities it takes to compete...... As far as I can tell, we're in a reasonably competitive shape in most areas"
Daniel's 2013 interview on athletics
"You want to pursue excellence in winning, but it's not - as in many places - at the expense of other things that matter"
"The athletic departments that are taking tuition money from some struggling family in order to fund themselves ought to look in the mirror, in my opinion. My view, the athletic department's minimum aim ought to be to break even and not become a drain on the rest of the university"
"We want, within the boundaries of responsibility of keeping the place affordable, to have the kind of facilities it takes to compete...... As far as I can tell, we're in a reasonably competitive shape in most areas"
Daniel's 2013 interview on athletics
I recall when Daniels said this, and it baffled me that he felt the need to say it since Purdue has never subsidized athletics ... so there was nothing new in what he said as far as Purdue goes. In fact, at Purdue, the Athletic Department is plundered to help support the university. Which might be okay except it has prevented Purdue from investing competitively in football, and nothing would make our Athletic Department financially viable more than a strong football program. So in the end, robbing the football program of so much of the very funding it produced has resulted in less for the university to plunder.
Exactly, Bonz, exactly. Football is the driver of the economic well-being of the athletic dept. So is basketball. Feed these sports well and life is very good.
Ignore them and you end up with a $3 mill deficit in football alone.
So much for our sharp-thinking administrators. They need to sharpen their pencils and go back to work.
Ignore them and you end up with a $3 mill deficit in football alone.
So much for our sharp-thinking administrators. They need to sharpen their pencils and go back to work.
Would love to see him address this now to see if his approach has changed. The landscape/arms race has changed too much to support this old way of thinking. For the athletic department to average out as profitable or break even every ten years is still a reasonable goal, but mandating it every year leads us here.
That seems so obvious to me that I suspect they are content to be a 35-50th program and dont realize that the top 35 are aiming for number 1 so aiming for 35 is really aiming for 80.
If he really wants to save hard working families' their money, he should start more aggressively informing undergrads about how worthless most college degrees are. Perhaps address the economics of textbooks. Those warrants a look in the mirror. A few hundred per student for sports is wringing the neck of the smallest bully.
I understand what you're saying, but again, the brunt of most everything falls on Morgan Burke's shoulders.
First off, Purdue's facilities have not been the worst or very worst in the Big Ten. Until a couple years ago, Michigan State still had shared urinal troughs in their football stadium. And Michigan State is not one you'd ever put near the bottom.
And to compare Presidents at Michigan and Ohio State to Purdue is silly. Purdue will never be the mammoth that is Ohio State/Michigan with almost double the number of sports that Purdue has. However, I don't know if I'd say Presidents at Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. are more focused on athletics than anyone has been at Purdue. Again, if the athletic department is not an issue (whether financially, scandals, etc.), it's probably a-ok for most presidents. Most college presidents speaking at athletics events are awkward because they're rarely "sports fans"...
Your statement on Cordova - your things you list - are all the same thing. Is the $1 million/year out of the several million dollar/year Big Ten contract great? No, but it's going towards a building that will be shown on recruiting visits, I guarantee you that. So it's not some end of the world thing for Purdue Athletics.
As for Hope's hire, I don't blame Cordova one bit for that. Could you imagine if we found out that Cordova vetoed Burke's hire of a football coach? People would lose their s-h-i-t. And quite frankly, most people on this board went along with the hire when it happened. So you can't play revisionist history like everyone thought it was a horrible hire and were outraged at how much Purdue spent. What is she gonna do, go back to Morgan and say you know, you should really spend more money? Uh no. There's a reason you don't hear of much tension between athletic director and president in a hiring situation - because almost all of the time the president will rubber stamp those decisions. Not to mention the BOT has more say than the President - and the BOT has athletics people on it.
So again, I don't think it really falls on the President's shoulders. When has Morgan pushed the President/BOT for anything? I've never heard of it happening over 4 separate presidents. Never even heard of tension between the groups over athletics.
If there's a time for Morgan to push the envelope, it's now. What are they going to do, fire him? He's pretty much at retirement age. If he truly cares about making Purdue Athletics so much better, then why hasn't he one time stuck his neck out for Purdue Athletics?
