Florida's new coach
- Thread starter gelesen
- Start date
The other thing that has come out of this courtship of McElwain was the latitude there is built in to the buyouts. His buyout clause was $7.5MM and although the specifics were not released, supposedly Colorado State president (a Purdue alum) was not going to budge. The news reports indicate a great amount of creativity in addressing buyouts including the agreement of Florida to play, in this case Colorado State, home-and-hiome and guarantee a specific gate to go towards the buyout,
Bottomline . . . even though the "teeth" that may exist in these coaches contracts has the appearance of being painful to get out of, there are ways to creatively address them. Aside from that, no one really wants to hold on to a head coach who really doesn't want to be there.
Bottomline . . . even though the "teeth" that may exist in these coaches contracts has the appearance of being painful to get out of, there are ways to creatively address them. Aside from that, no one really wants to hold on to a head coach who really doesn't want to be there.
I wouldn't say that's true.
There's a number of factors that go into a coaching transition.
For example, overall existing talent.
Sometimes you walk into a situation where you have decent talent. For Colorado State for example, their 2010 recruiting class (2014 graduating class - but anyone who redshirts is a senior this year) was #2 in Mountain West. 2011's class was #4 in MWC. So his upperclassmen were decent talent for the conference. Also with Colletto to Tiller, Purdue had a good amount of existing talent when Tiller came to Purdue. Colletto just wasn't a good coach, but was a pretty decent recruiter. When Hazell started, the talent level wasn't there to succeed.
Also to note with Colorodo State is that the difference in talent in that conference is not massive. Look how different the talent level of Purdue's classes to Ohio State's - it's huge. So even if you don't have a ton of talent (which Colorado State had a decent amount), the talent differential isn't as great, so coaching shows up quicker.
Another example is existing positional talent.
Michigan's transition from Carr to Rodriguez was a great example. Rodriguez ran a completely different system and it showed on the field - Michigan had a ton of talent, but it wasn't meant for the system Rodriguez wanted to run. You look at him at Arizona - he was probably successful quickly because the type of offense Arizona was going to be running wasn't all that different from your typical Pac 12 offense.
These factors play a huge role in how quickly a program turns around - whether you can coach or not. Now what I do agree is that in Colorado State's case, the coaching does show up more because the talent levels aren't so great. So if you have great coaching and similar talent to another team, you should do better. That I'm not arguing with. But I think it's pretty dumb to say "it just doesn't take 3-5 years" in all instances. I should also note that there are "lead" indicators to future success like an improvement in recruiting/talent. We have not seen that in 2 years so far.
There's a number of factors that go into a coaching transition.
For example, overall existing talent.
Sometimes you walk into a situation where you have decent talent. For Colorado State for example, their 2010 recruiting class (2014 graduating class - but anyone who redshirts is a senior this year) was #2 in Mountain West. 2011's class was #4 in MWC. So his upperclassmen were decent talent for the conference. Also with Colletto to Tiller, Purdue had a good amount of existing talent when Tiller came to Purdue. Colletto just wasn't a good coach, but was a pretty decent recruiter. When Hazell started, the talent level wasn't there to succeed.
Also to note with Colorodo State is that the difference in talent in that conference is not massive. Look how different the talent level of Purdue's classes to Ohio State's - it's huge. So even if you don't have a ton of talent (which Colorado State had a decent amount), the talent differential isn't as great, so coaching shows up quicker.
Another example is existing positional talent.
Michigan's transition from Carr to Rodriguez was a great example. Rodriguez ran a completely different system and it showed on the field - Michigan had a ton of talent, but it wasn't meant for the system Rodriguez wanted to run. You look at him at Arizona - he was probably successful quickly because the type of offense Arizona was going to be running wasn't all that different from your typical Pac 12 offense.
These factors play a huge role in how quickly a program turns around - whether you can coach or not. Now what I do agree is that in Colorado State's case, the coaching does show up more because the talent levels aren't so great. So if you have great coaching and similar talent to another team, you should do better. That I'm not arguing with. But I think it's pretty dumb to say "it just doesn't take 3-5 years" in all instances. I should also note that there are "lead" indicators to future success like an improvement in recruiting/talent. We have not seen that in 2 years so far.
Why do people constantly keep pointing to other coaching success stories as "it just doesn't take long to turn around a program if you know how to coach" and use it to imply that Coach Hazell doesn't know how to coach when he himself was hired off of one of those same success stories. Do people so easily forget that in two years this same coach that we have now took literally the second worst team in college football history and took them to an 11-1 regular season? How come when every other coach in the world you pine for does it, it's huge. But when our coach does it it's an anomaly. Hey guess what, the guy can coach. He struggles here seem to be indicative of much larger problems that were in place.
I'll say this, the coaches who take loser teams and do well have a much easier job than coaches who walk into programs that think they are better than they are. If a good coach walks into a very bad program those kids are going to be pumped and latch on and soak it in and try to do better. If a good coach walks into a bad program who has had some success and feel they are better than they are or has a sense of entitlement, it's going to be much harder to get the kids to buy in and change the culture to suit the program the coach wants in place. You saw it some last year, we were still pretty bad, but you saw more bright spots and more kids buying in. Bigger programs are usually slower changing. Unless you are a top program who has a bad year and replaces a coach.
