............WOW! Why didn't any of us here on the board figure that out? That's why we're having such a ^%^ year! Just think where we would be record wise, if we just would have stepped it up starting with the Marshall game. Geez, glad he at least finally figured it out before it was too late. I feel so much better now!
Hazz is going to now up "Aggressiveness"!
- Thread starter PalmCoastFl
- Start date
Yes in case anybody missed his weekly presser this is a recap:
Yada, Yada, Blah, Blah, Blah, Aggressiveness, Run Forrest Run, Shoop, Shoop , DooWah!!!
Yada, Yada, Blah, Blah, Blah, Aggressiveness, Run Forrest Run, Shoop, Shoop , DooWah!!!
I don't get why this is a big deal. He's a dead man walking. Who cares what he says? Do people actually pay attention to these much anyway? Even when we were good?
All this coach has given us is shit and coachspeak.
Evidently he feels he needs to keep feeding us that to keep us on board. LOL
All this coach has given us is shit and coachspeak.
Evidently he feels he needs to keep feeding us that to keep us on board. LOL
He talked about the new facility and how he is excited and how it will help in the future. Doesn't this guy know that he won't be around too much longer?
Also talked about Saturday being Halloween and the fans should come out. Doesn't he realize his team sucks. Nobody is going to spend money to watch Purdue play. They leave you frustrated.
Also talked about Saturday being Halloween and the fans should come out. Doesn't he realize his team sucks. Nobody is going to spend money to watch Purdue play. They leave you frustrated.
Halloween is scary enough without watching the walking dead on our sideline.
At least Hope won a "national kickoff return championship" for us, with his "futuristic recruits".
What exactly does that mean? only 5yd cushions by the DBs or actually try man coverage? The dude should just shut up and play it out or maybe do something really aggressive like firing your coordinators.
I think, big picture, the BoT, the president, the AD really do not care. When you strive to be in the middle, we are not that far off from being in the middle. Not that we are close to being good, not at all, but we could have a fluky season and win 6 putting us in the middle.
You are correct and there will be many on this board very disappointed because they think it is a forgone conclusion that Hazell is gone after this season. They think the $60 million project was announced to begin attracting a new coach. It is to "help" Hazell who is so disadvantaged by facilities he cannot recruit.
its not there to help Hazell, its there to just show commitment hoping that this token effort is enough to garden some sort of support and hope. Hazell job is a 50-50 right now, but no doubt in my mind unless magic happens will he be here to finish out his current contract.
I think Purdue will wait and see if the colts fire grigson. If they do we offer him the AD role or sometype of Director of football (AD in waiting), Let Burke become the Director of Olympic sports before he retires.
OK, you are more correct that it is there to show commitment and was going to happen. But it will also be utilized to show support for Hazell and help him recruit better.
No for a few things with Grigson. #1 we could not afford to pay him what he makes in the NFL. Even when the Colts fire him, and they should for not drafting anyone to protect Andrew Luck, giving up a #1 pick for Trent Richardson, and not being able to get along with Chuck Pagano, Grigson will get another scouting job in the NFL.
I do find it amusing that the two guys MB leaned on in the search for Hazell, Grigson and Rick Smith are a combined 5-9, with underachieving teams with internal problems/fighting with their head coaches.
When Purdue goes 1-11 or 2-10 this season...he will be gone.
You think it's bad now? Having him shit the bed another season AND keeping around for 2016 will drive whatever small amount of support the program has left - completely away.
They can afford the buyout.
They can't afford another losing season - current season included.
It's dying on the vine.
It has nothing to do with the football record, it has everything to do with our president's image outside of Purdue. He is basing his image on affordability, which actually hurts Purdue. He doesn't care if Purdue has to take a hit to help his outside image. He is not going to risk the negative reaction from the outside of firing Hazell.
He is not going anywhere for 2016. His contract is for 2 more years, 2016, 2017. He will be back regardless for 2016. Another sub .500 (strive for the middle) season and he will be out. Biggest problem is this- if you are attracting a head coach, who will come if they don't know who the AD will be? I wouldn't take a job if I didn't know who my boss would be in 2 years.
Daniels or Burke?
Burke's image is already taking a massive hit for the way he's handled the football program the last 8 years. Hazell isn't doing him any favors either by continually shitting the bed and embarrassing the program every Saturday.