First off, Purdue's facilities have not been the worst or very worst in the Big Ten. Until a couple years ago, Michigan State still had shared urinal troughs in their football stadium. And Michigan State is not one you'd ever put near the bottom.
And to compare Presidents at Michigan and Ohio State to Purdue is silly. Purdue will never be the mammoth that is Ohio State/Michigan with almost double the number of sports that Purdue has. However, I don't know if I'd say Presidents at Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. are more focused on athletics than anyone has been at Purdue. Again, if the athletic department is not an issue (whether financially, scandals, etc.), it's probably a-ok for most presidents. Most college presidents speaking at athletics events are awkward because they're rarely "sports fans"...
Your statement on Cordova - your things you list - are all the same thing. Is the $1 million/year out of the several million dollar/year Big Ten contract great? No, but it's going towards a building that will be shown on recruiting visits, I guarantee you that. So it's not some end of the world thing for Purdue Athletics.
As for Hope's hire, I don't blame Cordova one bit for that. Could you imagine if we found out that Cordova vetoed Burke's hire of a football coach? People would lose their s-h-i-t. And quite frankly, most people on this board went along with the hire when it happened. So you can't play revisionist history like everyone thought it was a horrible hire and were outraged at how much Purdue spent. What is she gonna do, go back to Morgan and say you know, you should really spend more money? Uh no. There's a reason you don't hear of much tension between athletic director and president in a hiring situation - because almost all of the time the president will rubber stamp those decisions. Not to mention the BOT has more say than the President - and the BOT has athletics people on it.
So again, I don't think it really falls on the President's shoulders. When has Morgan pushed the President/BOT for anything? I've never heard of it happening over 4 separate presidents. Never even heard of tension between the groups over athletics.
If there's a time for Morgan to push the envelope, it's now. What are they going to do, fire him? He's pretty much at retirement age. If he truly cares about making Purdue Athletics so much better, then why hasn't he one time stuck his neck out for Purdue Athletics?
Nothing will change. We got lucky with the hiring of Tiller. He turned out to be a real football guy and an innovator to boot. He had a good sense of creating team chemistry and the assessing players' capabilities. When he got rejected for increased financial support to support his staff, he got discouraged and the results in his final years reflect that. That was proverbial handwriting on the wall. The escalation of the arms race in recent years makes the establishment of winning as a priority even less likely.
Okay, I agree that MB didn't do enough to fight / persuade Cordova and Jischike. But you're blaming MB because he didn't effectively oppose Purdue Presidents, and thus, you're admitting that it does start at the top, with the President. Red Mackey never had to fight Fred Hovde. Hovde set the goals, Mackey told him what it would take, and together they did what it took to get it done, or compete, anyway.
Meanwhile, Daniels could care less about Purdue athletics. He's pure politician. His only concern is how to keep down the taxpayers' water bill (i.e., tuition) because he instinctively runs for re-election, even when he doesn't need to.
This post was edited on 1/5 9:26 PM by BoilerBonz
Yeah, we're so lucky that Tiller happened to walk in off the street after coaching here from 1983 through 1986.
And getting eight wins twice in his last three years really showed just how much he'd quit. Results do reflect.
Good thing his replacements have been younger and fresher and care so much more.
Re: Economics of bad management
Yeah, shortsighted. That's why he ordered the foundation built in 2001 for Ross-Ade to seat over 80,000.
Originally posted by boiler17:
Thats silly. Yes, shortsightedness is perhaps the quality I see in him most. I keep hoping he will show me differently, because it is hardly fair/accurate to judge someone at a distance the way I do him.Originally posted by Courthouse Carp:
You don't think that those three are interrelated? We can add a whole lot of shortsightedness, along with a healthy dose of unimaginative to that list. Other than that, I'm in complete agreement with you; after all, Captain Morgan did come to us with a ROAD MAP a few weeks ago... what a sinking ship needs with a road map is beyond me.
Burke ought to be coming to us with the Yellow Pages, and then let his fingers do the walking.
He is little more than the kid next door that swears his mom is going to buy the coolest toy next week. Absorbs praise when its due, and deflects criticism as if things are outside of his control.
Why even say anything about the south endzone, relationship between athletic department, putting a front door on Ross Aide, etc. if nothing is going to happen along the timeline he vaugely infers?
