Sources: Purdue plans to bring back Darrell Hazell for fourth season in 2016

[AZboiler]

I partially disagree with this. I do get where you're going with it and it mostly makes sense...but a few points.
1. Purdue isn't and wasn't going to compete with USCe or w, Miami or Virginia Tech for coaches. Those guys that would go to those schools would likely not consider us. That's fine, as we'd likely go to the MAC again for our next coach.
2. We aren't a worse job than any of the current BIG openings. Minnesota is not some sleeping giants. Kill has them at their peak. Maryland COULD be a sleeping giant but the Under Armour guy doesn't want to bail the AD out of its debt issue. That said, WHEN they start winning, he'll support the program more and more. Illinois....couldn't pay me to coach there.
3. I think Babers, Campbell and Fleck would have been our likely pool of candidates. I think 2 of those guys would and could have some success here.

In truth, before Burke milked the Football program into a full train wreck, the Tiller program had turned Purdue into a Top drawer program again. But the aquatic center, soccer fields and baseball stadia had to be built, so financially choking the only winning program available at the time made sense. Now 10+ years later the Football team begins a new era... the worst 3 year performance in Purdue history and still not bad enough to get the coach fired.
I really wonder how the BOT, AD rationalize the poor play and yet retain the coach. Oh yeah now I remember.

 

[loftygoal]

I kinda think that this news is more because of all the other coaching positions that have opened up. With Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, USC(e), USC(w), Hawaii, UCF, Miami, and Virginia Tech already out there (and there could be plenty more coming still.....Indiana? Georgia? Texas? West Virginia? Heck, maybe even Nebraska?), quite frankly, Purdue would be dredging the bottom of the barrel for a decent coach. Wait one more year and competition for a good coach might be significantly lessened.

I was surprised to see us get this visibility on Yahoo. After all it's been years since we've had a team worth any consideration. Most football fans would be thinking - Purdue? Do they have a football team? Yeah that's the school that Drew Brees went to. Oh - has it been that long since they've been any good?
And the article wasn't really very good. You could just hear the editor ask why there weren't any sources quoted. So the author went back and got a hold of good old Joe, who's probably always available to slam Burke as a penny pincher.
So my initial reaction was 'so what'. But in thinking about this a bit more the real concern beyond the buyout of DH's contract is the apparent loss in confidence in making or affording a selection that will make things any better. If I'm Daniels I'm going to want to be intimately involved in the process and decision. I hope they are not waiting for a year with less coaching turnover. Because if they are concerned that there is too much competition for coaches this year they will be disappointed going forward because it's not going to get any better in the future. This is likely the new norm.
Not making any announcements during the bye week made a lot of sense to me. Why would you dismiss DH midyear? Or what are you going to say in support of DH's leadership - we're competing better? Makes no sense. I think that they got to let the year end and hopefully be using this time to review their options. And if we win out I'm sure that we will all be rethinking our desire for a change! But don't hold your breath.

 

[SqueakyClean]

I partially disagree with this. I do get where you're going with it and it mostly makes sense...but a few points.
1. Purdue isn't and wasn't going to compete with USCe or w, Miami or Virginia Tech for coaches. Those guys that would go to those schools would likely not consider us. That's fine, as we'd likely go to the MAC again for our next coach.
2. We aren't a worse job than any of the current BIG openings. Minnesota is not some sleeping giants. Kill has them at their peak. Maryland COULD be a sleeping giant but the Under Armour guy doesn't want to bail the AD out of its debt issue. That said, WHEN they start winning, he'll support the program more and more. Illinois....couldn't pay me to coach there.
.

On points 1 and 2:
1) No you are right, we weren't, but with so many openings, the "best" mid-major coaches are going to have plenty to choose from. It's not so much a question of quality, but quantity in this case. There are going to be additional small school positions opening up also before Jan.1, so if Purdue gets rid of Hazell, we might be down to a MAC level offensive coordinator instead of one of the better MAC head coaches.
2) As of this moment....unfortunately, yes we are. I'll agree with you about Illinois, but Maryland is a much better opening (better recruiting ground, more in-flow of money) and Minnesota is not too far behind (brand new stadium, better facilities, currently has a much better "image" of winning). Our stadium attendance is the second lowest in the Big Ten (only behind NW) and is at the lowest % capacity of all Big Ten schools.

