Recruiting … Chicago what a novel idea!!

[lbodel]

Amen!!!!!

As I mentioned too, we are going to get good recruits based on relationship building, not because a player dreams of playing at Purdue. And that's NOT just a Purdue thing - many other Big Ten programs have the same challenge - but we aren't going to be a "draw" like an Ohio State or Michigan.

So if you need to focus on relationship building, it's obviously easier to do that closer to you than farther away. Not to mention it doesn't sound like Hazell has done much to build relationships with high school coaches either....which also matters.

 

[njm8845]

You have signees from Texas, Florida, Virginia, Arkansas and other states. What is your geographic strategy?

DH: First of all, recruit the state of Purdue, which is the six states that are close to us. And then outside of our area, we’ll hit Texas, Georgia and Florida. Those are the three primary areas we try to emphasize based on the numbers. Those three states were the only ones other than Ohio and California that had over 100 players sign Division I scholarships last year. So we based a lot of things off of that. And then a lot has to do with the ties to our university.

I know the "State of Purdue" thing seems nonsensical. But after reading between the lines of what he said, I come to the conclusion that his plan is to:
- hit the midwest hard
- supplement with talent from TX, GA, and FL.

This actually makes a lot of sense. But it doesn't matter because he's proven that he can't recruit.... from anywhere. I don't want 2* kids from Indiana any more than I want them from Texas. I'm betting that if he focused on Indiana, he'd start pulling a lot of 2* talent from the state. Because that's what kind of recruiter he is.

Yes, IU has a better football program than us. But so does every other school in the B10. Between 2014 and 2015, IU has won 3 conference games. That's one game more than Purdue. They are not a good football program; I can confidently say that while acknowledging that Purdue is in worse shape.

A main point of mine is that it's not as much about the strategy as it is about the man. Hope's recruits weren't that good, so his method must be completely wrong. Wilson has IU performing (a little bit) better, so his method of getting a bunch of mid-level Indiana talent must be the way to win. Lynch tried to recruit Indiana also. Didn't seem to work so well for him. Tiller was able to successfully supplement a bunch of IL and IN talent with guys from TX, etc.

A good recruiter will make any strategy look good. A bad recruiter will make any strategy look bad. So Purdue doesn't "NEED" to do what IU is doing to get incrementally better. They just need to get better at what they already are doing. It seems really odd to point to one of the 13 schools above us in standings (and the one ranked 13 out of 14 over the last two years nonetheless) and say that that's the program Purdue should emulate.

 

[lbodel]

I know the "State of Purdue" thing seems nonsensical. But after reading between the lines of what he said, I come to the conclusion that his plan is to:
- hit the midwest hard
- supplement with talent from TX, GA, and FL.

This actually makes a lot of sense. But it doesn't matter because he's proven that he can't recruit.... from anywhere. I don't want 2* kids from Indiana any more than I want them from Texas. I'm betting that if he focused on Indiana, he'd start pulling a lot of 2* talent from the state. Because that's what kind of recruiter he is.

Yes, IU has a better football program than us. But so does every other school in the B10. Between 2014 and 2015, IU has won 3 conference games. That's one game more than Purdue. They are not a good football program; I can confidently say that while acknowledging that Purdue is in worse shape.

A main point of mine is that it's not as much about the strategy as it is about the man. Hope's recruits weren't that good, so his method must be completely wrong. Wilson has IU performing (a little bit) better, so his method of getting a bunch of mid-level Indiana talent must be the way to win. Lynch tried to recruit Indiana also. Didn't seem to work so well for him. Tiller was able to successfully supplement a bunch of IL and IN talent with guys from TX, etc.

A good recruiter will make any strategy look good. A bad recruiter will make any strategy look bad. So Purdue doesn't "NEED" to do what IU is doing to get incrementally better. They just need to get better at what they already are doing. It seems really odd to point to one of the 13 schools above us in standings (and the one ranked 13 out of 14 over the last two years nonetheless) and say that that's the program Purdue should emulate.

Again, I'm not saying we need to "emulate" IU - I'm simply pointing out that IU HAS improved because they've had a strategy and have improved! I would have taken IU's season over ours ANY day of the week. And quite frankly, IU was probably a bit better than their record - and they also seemed to get better through the year.

But as you mentioned, you can look at any of the other Big Ten programs pretty much too and it's the same case - they have more talent than us.

I'd much rather be spending time building relationships with a bunch of 3 star Indiana and surrounding state kids than I would flying to Texas to get a 2 star from there.

And by the way, I am by no way defending Hope, but his teams were much more talented than teams we have had under Hazell. Hope at least did improve, albeit slowly and not good enough.

Again, I think you're just arguing in circles. By taking issue that my example of IU wasn't good enough or what not - the point is the strategy is dumb, the lack of relationships in the state and surrounding areas is pathetic, etc. I couldn't tell you one thing we're doing well with in terms of recruiting.