Yeah, shortsighted. That's why he ordered the foundation built in 2001 for Ross-Ade to seat over 80,000.
Yeah, disappointing. It really sucks for Purdue's leadership to get editorial praise from the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and USA Today.
Families probably get really bored filling out the same amount for tuition year after year. Glad that no one else can do it.
Meanwhile, in 2010-2011, he spent over $100 million on Mackey.
Unlike you, anyone can prove that.
Re: Congratulations, Morgan! We now lead the nation in something!
Football locker room refurbished in 2010;
Athletic training room doubled in 2012;
Football weight room renovated in 2013;
Football meeting rooms renovated into theater-style in 2013;
Football coaches' offices and hallways renovated in 2013;
Players' lounges renovated in 2014.
Of course, that's all hard to see when you "peaked" with your head up your
Football locker room refurbished in 2010;
Athletic training room doubled in 2012;
Football weight room renovated in 2013;
Football meeting rooms renovated into theater-style in 2013;
Football coaches' offices and hallways renovated in 2013;
Players' lounges renovated in 2014.
Of course, that's all hard to see when you "peaked" with your head up your
Yeah, he doesn't care. That's why he's shown sitting among Purdue fans at each and every home football game.
Of course, to see that, you'd have to be there, too.
It's simple to do it. Just sacrifice investment in faculty, staff, and facilities for a few years until you're long gone -- but accept the praise of the WSJ, NYT, and USA Today (impressive?) in the mean time.
I was there every home game this year. How about you? Daniels' attendance at Purdue football games hardly convinces me that he has or will make one hard decision to benefit the football program. Even Cordova attended Purdue football games.
Re: Congratulations, Morgan! We now lead the nation in something!
All 5 to 10 years too late and once again bringing up the a$$ end of the conference. Meanwhile, we have some of the best diving, swimming, and women's softball facilities in the nation. Thank goodness football is no longer necessary to support non-revenue sports, thanks to BTN money.
You mean not paying more for tuition each year through its 80 scholarships doesn't help the football program? That's not hard?
And how many university presidents do you see sitting among different fans in the stands every week? About the same number who ride their motorcycles onto the field.
Re: Congratulations, Morgan! We now lead the nation in something!
How did we ever manage to go to 12 bowls in the 16 years before? Must've been a time machine in there somewhere.
Meanwhile the Aquatic Center opened in 2001. Maybe that was too late for Boudia.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Too late??? Are you serious? A blatant lie about our facilities, and all you can say is too late???
How did we ever manage to go to 12 bowls in the 16 years before? Must've been a time machine in there somewhere.
Meanwhile the Aquatic Center opened in 2001. Maybe that was too late for Boudia.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
We opened six new buildings and a parking garage this year. We're hiring a hundred more to the faculty.
And getting recognition from the nation's foremost publications is one helluva lot of great advertising.
And the only thing that's gone is your senses.
Yes, new parking garages, that's certainly what makes a great university! And saying we're going to hire new faculty doesn't make up for being unable to retain the best we have because of uncompetitive salaries.
Re: Congratulations, Morgan! We now lead the nation in something!
This post was edited on 1/5 10:36 PM by BoilerBonz
You do realize that we last went to a football bowl game in the 2007 season, right? As Tiller said many times, he did not have the facilities to compete in recruiting against "peer" institutions like MSU and Wisconsin so when the Rose Bowl luster wore off, recruiting hit the skids and the end result is what we had by 2008-09. Meanwhile, MB spent lavishly on non-revenue sports in an understandable, but misguided, attempt to make up for decades of neglect.
This post was edited on 1/5 10:36 PM by BoilerBonz
That's "more" faculty. Adding. Not subtracting. And a parking garage. Singular. With six new buildings. And more to come.
Where's this exodus you're talking about? Got any documentation? Or is that yet more talking out of your ... end?
Besides, according to you and yours, change is good. Look what it's done for football.
Re: Congratulations, Morgan! We now lead the nation in something!