 

[SqueakyClean]

As if there would not be any other program openings next year.

Meh. I think we can all agree that the number of mid-season openings is significantly higher this year than any other year I can think of. They are mostly P5 schools also. By the end of the year, I fully expect a bunch of the smaller schools to open up as well.

I am really hoping that this will not be a new trend. It would be a bad precedent to get into for this many schools to have mid-season firings from now on.

Purdue would have competition next year, but I can almost guarantee that there wont be as many high profile competition.

 

[pboiler18]

As if there would not be any other program openings next year.

I think there will continue to be more and more and more openings and the arms race continues!

There is big money in winning! Truth is, you better win right away no matter what situation you are taking over....or be looking for a new job in 2-3 years!

 

[pboiler18]

On points 1 and 2:
1) No you are right, we weren't, but with so many openings, the "best" mid-major coaches are going to have plenty to choose from. It's not so much a question of quality, but quantity in this case. There are going to be additional small school positions opening up also before Jan.1, so if Purdue gets rid of Hazell, we might be down to a MAC level offensive coordinator instead of one of the better MAC head coaches.
2) As of this moment....unfortunately, yes we are. I'll agree with you about Illinois, but Maryland is a much better opening (better recruiting ground, more in-flow of money) and Minnesota is not too far behind (brand new stadium, better facilities, currently has a much better "image" of winning). Our stadium attendance is the second lowest in the Big Ten (only behind NW) and is at the lowest % capacity of all Big Ten schools.

You're so off base with point #1....it's just a silly statement. We got basically the 2nd best perceived candidate in the MAC in a busy coaching change year (they are all going to be busy now). I don't think it would be any different this year. Purdue can and will pay. With the TV deal money exploding over the next 2-3 years, it's hard to see us not getting good candidates. We USED to not pay. Now we pay, and can continue to pay because of TV money. It really doesn't matter who shows up to the games....MB is still going to rake in more cash year over year over year in BTN money even if 0 people come to the games. People are still tuning in and will continue to tune in and TV money will and will keep exploding. Back to the point....a MAC level coordinator? Don't be stupid. There are A LOT of good coaches out there and we could certainly buy one, no issues. Will the AD? That remains to be seen. He tried with Hazell, he just picked wrong.

 

[pboiler18]

In truth, before Burke milked the Football program into a full train wreck, the Tiller program had turned Purdue into a Top drawer program again. But the aquatic center, soccer fields and baseball stadia had to be built, so financially choking the only winning program available at the time made sense. Now 10+ years later the Football team begins a new era... the worst 3 year performance in Purdue history and still not bad enough to get the coach fired.
I really wonder how the BOT, AD rationalize the poor play and yet retain the coach. Oh yeah now I remember.

This isnt 1999. Your talking point is so old it should have retired when Tiller did.

Purdue's AD makes so much money and stands to increase revenues over $10 million over the next 2 years no matter what happens on the football field. It's not like the AD is suddenly broke because the football team is bad. You might think they are, but revenues are HIGHER THAN EVER and will continue to be because of TV money. We are upgrading facilities because of TV money. We will hire our next coach at $3mil+ because of TV money. At the end of the day, all MBs decisions are doing is driving away fans and hurting the standing of the program. That said, the gravy train HASNT and WONT stop as long as the BTN writes us a check every year...and from that stand point, what incentive does MB have to change the coach every week like you would want?

 

[SqueakyClean]

You're so off base with point #1....it's just a silly statement. We got basically the 2nd best perceived candidate in the MAC in a busy coaching change year (they are all going to be busy now). I don't think it would be any different this year. Purdue can and will pay. With the TV deal money exploding over the next 2-3 years, it's hard to see us not getting good candidates. We USED to not pay. Now we pay, and can continue to pay because of TV money. It really doesn't matter who shows up to the games....MB is still going to rake in more cash year over year over year in BTN money even if 0 people come to the games. People are still tuning in and will continue to tune in and TV money will and will keep exploding. Back to the point....a MAC level coordinator? Don't be stupid. There are A LOT of good coaches out there and we could certainly buy one, no issues. Will the AD? That remains to be seen. He tried with Hazell, he just picked wrong.

