Some new options

[Fan4Life]

Willie Slater - Tuskegee; DII, but consistent success over 10 years.
Kyle Whittingham - Utah; has been a winner 99-46 and may be interested in a bigger program
Terry Bowden - has some luggage, but would bring an instant energy.
Doc Holiday - Marshall

I don't agree that coach X was a good recruiter at School U, so he will be a good recruiter here.
I also don't want someone with less than 5 years of experience. You just don't know if success was built by their predecessor or whether one great year influeced their overall "status".

Basically, I like looking for the next Joe Tiller (younger would be nice) who has built success and can bring staff; systems; experience to Purdue.

 

[FirstDownB]

Utah to Purdue is not a step up.

 

[TheBoris]

Willie Slater - Tuskegee; DII, but consistent success over 10 years.
Kyle Whittingham - Utah; has been a winner 99-46 and may be interested in a bigger program
Terry Bowden - has some luggage, but would bring an instant energy.
Doc Holiday - Marshall

I don't agree that coach X was a good recruiter at School U, so he will be a good recruiter here.
I also don't want someone with less than 5 years of experience. You just don't know if success was built by their predecessor or whether one great year influeced their overall "status".

Basically, I like looking for the next Joe Tiller (younger would be nice) who has built success and can bring staff; systems; experience to Purdue.

Well, you say "I don't agree that coach X was a good recruiter at School U, so he will be a good recruiter here." So what metric would you prefer to use? We ignored recruiting history when we hired Hazell and we ended up with a terrible recruiter.

 

[SIBoiler2]

We don't need more options. We need one option. We need MB to step up right now and put the DH2 era to an end or forever label his hiring as an utter failure.

 

[Fan4Life]

Well, you say "I don't agree that coach X was a good recruiter at School U, so he will be a good recruiter here." So what metric would you prefer to use? We ignored recruiting history when we hired Hazell and we ended up with a terrible recruiter.

A history of winning as a head coach is the most important thing to me. Hazel was a young "hot" name, but only one year of winning. I want someone with over 5 years (7-10 would be best) of consistent winning. We also need to look beyond the winning to see if the coach is merely inheriting a good program - or is he building one and/or maitaining one beyond the previous coach's sucess.

Akers, Colletto, and Hope were all considered plus recruiters.
Grabbing the recruiting coordinator from a program like FSU, Alabama, LSU, etc. doesn't mean anything. Those programs recruit by name.

I'm not saying being a good recruiting is not important, quite the opposite. Recuiting is the life blood of college sports, but in football you need to have more than that.