I'll say this, the coaches who take loser teams and do well have a much easier job than coaches who walk into programs that think they are better than they are. If a good coach walks into a very bad program those kids are going to be pumped and latch on and soak it in and try to do better. If a good coach walks into a bad program who has had some success and feel they are better than they are or has a sense of entitlement, it's going to be much harder to get the kids to buy in and change the culture to suit the program the coach wants in place. You saw it some last year, we were still pretty bad, but you saw more bright spots and more kids buying in. Bigger programs are usually slower changing. Unless you are a top program who has a bad year and replaces a coach.
Really? I don't think your argument is credible.
Remember Brady Hoke? The "next big thing"?
Ball State... he won 4 games, 2 games, 4 games, 5 games, 7 games, then 12 games.
So... do you think he "know(s) how to coach?
Then went to Meatchicken.
And was fired.
But, he turned around Ball State. And it took him 4 years to do it. Then went to one of the top football programs in the country.
I don't think your argument is credible.
Remember Brady Hoke? The "next big thing"?
Ball State... he won 4 games, 2 games, 4 games, 5 games, 7 games, then 12 games.
So... do you think he "know(s) how to coach?
Then went to Meatchicken.
And was fired.
But, he turned around Ball State. And it took him 4 years to do it. Then went to one of the top football programs in the country.
I don't think your argument is credible.
Re: Really? I don't think your argument is credible.
He had 2 years at San Diego St where he turned that program around to 9-4 in his 2nd year before going to Michigan. I think what it points out is the difficulty of taking a guy from a minor conference and expecting similar results in the B1G. You can give them a try but you need to put them on a short leash. Burke's contract with Hazell is nuts. It's also very risky as we are finding out the hard way. Much better to find a guy that's proven at our level and letting them reestablish the program. Especially when you suspect that the player talent level has significantly deteriorated as most of us did. With our approach to hiring head coaches you've got to get lucky like we did with Tiller.
He had 2 years at San Diego St where he turned that program around to 9-4 in his 2nd year before going to Michigan. I think what it points out is the difficulty of taking a guy from a minor conference and expecting similar results in the B1G. You can give them a try but you need to put them on a short leash. Burke's contract with Hazell is nuts. It's also very risky as we are finding out the hard way. Much better to find a guy that's proven at our level and letting them reestablish the program. Especially when you suspect that the player talent level has significantly deteriorated as most of us did. With our approach to hiring head coaches you've got to get lucky like we did with Tiller.
Re: Really? I don't think your argument is credible.
"Much better to find a guy that's proven at our level and letting them reestablish the program. "
But who could we get?
If successful at another power 5 school, why would they leave for here?
If not successful at another powers 5, why would we want them?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
"Much better to find a guy that's proven at our level and letting them reestablish the program. "
But who could we get?
If successful at another power 5 school, why would they leave for here?
If not successful at another powers 5, why would we want them?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: Really? I don't think your argument is credible.
The second question to your line of thinking ... is winning all you want? if so, join the SEC.
...and why were they let go.
The second question to your line of thinking ... is winning all you want? if so, join the SEC.
Nonsense. Gruden and Cower were not and are not available. Tuberville is at Cincy and Petrino is at Louisville and they are winning and playing good football and those programs are alive and well. Like I said if you want to win you hire proven winners at the level that you are in. We could have gotten either of these guys and moved the program forward. If we aren't committed to winning Quit playing. Quit playing to participate; play to win.
Tuberville inherited a program that was 29-10 over the prior 3 years, what an amazing rebuild he's had to do. Tressel is on probation ( show cause ) until 2016, that's why no ones touching him. Petrino walked into a good situation, you never know when he might walk away mid season, or bonk a volleyball coach. Do you have some viable examples, I mean I'm sure there are some better ones than these 3.
We were 6-6 in 2011 and nobody expected that we had a massive rebuild project facing us -- because we didn't. This inept coaching staff has brought about this demise, Yeah we don't see L'ville and Cincy crumbling after hiring Petrino and Tuberville -- because those guys happen to know what they are doing. And those programs are improving.
There are clear signs of incompetence here - coming off of bye weeks and getting blown away; quarterbacks that regress with experience; coming out after half time less than flat; lack of adjustments during games. And the clincher - an AD that congratulates the coaching staff on a job well done after a 3-9 year. Ugh!!
There are clear signs of incompetence here - coming off of bye weeks and getting blown away; quarterbacks that regress with experience; coming out after half time less than flat; lack of adjustments during games. And the clincher - an AD that congratulates the coaching staff on a job well done after a 3-9 year. Ugh!!
I think you looked at cinci/Louisville records to back up your "improvement" claim right? Louisville was 23-3 and 2 years prior to petrino, 9-3 this year. Cinci, 20-6 prior to Tuberville, 18-7 with. That us marked improvement. Maybe it's the intangibles your referencing.
OMG I didn't intend for this to regress to an examination of L'ville and Cincy Fball. I thought that L'ville played a tougher schedule than I remembered in the past and still finished 9-3 -- FSU, Clemson and ND. Aside from getting their a$$ kicked by OSU and beating Houston this weekend, I don't care who Cincy played. I just know they won the Houston game and won their conference and they are going to a good bowl game and we are not. And watching both of these teams play, I wish that we were nearly that good.
None of them were or are available to Purdue. The best we could come up with was Hazzell and the previous best was Hope. No matter how you cut it we aren't getting a NAME/proven coach until we have a regime change in the Athletic Dept that makes it possible and favorable to said coach.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Purdue football Three questions for Purdue football after spring practice
- Latest: ChrisBuehler