Seriously, I cannot imagine a much destructive thing than what you just proposed - That is do nothing until the AD retires.
You're settings your program up for conflict if the Coach isn't established and he's not the new AD's guy. Better to suck for another year if we can't chase off MB early.
I'd like you to post any comments you can find on here where ANYBODY said that they knew he'd be a terrible coach 3 seasons ago. Most gave him room to show what he could do but by the end of year 2 the writing was on the wall barring a miraculous turnaround which hasn't happened. If being realists and realizing it's not getting done after the two worst seasons in Purdue history is hypocrisy then you must have learned the definition over at Peegs.
There's probably some truth in that. But as long as the coach is making some progress, fans are more interested, and there is a general "vibe" that the team is headed in the right direction, it would be borderline stupid for a new AD to come in and wack a HC a year or two after he took the job. I guess it could happen, but at that point, Purdue could potentially have 2 buyouts going at the same time and would be a clear sign of instability in the program, likely making it even harder to hire a quality coach. If that were to happen, that would put me on alert that maybe the new AD hire was a bust.
Being in a snarky mood today my only comment is "do you see signs of stability in our program today?"
No. But wouldn't you agree the situation I described above would be indicative of the program being in an even more unstable situation than it is now?
With Purdue's conservative "keep your nose clean" approach I don't believe a new AD "could" fire someone if they were trending up but at the first sign of a slip it could get ugly in a hurry.
You will adversely affect the AD search if you hire a brand new coach to a 6 year guaranteed deal right before Burke steps down, for obvious reasons.
I was never sold on Mini Tressel and his power running game, "establish the run" philosophy, thought he was another colletto. Turned out to not even be that good.
I hadn't thought about that angle. Why do you think the AD search would be adversely affected though... is it just a general thought that an AD's success at any college appears to be so closely tied to the success of the football program? That certainly does make some sense, but are there any examples you're aware of where a school didn't get the AD it wanted because the AD before him had just signed a contract for a new football coach? To scare away an AD that would otherwise accept the job, I'd have to think this would take a pretty high level of disdain by the AD for the current football coach. But I dunno.
Um.. That's pretty much a reality, not a "general thought", look no further than
I didn't mean "general thought" as in something stupid or random, I meant it more like "generally speaking", is this what you referring to. Sorry if it sounded critical. While I don't think it's a laughable position by any stretch, I do think there's a big difference in a new coach in place being a risk/concern for an AD that they'd put some thought into before accepting a job vs. a prospective AD flat turning down a job because of it. Not sure how we could find out, but I'd be curious to know whether this has actually happened before where an AD has so much concern for the current football coach (who's only been on the scene for 1-2 years tops) that he rejects the D job. That's why I asked if you were aware of any instances of this.
when DH was hired, I do remember one poster proclaim he is Turner Gill 2.
So you want Burke to hire the next football coach, after blowing 2 in a row?
No one's going to get excited about another coach hired by Burke.
Gents - agree entirely and I've posted this several times: cut the cord
The most destructive thing we could do is we try to hire a new AD while paying 2 former Burke hires $2 million plus each per year, and tell the AD candidate, "yeah, you are stuck with this guy for at least another 2 seasons", which he almost assuredly would be.
This is no way conforms to the instant gratification world we live in today, nor does it conform to the mentality of the average sports-enthusiast that wants to see everyone fired everyday for every issue, foreseeable or not... which is probably why I agree with you so much.
I said by the end of the school year, which is in May last I checked. That gives the BOT seven months, which is plenty of time. And yes, we would most likely be stuck with Hazell for 1 more year in that scenario. But that's better than being stuck with another Burke hire for at least 3 more years.
One simple question: how much revenue are the 30K open seats costing us? -- OK maybe it only 20K seats? multiply that by the six home games for next year and the expected attendance drop if we continue? If those seats were filled how much does that generate just in ticket sales?
And Basketball expectations are sky high - I hope they meet them. If they don't, I don't even want to think about the meltdown.