I will concede that the "only get a coordinator" was an exaggeration, but while Purdue has certainly upped the pay, it is not THAT much better. We still rank about 11th in the conference and of all the current "open" jobs we are in the bottom 3rd. Yes, we'll get a ton of money from TV, but so will the other Big Ten teams. Hazell's current contract puts him about 50th of all the Div-1 schools. I counted about 10 P5 schools that pay less than that. That's not going to change significantly with the next hire.

 

[pboiler18]

I will concede that the "only get a coordinator" was an exaggeration, but while Purdue has certainly upped the pay, it is not THAT much better. We still rank about 11th in the conference and of all the current "open" jobs we are in the bottom 3rd. Yes, we'll get a ton of money from TV, but so will the other Big Ten teams. Hazell's current contract puts him about 50th of all the Div-1 schools. I counted about 10 P5 schools that pay less than that. That's not going to change significantly with the next hire.

I wouldn't bet on that.

 

[Summy1]

The reason we aren't firing Hazell is because of the 6.6 million. period

 

[pboiler18]

The reason we aren't firing Hazell is because of the 6.6 million. period

Not at all. I bet we'd still fire him if he finished 2-10...but I don't think he will.

$6.6mil over 3 years is a drop in the bucket for an athletic department slated to make almost $100million dollars in TV revenue alone over the term of the buyout.

AND...knowing what I know, that puts our real revenues close to $150million over the same 3 years.

So why is $6.6mil stopping us again? This ISNT a lump sum payment.

 

[AZboiler]

This isnt 1999. Your talking point is so old it should have retired when Tiller did.

Purdue's AD makes so much money and stands to increase revenues over $10 million over the next 2 years no matter what happens on the football field. It's not like the AD is suddenly broke because the football team is bad. You might think they are, but revenues are HIGHER THAN EVER and will continue to be because of TV money. We are upgrading facilities because of TV money. We will hire our next coach at $3mil+ because of TV money. At the end of the day, all MBs decisions are doing is driving away fans and hurting the standing of the program. That said, the gravy train HASNT and WONT stop as long as the BTN writes us a check every year...and from that stand point, what incentive does MB have to change the coach every week like you would want?

Your point is as valid as the 1970 auto industry. The Big10 Brand is only as good as the teams that play in it. With increasing competition from SEC, PACC10 networks and increasing visibility of the MAC on ESPN, the revenues are not guaranteed to be upward bound as far as the eye can see. BTN has to continue to draw large crowds or both local and national advertisers will go else where. In addition, future TV revenues will be based on audience. Small audience, small revenue. Competition will breed new approach to revenue distribution. College Football is a commodity on TV and the BTN will shift revenues to schools generating larger audiences.
BTW if you notice Purdue football is not offered on the BTN now but ESPNU - same channel as the Little League regionals tournament.... Trend is not good

 

[AZboiler]

Not at all. I bet we'd still fire him if he finished 2-10...but I don't think he will.

$6.6mil over 3 years is a drop in the bucket for an athletic department slated to make almost $100million dollars in TV revenue alone over the term of the buyout.

Where did you come up with the 100Mill over 3 years?

 

[pboiler18]

Where did you come up with the 100Mill over 3 years?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-projected-to-get-45-million-with-new-tv-deal

 

[Summy1]

Not at all. I bet we'd still fire him if he finished 2-10...but I don't think he will.

$6.6mil over 3 years is a drop in the bucket for an athletic department slated to make almost $100million dollars in TV revenue alone over the term of the buyout.

AND...knowing what I know, that puts our real revenues close to $150million over the same 3 years.

So why is $6.6mil stopping us again? This ISNT a lump sum payment.

then why doesn't Purdue have the guts to fire Hazell?

