The Exponent gets it
- Thread starter boilermaker75
- Start date
Lol article is very poor. Author keeps mentioning the size of the building. It's about what's inside. Yes this will help recruiting and yes we need it. Our players facilities are lacking
What is inside is Hazell and his staff. So it won't help.
What I meant that they get is that this is signaling that Hazell isn't going anywhere.
Basically saying that we are wasting our money on expanding the facility. Saying that Purdue is placing all its hopes on the future with this building. I think this is only a little bit true. We all know it starts with a new head coach. Winning on the field will help a lot with our recruiting.
Except that our recruiting needs to get better for us to start winning. What we need is a coach who can win with the guys we have to generate some excitement next year (very favorable schedule). And that's a very tall order...we need lightning in a bottle and frankly the odds aren't great. But at this point we have to try.
I think if we had the right guy we would actually win some games this season. Look at some of the close games we were in. With a little adjustment and leadership we could actually win some games.
Disagree with this completely.
First off, the article was crap - as was already indicated above the size of the facility is about the least important stat you could rely upon. Not to mention they failed to research whether it is even possible or financially sound to renovate.
With that said, everything Mitch and crew have been saying indicates that this facility is meant for two things: to help recruit better talent, and to help recruit a better coaching staff. Purdue needs to show they will invest in a program before a good coach will come here, this facility does that.
So Iowa needs to improve their facility, but they are currently 7-0. Now I understand why we need to improve our facility to win, thanks for the clarification.
Until we get rid of Burke, the football program is dead. Getting rid of Burke is not happening. Burke was on the search committee for Daniels. Daniels gave him a promotion and "adjustments to his contract" when there were no raises for university employees.
http://www.purdueexponent.org/sports/article_e1df4bd6-a618-11e3-9288-0017a43b2370.html
The Exponent doesn't get it. The story is that Burke's history of penny pinching and not adequately funding football has put us in the position of having:
1) facilities that are not on par with the rest of the B1G
2) Hiring Danny Hope and giving him little resources to hire an adequate staff.
2) Over paying a Coach with only one successful season of HC experience.
3) Giving an unproven coach a contract with a high buy-out clause.
Now that Burke is in the "4th quarter of his career" he's blowing through money (big FB coaching salaries, major facilities upgrades...) in hopes that when he retires in 2017 that the department isn't in as piss poor shape as when he was hired nearly 25 years ago.
The story isn't about square footage, it's why have we never invest in the success of our programs until they've been run into the ground (or a coach has to publicly interview for the Mizzou job)?
While student writers rarely grasp everything, the only thing I'd say is that I don't think Purdue's done the greatest job of doing projects with the future in mind. That's not to say this is or isn't a good project, but I'd argue that some of the Mackey Renovation was more of a band-aid than anything. That's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's hard to fundraise for projects that don't have clear visions.
This renovation should have been done 10 years ago. Instead of looking ahead and investing at the time, they used the money generated from the early 2000 success in other areas. Had that happened, I'd guess our football program would be in slightly different shape right now. Oh well.
Isn't the facility going to house offices and what not for the football team (Where is the team's weight room, I remember hearing that they had something separate from the Mackey Expansion.) We might be putting more odds and ends into a practice facility than OSU does.
To be fair, we did a fairly substantial football facilities upgrade during that time (stadium, locker rooms, etc). It was the 15 years after that funding dried up.
I agree. Let's not understate though how easily we could get someone who wouldn't. Because of our position in the FB hierarchy, we will need someone who can make a jump from AC at a big school or HC at a small school. The success rate is probably 50% or less.
Check out our last 10 FB hires or so. We've been hiring bad football coaches well before Burke showed up.
This isn't really true. They were paying off a substantial Ross-Ade renovation for quite some time (and paying it off faster than projected, I believe, because of revenues).
I'm not a big Burke fan, but I don't know if I'd fault him there.
I find some moves puzzling/stupid - like the idea of expanding Ross-Ade to 80,000, which history would tell you is not realistic.
The expansion at the time didn't look terrible as the stadium was sold out (or at least 90%) all of 2004 and 2005, and still had solid crowds in 06-08. While I don't blame Burke for this, had the facility upgrade been done 10 years ago it would have helped dramatically to continue success. It's true a great coach can overcome obstacles, but it sure helps when you can show talented recruits facilities, cool jerseys, and all those other things they may care about. It can never hurt to have a better weight room as well.
Regardless, Purdue is making steps in the right direction whether people agree with it or not. This isn't about who the coach is, it's about putting the right tools in place for the coaching staff to be successful and able to compete in the Big Ten.
Regardless, Purdue is making steps in the right direction whether people agree with it or not. This isn't about who the coach is, it's about putting the right tools in place for the coaching staff to be successful and able to compete in the Big Ten.
Purdue didn't sell out a season of games with 67,000 ever under Tiller. If you can't sell out every game, why would you be looking to expand it 15,000 seats? Purdue's home opener in Brees' senior year - had 10,000 empty seats. There would have been 25,000 empty seats in a 80,000+ stadium. And that was the most hyped season in 20+ years. And that season only had 6 home games.
Decades of attendance figures would clearly show that 80,000 was not remotely realistic. Could you imagine if we did that? We'd have 50,000 empty seats.
