I know it's not the 70's, but I had a bad feeling when Hazell was hired because it reminded me of past failures by other B10 programs during that general era. It's the tendency of lesser football programs hiring assistants from Michigan and Ohio State. The two that come to mind are Gary Moeller (sp?) at Illinois and Glen Mason. Moeller was an assistant at Michigan under Bo and Mason came from OSU (later on, but the lesson still applies). Back then, Michigan and OSU's second squads could beat all of the other schools first teams because there we no scholarship limits. They blew all of the other teams off the line because they had by-far the best talent. So Moeller and Mason knew how to coach that style....and it failed miserably at Illinois and Minny. The systems they knew only work if you have vastly superior talent. The basketball analogy is all of the Duke assistants that get hired....none of which have ever even made a final four (hint, they don't get the players that Duke gets because of the brand name).
Hazell is a Tressel protege. Tressel was a good coach, but he also was the master of winning games 17-13 against teams that OSU should have beaten by 30 pts. Tressel won big because he had the best players....period. Not because he had some magical scheme or approach to life. There is no way Tressel would have had the level of success he had if he had coached at a middling B10 program. So Hazell absorbs the "Tressel way" with his 3-ring binder of "rules to live by". Based on first-hand experience, of course Coach Hazell has every reason to believe the "rules to live by" work. But guess what? The Tressel rules and that 3-ring binder only work (translate that to winning games) if you have better players at almost every position.
Hazell strikes me as a tremendously earnest guy who really believes the 3-ring binder. But the 3-ring binder doesn't apply here. It's not the absolute truth. He seems stubborn to a fault....because dammit, "I'm doing everything by the 3-ring binder.....and the binder was always right at OSU?" He really believes that if you do it the "right way", it doesn't matter if you don't have by-far the best players they get by default at OSU. This is why he is the king of the cliche. In order to keep believing, he has to keep repeating it. It becomes propaganda, even if it's done innocently and not cynically like many public figures. This is fantasy. Saying it over-and-over DOESN'T make it true.
I believe you're wrong to think that Purdue can use the OSU model and approach to scheme and have any chance to win, even modestly. There is little to no evidence it's worked anywhere with 2 exceptions. One is Wisconsin that was able to pull it off under Alvarez....and Michigan State recently. Wisconsin had the advantage of being the only B10 school in the state, and MSU took advantage of chaos at Michigan for an extended period of time.
I've come the conclusion that Purdue's only chance of being competitive is to go the gimmick route. The Spread is not a gimmick any more. Too many teams in B10 run it. I think you have to go as radical as the wishbone or something like that. Some old school scheme that you are confident that no one else in your conference will adopt. At least you get an identity that way and everyone has to adjust to you rather than the other way around.
This "balanced" Tressel approach is neither fish nor fowl. Purdue is good at nothing and mediocre at everything. Living by the 3-ring binder doesn't translate at Purdue (or IU, Illinois, etc). I believe their only chance is to go all-in on a radical approach.
Hazell is a Tressel protege. Tressel was a good coach, but he also was the master of winning games 17-13 against teams that OSU should have beaten by 30 pts. Tressel won big because he had the best players....period. Not because he had some magical scheme or approach to life. There is no way Tressel would have had the level of success he had if he had coached at a middling B10 program. So Hazell absorbs the "Tressel way" with his 3-ring binder of "rules to live by". Based on first-hand experience, of course Coach Hazell has every reason to believe the "rules to live by" work. But guess what? The Tressel rules and that 3-ring binder only work (translate that to winning games) if you have better players at almost every position.
Hazell strikes me as a tremendously earnest guy who really believes the 3-ring binder. But the 3-ring binder doesn't apply here. It's not the absolute truth. He seems stubborn to a fault....because dammit, "I'm doing everything by the 3-ring binder.....and the binder was always right at OSU?" He really believes that if you do it the "right way", it doesn't matter if you don't have by-far the best players they get by default at OSU. This is why he is the king of the cliche. In order to keep believing, he has to keep repeating it. It becomes propaganda, even if it's done innocently and not cynically like many public figures. This is fantasy. Saying it over-and-over DOESN'T make it true.
I believe you're wrong to think that Purdue can use the OSU model and approach to scheme and have any chance to win, even modestly. There is little to no evidence it's worked anywhere with 2 exceptions. One is Wisconsin that was able to pull it off under Alvarez....and Michigan State recently. Wisconsin had the advantage of being the only B10 school in the state, and MSU took advantage of chaos at Michigan for an extended period of time.
I've come the conclusion that Purdue's only chance of being competitive is to go the gimmick route. The Spread is not a gimmick any more. Too many teams in B10 run it. I think you have to go as radical as the wishbone or something like that. Some old school scheme that you are confident that no one else in your conference will adopt. At least you get an identity that way and everyone has to adjust to you rather than the other way around.
This "balanced" Tressel approach is neither fish nor fowl. Purdue is good at nothing and mediocre at everything. Living by the 3-ring binder doesn't translate at Purdue (or IU, Illinois, etc). I believe their only chance is to go all-in on a radical approach.