 

[pboiler18]

Your point is as valid as the 1970 auto industry. The Big10 Brand is only as good as the teams that play in it. With increasing competition from SEC, PACC10 networks and increasing visibility of the MAC on ESPN, the revenues are not guaranteed to be upward bound as far as the eye can see. BTN has to continue to draw large crowds or both local and national advertisers will go else where. In addition, future TV revenues will be based on audience. Small audience, small revenue. Competition will breed new approach to revenue distribution. College Football is a commodity on TV and the BTN will shift revenues to schools generating larger audiences.
BTW if you notice Purdue football is not offered on the BTN now but ESPNU - same channel as the Little League regionals tournament.... Trend is not good

You do realize that ESPN pays the BigTen for games too right? ESPN has X amount of slots they have to fill every week with BIG games. Sure, it would be nice to get on some regular ESPN/ABC channels....but just because we suck doesn't we are getting paid less for those games. That is being decided years in advance, per game via TV contracts.

You'd probably be shocked to realize too that the BigTen Network DOES NOT get the first shot at BigTen TV coverage and that ESPN is still the cash cow for football money to schools for TV rights.

The fallacy that the Purdue AD is poor is just that....a fallacy. Sure, its not a $100million per year business like Michigan or OSU, but its revenue is not insignificant. It's also enough that we have plenty of money to keep up facilities and hire top coaches. Now, the reason we got in trouble towards the end of Tiller WAS that we didn't make a ton of money from TV deals (College football TV money has EXPLODED over the past 7-10 years) and didn't have deep pocketed boosters.

With the new announcement of the football facility upgrades and hopefully a facelift for Ross-Ade (and eventually a $5mil "power" coach) it has shown ME that Purdue has learned from its mistakes and shortcomings and is going to try and use this money to catch up. The problem is, most other schools and especially our conference foes have this money now too.

The advantage is though, our TV revenues have and should continue to outpace EVERY other conference. Would it shock you to know we made $30million this year in TV revenues but recent national champion FSU is estimated to have only made $15-17million?

 

[pboiler18]

then why doesn't Purdue have the guts to fire Hazell?

Many reasons

They feel its a specific coordinator holding the team back?
Both coordinators?
A facility issue that they are trying to fix and not peg on this guy?
They don't like how the coaching carousel is shaping up and don't want to get on it this year?

This is just the top of the list, but just because a few butt hurt message board fans want him gone doesn't mean the administration see it the same way.

Again, the flaw with most people's arguments on here is THEIR perception that Purdue can't afford to have empty seats. That was true 10 years ago but not so today. It's not good for PR, morale or really anything but they know that Purdue is percieved as a low 2nd or high 3rd tier job and you don't really endear yourself to candidates by tossing out a guy after 3 years. Not that Hazell hasn't been epic-ally bad and doesn't deserve it...but that hurts the perception of the program to potentially the next guy you have to bring in if the next hire goes south. AND there's enough wrong with the program that the next guy could realistically be a failure, even if he's a good coach.

The last point......this article today was from "Sources". They don't have to be legitimate sources. They could have asked a board member for all you know!

I don't know how Hazell sticks around if he loses out......outside of a MASSIVE culling of staff.

 

[AZboiler]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-projected-to-get-45-million-with-new-tv-deal

That is good news that I was unaware, sounds like with the addition of the $30M this year and $45M over the back end, there is no need to worry about Hazells buyout.
The Flaw is not that Purdue cannot afford to have empty seats, but rather the Purdue brand cannot be perceived as 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier.
Coaches are independent contractors and the good ones will fully understand that mistakes are made by employers, fans, players and coaches. With Hazells track continued 3 year record, it is really easy to explain why Purdue had to change directions. What will be harder to explain is the Purdue's lack of commitment to facilities, thus the $60M addition and why Purdue waited so long to make a change.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Many reasons

They feel its a specific coordinator holding the team back?
Both coordinators?
A facility issue that they are trying to fix and not peg on this guy?
They don't like how the coaching carousel is shaping up and don't want to get on it this year?

This is just the top of the list, but just because a few butt hurt message board fans want him gone doesn't mean the administration see it the same way.

Again, the flaw with most people's arguments on here is THEIR perception that Purdue can't afford to have empty seats. That was true 10 years ago but not so today. It's not good for PR, morale or really anything but they know that Purdue is percieved as a low 2nd or high 3rd tier job and you don't really endear yourself to candidates by tossing out a guy after 3 years. Not that Hazell hasn't been epic-ally bad and doesn't deserve it...but that hurts the perception of the program to potentially the next guy you have to bring in if the next hire goes south. AND there's enough wrong with the program that the next guy could realistically be a failure, even if he's a good coach.