1967 Rose Southern California W 14-13
1978 Peach Georgia Tech W 41-21
1979 Bluebonnet Tennessee W 27-22
1980 Liberty Missouri W 28-25
1984 Peach Virginia L 24-27
1997 Alamo (24) Oklahoma State W 33-20
1998 Alamo (4) Kansas State W 37-34
2000 Outback (21) Georgia [OT] L 25-28
2001 Rose (4) Washington L 24-34
2001 Sun (13) Washington State L 27-33
2002 Sun Bowl Washington W 34-24
2004 Capital One (11) Georgia [OT] L 27-34
2004 Sun Bowl (21) Arizona State L 23-27
2006 Champs Sports Maryland L 7-24
2007 Motor City Central Michigan W 51-48
2011 Little Caesars Western Michigan W 37-32
2012 Heart of Dallas Oklahoma State L 14-58
That's bowl games for 12 of the 16 years leading up to the current era, including eight since the Rose Bowl.
Each of those bowls required at least six wins. That's two more wins than we've had total in the past two years ... since the coaches had their pay doubled.
So, we in fact competed well enough to reach postseason in 12 of 16 years before the latest Mollenkopf-Brees facility upgrades, which were only the latest in a line. Meanwhile Burke also built new football practice fields and the $100 million Mackey Complex that serves all sports in addition to building stadiums for three sports that had played on sandlots.
Bowl Game History
1967 Rose Southern California W 14-13
1978 Peach Georgia Tech W 41-21
1979 Bluebonnet Tennessee W 27-22
1980 Liberty Missouri W 28-25
1984 Peach Virginia L 24-27
1997 Alamo (24) Oklahoma State W 33-20
1998 Alamo (4) Kansas State W 37-34
2000 Outback (21) Georgia [OT] L 25-28
2001 Rose (4) Washington L 24-34
2001 Sun (13) Washington State L 27-33
2002 Sun Bowl Washington W 34-24
2004 Capital One (11) Georgia [OT] L 27-34
2004 Sun Bowl (21) Arizona State L 23-27
2006 Champs Sports Maryland L 7-24
2007 Motor City Central Michigan W 51-48
2011 Little Caesars Western Michigan W 37-32
2012 Heart of Dallas Oklahoma State L 14-58
That's bowl games for 12 of the 16 years leading up to the current era, including eight since the Rose Bowl.
Each of those bowls required at least six wins. That's two more wins than we've had total in the past two years ... since the coaches had their pay doubled.
So, we in fact competed well enough to reach postseason in 12 of 16 years before the latest Mollenkopf-Brees facility upgrades, which were only the latest in a line. Meanwhile Burke also built new football practice fields and the $100 million Mackey Complex that serves all sports in addition to building stadiums for three sports that had played on sandlots.
Re: Congratulations, Morgan! We now lead the nation in something!
Sorry, meant to say that we last had a winning regular season in 2007. But if you're happy with 6-6 followed by the Pizza or the Heart of Dallas Bowl debacle, then so be it. The point is, we did not make the critical investments in the football program in time to build on the momentum of the Brees/Orton years and by 2008-9 the program was backsliding seriously as a result. But if you prefer to believe that everything was fine until we started paying competitive B1G salaries for football coaches (i.e., doubled salaries, as you put it) then I'd say your keen powers of analysis suggest a future for you as an administrator at Purdue, either on the President's or the AD's staff. In fact, why don't you suggest to MB or Daniels that we cut the football coaches' salaries in half, so we can get back to 6-6 next year. I'm sure they would luv the idea and consider you a genius!
This post was edited on 1/5 11:31 PM by BoilerBonz
Sorry, meant to say that we last had a winning regular season in 2007. But if you're happy with 6-6 followed by the Pizza or the Heart of Dallas Bowl debacle, then so be it. The point is, we did not make the critical investments in the football program in time to build on the momentum of the Brees/Orton years and by 2008-9 the program was backsliding seriously as a result. But if you prefer to believe that everything was fine until we started paying competitive B1G salaries for football coaches (i.e., doubled salaries, as you put it) then I'd say your keen powers of analysis suggest a future for you as an administrator at Purdue, either on the President's or the AD's staff. In fact, why don't you suggest to MB or Daniels that we cut the football coaches' salaries in half, so we can get back to 6-6 next year. I'm sure they would luv the idea and consider you a genius!
This post was edited on 1/5 11:31 PM by BoilerBonz
Re: Congratulations, Morgan! We now lead the nation in something!
And if you blame what we have right now on spending over the years, you're absurd.