Hanging on to Hazell will do more to negatively effect images than firing him will. Keeping him around after 3 disastrous seasons shows that you tolerate getting your teeth kicked in every Saturday.
Burke cannot fire Hazell without Daniels' approval.
You are thinking too narrowly. When Daniels has gone to Washington to testify before Congress it isn't to talk about athletics.
Why would coach Ohio stazell, shoop and Hudson EVER have been afraid to be aggressive? If they lose being aggressive Burke doesn't have the balls to fire them anyway!
I read the H&R article earlier with all presser comments. I find it really weird that Hazell rarely says "we" (or at least in this presser; don't recall all of them). He said "you" instead, even when referring to things where he and/or staff are clearly the subject. It's like he's talking about the team, situation, etc. as if he's watching it via some out-of-body experience and referring to himself as "you". It's just bizarre. Maybe it wouldn't stand out to me if the team was having any success; I suppose my view on this could stem from more of a "piling-on" mentality at this point.
That's been mentioned a lot. I don't quite buy into as much as some do though. Think about it this way... the job is probably not going to be taken by a household name football coach. It's likely going to be another hot mid-major coach, a hot D1 coordinator, etc. And it's likely that Purdue is going to have to sweeten the compensation pot a little, say from DH's $2.2M/yr to $2.5M/yr (just for example purposes).
So now you're comparing this salary to what a hot MAC coach or D1 assistant makes - let's put that in the $600k - $750k range (by comparison, DH had a base of $300k at KSU). Translation = whomever takes the job is probably going to be somewhere between tripling and quadrupling their salary.
I bet there are a LOT of people that would take a promotion in their same field of employment for a 3-4x bump in pay without knowing the name of the person who they would directly report to. It's not like Priceline where the hotel you get is a total surprise; I mean, the coach would know he's going to work at Purdue.
Last edited:
Ok let me play Devil's Advocate. Suppose they hire an AD and he and the head coach do not share a philosophy, synergy, whatever buzz word you want to use. You see this all the time in pro sports with a new GM. If a manager/coach is there and the GM goes, the new GM might not play nice with the head coach; the GM wants his own guy.
Yeah, that's true to an extent, but it's not like a new AD is going to just waltz in on his first day and can a guy who's doing his job well. For starters, there's a lot more to being an AD than just overseeing football. Secondly, the football coach is going to have a buyout in place, right? So that provides a barrier to willy-nilly termination. Plus, a new AD isn't going to want to have to commit to said buyout if he doesn't have to, for the sheer fact it's going to be a lot of money. No self-respecting AD is going to want to ask his bosses for an extra $5M $8M in the budget in year 1 to fire a guy doing a good job simply because he doesn't feel the coach shares the same "synergy". If that were to happen, that might be a signal to me that the AD hire was wrong, not the coaching hire.
Where I see your scenario coming into play more is at the time when a renewal is up for grabs a few years in. At a more realistic time where the AD would have a choice to make. I can appreciate that there is some risk for the new coach down the line, say years 3-5 somewhere. But when you consider a 4x pay bump, the fact that you have a contract that can't be terminated without a buyout, coupled with the fact that a good boss shouldn't want to fire you if you're doing your job well... I think those things more than mitigate the risk we're talking about for the coach. But that's just me.
I agree, but if we did get a really good candidate, I know that sounds crazy, that may be a sticking point. Or if we have a guy who has success but the AD would rather have his guy we could lose someone we like. Of course both would mean we are having success.
All I know is .................I will have the popcorn and the Coors Lt ready for the new up "aggressive" style on Saturday!!!!!! I can hardly wait....................
You guys are joking if you think Hazell will be back next season. I just don't see that happening. As far as a new coach, I agree with Statey. We could get someone from the MAC for instance that would be more than happy to coach for us. The new AD will come in in a couple of years. They would be an idiot to fire the coach just because he didn't get to hand pick them. I think it would work out okay.
NO IT'S NOT TO KEEP US ON BOARD HE IS PAID TO DO ALL THIS PR CRAP ITS IN HIS CONTRACT THATS WHY HE CONSTANTLY GOES OUT IN PUBLIC TO LIE TO US... IT FOR DA BENJAMINS!