The last point......this article today was from "Sources". They don't have to be legitimate sources. They could have asked a board member for all you know!

I don't know how Hazell sticks around if he loses out......outside of a MASSIVE culling of staff.

Or maybe Mitch doesn't want Morgan hiring the next coach.

 

[BoilerBonz]

Or maybe Mitch doesn't want Morgan hiring the next coach.

BINGO!

 

[lbodel]

Yes, but we (Purdue fans) deserve it for blaming Tiller and Hope for what Morgan, the BT, and Cordova wrought.

Daniels said last week that no staff could win at this level with our facilities, which means Hazell won't be fired unless there's a melt down in this last month. I'm okay with that given we wouldn't be able to hire a good replacement with Morgan still in the AD chair, and I'm tired of blaming coaches for failing to compete, with one arm tied behind their back, due to the incompetence of the Purdue administration.

LOL @ singling out Cordova. She was President for 5 years. Purdue football has been in a tailspin for 10 years - under 3 different Presidents.

 

[lbodel]

Or maybe Mitch doesn't want Morgan hiring the next coach.

Why do people consistently give Mitch a pass on everything?

Before this season, he was hailed as some great President and supporter of Purdue sports...because he drove his Harley out on the field.

He's now keeping a failed football program for another year....so he doesn't have Morgan hiring the next coach? MITCH IS MORGAN'S BOSS! If he was so pissed off with Morgan and doesn't trust him, that simply means Mitch is sitting on his hands. Great leadership.

Let's face it, nobody wants to pay the buyout. Plain and simple.

 

[BoilerBonz]

LOL @ singling out Cordova. She was President for 5 years. Purdue football has been in a tailspin for 10 years - under 3 different Presidents.

LOL if you like ... but you're the one who deserves to be laughed at!

Back to defending the indefensible Cordova, again, I see. First, Purdue football hasn't been down for 10 years. Second, Cordova is the one who raised the overhead charge on the Ath Dept 8-fold, from $0.6M to $4.5M. And the after effects of her fleecing of the Ath Dept, which Morgan chose to extract mainly from football, are still with us. Do you seriously think Daniels could fix, what she spent 5 years screwing up, in 2 years?! There is no easy, or sure, road back from what she and Morgan did to football at Purdue.

 

[BoilerBonz]

Why do people consistently give Mitch a pass on everything?

Before this season, he was hailed as some great President and supporter of Purdue sports...because he drove his Harley out on the field.

He's now keeping a failed football program for another year....so he doesn't have Morgan hiring the next coach? MITCH IS MORGAN'S BOSS! If he was so pissed off with Morgan and doesn't trust him, that simply means Mitch is sitting on his hands. Great leadership.

Let's face it, nobody wants to pay the buyout. Plain and simple.

Nor does anyone want Morgan to hire the next Purdue football coach. I'd rather give Hazell a 4th year, then let Morgan hire another football coach!

 

[Summy1]

Nor does anyone want Morgan to hire the next Purdue football coach. I'd rather give Hazell a 4th year, then let Morgan hire another football coach!

Why so we can have another 2 win season next year?

 

[BoilerBonz]

Why so we can have another 2 win season next year?

No, because Morgan won't be able to hire anyone who could be expected to do better. And anyone he did hire, would likely do worse for multiple years. You need to think more than one year ahead. Get Morgan out the door, then replace 'em both if Hazell can get it doing in the mean time.

There is no quick fix at this point.

 

[Redhotfill]

Wait - since football will be a non-revenue sport in 2016, does that mean Burke will build a new stadium for the program?

Yes of course! That's why we are getting other new facilities because FB will be a non revenue sport! Effing Brilliant!

 

[Redhotfill]

Burke has absolutely buried the football program. That's his legacy for me. Anyone can spend other people's money foolishly on shiny objects that do not provide any return.

I wonder if MB can go find some steel company to go put out of business after he retires just to stay in the swing of things.