Critical investments? In time? Like the kind that got us to a dozen bowl games in 16 years?
Burke presided over some of the best years in our history and has made every investment necessary to compete ... including those that sustained us while we were actually competitive ... and he's followed popular sentiments on major coaching moves ... getting us to where we are now.
If you aren't happy, go look in the mirror. It's probably cracked like that "peaker" claimed to see.
Going to any bowl game is a big deal. It's an extra month of meaningful practice and more television exposure. And it beats the hell out of staying home.
And if you blame what we have right now on spending over the years, you're absurd.
Critical investments? In time? Like the kind that got us to a dozen bowl games in 16 years?
Burke presided over some of the best years in our history and has made every investment necessary to compete ... including those that sustained us while we were actually competitive ... and he's followed popular sentiments on major coaching moves ... getting us to where we are now.
If you aren't happy, go look in the mirror. It's probably cracked like that "peaker" claimed to see.
He has not made the proper investments in coaching at the right time. Hiring hope on the cheap was a critical mistake for the program right at a time when every programs visibility exploded. Poor hiring and even worse timing on football led us to where we are. That is on him
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The reality is that Danny Hope finished among Purdue's all-time top 10 coaches for games, overall wins, Big Ten wins and overall winning percentage with his 22-27 record in four years. Against Purdue's keynote opponents, Hope beat Indiana in three of four games, the loss being in overtime; he twice lost by a field goal to Notre Dame; he had two wins over Ohio State and came within 30 seconds of another; and he became only the second Purdue coach ever to win at Michigan. His last full recruiting class was Purdue's highest-ranked group by far in the past 10 years, and he left behind 16 starters from back-to-back bowl teams.
In the eyes of any rational observer, that certainly is not a "bad hire" or a "critical mistake" or a "ruined program."
Burke's mistakes were in listening to the loud sentiment to usher out the winningest coach in our history and to terminate his plain-spoken and slowly improving successor after four years, leading to an outwardly more-polished young coach whose two years at Purdue rank among the worst in program history. Now, despite understandable outcries, the struggling staff is being given ample time to right itself or that criticism would be levied as well.
It's no mistake that Purdue was blown out by good teams hope's last two years. Those bowl games were gifts from the schedule makers
Tiller left a competitive roster. Hope did not.
Bad hire at a critical time.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The 16 starters left behind by Hope faced two ranked teams on their 2012 schedule and lost to them by 3 and 7 points, respectively, the latter in overtime.
It'd be nice to be that bad again.
Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and psu blew our doors off.
Playing teams close isn't winning
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Neither is what we're seeing now. And it's not even close.
Any six-win season beats the hell out of 4-20, and that's a direct product of having had three head coaches and staffs within five years -- something that fans demanded.
Of course six wins beats what we have now.
As for hope, continuity wasn't a good enough reason to keep him. If a hire is bad, you have to cut bait
Posted from Rivals Mobile
As for hope, continuity wasn't a good enough reason to keep him. If a hire is bad, you have to cut bait
Posted from Rivals Mobile
As I've pointed out over and over (and why the "Mackey Project" was deeply flawed from a marketing perspective), the Mackey renovation affected every sport at Purdue and was nowhere near focused on only basketball.
That cost you're referring to included:
Building a new baseball stadium and updating women's soccer ($21 million)
Moving the grand prix track to build new practice fields
New locker rooms, meeting rooms, lounges, etc. for a large number of sports
-New sports medicine facilities for all sports
-New weight room for all sports but football
-New administration, JPC, ticket offices
-Updated parts of volleyball facility
And the list goes on...
I don't know what the cost breakdown is for men's basketball specific vs. the rest of the $100 million, but to say that he spent $100 million on basketball is dead wrong.
That cost you're referring to included:
Building a new baseball stadium and updating women's soccer ($21 million)
Moving the grand prix track to build new practice fields
New locker rooms, meeting rooms, lounges, etc. for a large number of sports
-New sports medicine facilities for all sports
-New weight room for all sports but football
-New administration, JPC, ticket offices
-Updated parts of volleyball facility
And the list goes on...
I don't know what the cost breakdown is for men's basketball specific vs. the rest of the $100 million, but to say that he spent $100 million on basketball is dead wrong.