 

[Statey]

$6.6mil over 3 years is a drop in the bucket for an athletic department slated to make almost $100million dollars in TV revenue alone over the term of the buyout.

While I tend to agree with this premise, Brian has been pretty steadfast in recent chats that this is a big deterrent to firing Hazell, assuming of course that Purdue wanted to, which is not a certainty. In last week's chat (I missed this week's), Brian said his sources have indicated that Purdue "doesn't have the money to terminate him at this time". That's not a direct quote, just to be clear, but that was the gist. And yes, I know Purdue as an institution could give away the full buyout tomorrow and the no one would ever miss the cash, but I think the context of what Brian is hearing is that Purdue doesn't have unspoken-for, un-earnmarked, and/or available funds for this. Doesn't mean that couldn't change if donors start picking up the phone, rather just a point-in-time assessment.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

So now that we know DH is back next year, what do you think the minimum expectation should be? The schedule is favorable, we lose very little to graduation, and we hopefully will have a settled QB position. I'm thinking 6 wins and a bowl. It's year four. That is the year a major leap has to be expected. Thoughts?

 

[BoilerGrad02]

So now that we know DH is back next year, what do you think the minimum expectation should be? The schedule is favorable, we lose very little to graduation, and we hopefully will have a settled QB position. I'm thinking 6 wins and a bowl. It's year four. That is the year a major leap has to be expected. Thoughts?

I would think a bowl has to be the bare minimum but Danny Hope went 6-6 his 4th year and got fired (with many more wins his previous 3 years) so maybe the expectation should be more.

I'll say 7 wins (which could include a bowl victory) and just a better product on the field in losses. No more losses to MAC teams. No more getting blown out by average/below average teams at home (Minnesota this year). 7 wins and being competitive in the majority of losses isn't really that high of an expectation for a coach's 4th year for a program but it seems like that's where we are at this point.

 

[PalmCoastFl]

So now that we know DH is back next year, what do you think the minimum expectation should be? The schedule is favorable, we lose very little to graduation, and we hopefully will have a settled QB position. I'm thinking 6 wins and a bowl. It's year four. That is the year a major leap has to be expected. Thoughts?

If it's the same staff.......................3-9 or 4-8 period! Another "Chitty" season........

 

[New Pal Boiler]

So now that we know DH is back next year, what do you think the minimum expectation should be? The schedule is favorable, we lose very little to graduation, and we hopefully will have a settled QB position. I'm thinking 6 wins and a bowl. It's year four. That is the year a major leap has to be expected. Thoughts?

6 wins, a bowl, and at least 3 of those wins are in the B1G. And a recruiting class that's not ranked in double digits in the conference.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

6 wins, a bowl, and at least 3 of those wins are in the B1G. And a recruiting class that's not ranked in double digits in the conference.

I could get onboard with that.

 

[PalmCoastFl]

6 wins, a bowl, and at least 3 of those wins are in the B1G. And a recruiting class that's not ranked in double digits in the conference.[/QUO You can bank on a dead last recruiting class for next year or next to last behind IU! Every other BIG is kicking our azzes in that department.............

 

[lbodel]

Nor does anyone want Morgan to hire the next Purdue football coach. I'd rather give Hazell a 4th year, then let Morgan hire another football coach!

So if you push everything back by 1 year from now, in your situation - that means Morgan would be "retiring" this spring. I don't have any information either way, but if you want the next AD to make that coaching change, you're talking an announcement about Burke leaving in the next few months.

As for Cordova, I don't know how things were really that different under her. Mitch kept everything the same when he started. There wasn't some dramatic change in things when Jischke left and Cordova started. So why single her out? The lack of investment in football during the prime years was under Jischke. Also, under Cordova, you can argue that the investment in football increased with the firing of Hope and hire of Hazell. There was a big bump in pay. In addition, it's also when a significant upgrade in funding of the basketball team took place. Granted, I don't attribute those things to a President, those are things an athletic director is in charge of. So I don't really get the lynching of Cordova, when the other 2 presidents have done the same stuff.

 

[boilermaker75]

So if you push everything back by 1 year from now, in your situation - that means Morgan would be "retiring" this spring. I don't have any information either way, but if you want the next AD to make that coaching change, you're talking an announcement about Burke leaving in the next few months.

As for Cordova, I don't know how things were really that different under her. Mitch kept everything the same when he started. There wasn't some dramatic change in things when Jischke left and Cordova started. So why single her out? The lack of investment in football during the prime years was under Jischke. Also, under Cordova, you can argue that the investment in football increased with the firing of Hope and hire of Hazell. There was a big bump in pay. In addition, it's also when a significant upgrade in funding of the basketball team took place. Granted, I don't attribute those things to a President, those are things an athletic director is in charge of. So I don't really get the lynching of Cordova, when the other 2 presidents have done the same stuff.

I don't get this mentality where we have to bring in someone from outside to be president of Purdue. The last time we had a president with Purdue connections was Hansen and I would argue the ones since him have been mediocre at best. In the meantime some Purdue people have proven to be great presidents/chancellors elsewhere, Steve Sample at USC and Henry Yang at UCSB. I also think Kent Fuchs at Florida will turn out to be a pretty good one and another Purdue miss.

 

[BoilerBonz]

So if you push everything back by 1 year from now, in your situation - that means Morgan would be "retiring" this spring. I don't have any information either way, but if you want the next AD to make that coaching change, you're talking an announcement about Burke leaving in the next few months.

As for Cordova, I don't know how things were really that different under her. Mitch kept everything the same when he started. There wasn't some dramatic change in things when Jischke left and Cordova started. So why single her out? The lack of investment in football during the prime years was under Jischke. Also, under Cordova, you can argue that the investment in football increased with the firing of Hope and hire of Hazell. There was a big bump in pay. In addition, it's also when a significant upgrade in funding of the basketball team took place. Granted, I don't attribute those things to a President, those are things an athletic director is in charge of. So I don't really get the lynching of Cordova, when the other 2 presidents have done the same stuff.

My understanding is that Burke plans to retire at the end of 2016. Daniels needs to have Burke's replacement ready to lead a search in late 2016 -- so the new coach knows who he'll be reporting to.

IMO, Cordova is more at fault than anyone since she led the charge to raise the overhead charge on the Ath Dept in order to grab the BTN money for the university. She changed the overhead allocation formula so it included square footage of outdoor facilities, which just screwed the Ath Dept. And she knew exactly what she was doing. Morgan reacted by taking the funds from football, making the mistake of thinking that bad football would motivate more donors to help fix it.

 

[lbodel]

My understanding is that Burke plans to retire at the end of 2016. Daniels needs to have Burke's replacement ready to lead a search in late 2016 -- so the new coach knows who he'll be reporting to.

IMO, Cordova is more at fault than anyone since she led the charge to raise the overhead charge on the Ath Dept in order to grab the BTN money for the university. She changed the overhead allocation formula so it included square footage of outdoor facilities, which just screwed the Ath Dept. And she knew exactly what she was doing. Morgan reacted by taking the funds from football, making the mistake of thinking that bad football would motivate more donors to help fix it.

You're making a lot of assumptions. The main reason Purdue got a "break" off of the services charge was because of the cost of attendance increases that Purdue had to do. If those increases did not occur, I don't think we would have been given the money. Secondly, Purdue's overall financial standing is much different now than it was after the financial collapse (when the BTN money was coming in at a much higher rate than projected).

 

[BoilerBonz]

You're making a lot of assumptions. The main reason Purdue got a "break" off of the services charge was because of the cost of attendance increases that Purdue had to do. If those increases did not occur, I don't think we would have been given the money. Secondly, Purdue's overall financial standing is much different now than it was after the financial collapse (when the BTN money was coming in at a much higher rate than projected).

I'm making no assumptions -- I'm stating facts. Under Cordova, the overhead charges Purdue stuck its Ath Dept with were among the highest in the B1G, in an absolute $ amounts, despite Purdue having one of the smaller Ath Depts in the B1G. And yes, times were tough all over in the immediate post-financial crisis era. But other B1G schools managed to ride it out with crippling their Ath Depts, which is exactly what Cordova did to Purdue. Yes, we could blame Daniels for not rectifying the issue sooner -- but at least he addressed it, eventually.