Edey

[bonefish1]

There's no albatross, you're trying to make it one.

Shaka Smart went to a Final Four 10 years ago - when current recruits were 6 or 7 years old. He hasn't been past the round of 32 since. He actually has only made it past the first round twice since, and then immediately lost.

The college basketball coaching world isn't judged by whether or not you've been to a Final Four or not yet. Stop trying to make it that way.

I disagree. Why do people still talk about the Rose Bowl team?

Smart got that contract at UT because he had a FF run. It made him very, very wealthy.
But, the fact remains: Purdue hasnt been to a FF in over 40 years. That's almost unbelievable.
Some people will blame it on bad luck, bad draws, injuries, whatever the case may be, but in college basketball, the pinnacle is the FF (well...it's actually a NC, but let's get to a FF first).

 

[northside100]

There's no albatross, you're trying to make it one.

Shaka Smart went to a Final Four 10 years ago - when current recruits were 6 or 7 years old. He hasn't been past the round of 32 since. He actually has only made it past the first round twice since, and then immediately lost.

The college basketball coaching world isn't judged by whether or not you've been to a Final Four or not yet. Stop trying to make it that way.

FF is only one factor but it’s an important one. As stated elsewhere I don’t see Shaka having gotten the UT job without that FF run

Whizzo is still a very good coach but isn’t considered one of the conferences all time greats without all the FF’s.

MP is highly respected now but a FF would change the narrative for how he and Purdue are seen.

 

[bonefish1]

FF is only one factor but it’s an important one. As stated elsewhere I don’t see Shaka having gotten the UT job without that FF run

Whizzo is still a very good coach but isn’t considered one of the conferences all time greats without all the FF’s.

MP is highly respected now but a FF would change the narrative for how he and Purdue are seen.

Agree 100% on all points.
However, you can't argue with what Izzo's been able to do at MSU the last 20 years.
He's definitely in the picture of all-time great B10 coaches.

 

[3generboiler]

And to think I thought there was an update on how Edey was coming along

 

[lbodel]

I disagree. Why do people still talk about the Rose Bowl team?

Smart got that contract at UT because he had a FF run. It made him very, very wealthy.
But, the fact remains: Purdue hasnt been to a FF in over 40 years. That's almost unbelievable.
Some people will blame it on bad luck, bad draws, injuries, whatever the case may be, but in college basketball, the pinnacle is the FF (well...it's actually a NC, but let's get to a FF first).

People talk about the Rose Bowl team cause we've hardly done anything since!

If you ask someone to tell you something about Shaka Smart, it's going to be an event that happened 10 years ago that people are somewhat vague on - because he hasn't done ANYTHING since.

If you ask someone to tell you something about Matt Painter, they're gonna tell you about an amazing run that happened in the last NCAA Tournament - that people still remember.

IU's won a bunch of national championships - 30 years ago. Does that make them the better basketball program today? Your logic says yes.

 

[bonefish1]

People talk about the Rose Bowl team cause we've hardly done anything since!

If you ask someone to tell you something about Shaka Smart, it's going to be an event that happened 10 years ago that people are somewhat vague on - because he hasn't done ANYTHING since.

If you ask someone to tell you something about Matt Painter, they're gonna tell you about an amazing run that happened in the last NCAA Tournament - that people still remember.

IU's won a bunch of national championships - 30 years ago. Does that make them the better basketball program today? Your logic says yes.

I hate iu more than most people, so I'm never going to give them credit for anything. Purdue has more head/head success vs iu, but iu historically has more tourney success (granted, their banners are dusty but they did get to a FF in the 2000's).

I was surprised to see that Smart has a salary of $3.3M compared to Painter at $3M? Might just be based on UT's massive AD budget.

 

[PurduePete98]

IU's won a bunch of national championships - 30 years ago. Does that make them the better basketball program today? Your logic says yes.

I would actually say IU's championship history helps them in recruiting. Even though they haven't done anything in years, they still recruit at a high level. Most of their recruits mention "the tradition" when asked why they committed there.

With that said, I'm completely with you when it comes to Shaka Smart. He's had one good year, and hasn't done much since then.

 

[lbodel]

I would actually say IU's championship history helps them in recruiting. Even though they haven't done anything in years, they still recruit at a high level. Most of their recruits mention "the tradition" when asked why they committed there.

With that said, I'm completely with you when it comes to Shaka Smart. He's had one good year, and hasn't done much since then.

Well, this is where this spirals out of control.....are we talking about recruiting? Or coaches? Obviously IU's had many coaches since then, and none had anything to do with the national championships.

To add another topic, IU's done a hell of a job marketing that basketball program for decades.

 

[lbodel]

I hate iu more than most people, so I'm never going to give them credit for anything. Purdue has more head/head success vs iu, but iu historically has more tourney success (granted, their banners are dusty but they did get to a FF in the 2000's).

I was surprised to see that Smart has a salary of $3.3M compared to Painter at $3M? Might just be based on UT's massive AD budget.

Well, to be fair Painter isn't exactly overpaid. I've talked about this subject plenty, but I don't think many would disagree with my belief that Painter would not be our coach today if he wasn't an alum. For what he's accomplished, he (as in the program, not even him personally) hasn't exactly been rewarded.

 

[joe for prez]

Well, to be fair Painter isn't exactly overpaid. I've talked about this subject plenty, but I don't think many would disagree with my belief that Painter would not be our coach today if he wasn't an alum. For what he's accomplished, he (as in the program, not even him personally) hasn't exactly been rewarded.

do you think mike Davis, Tom Crean and Archie Miller are better coaches than Painter?

 

[mathboy]

Once again, we push the false narrative that FF appearances are totally and completely dependent on the head coach. Some schools change coaches and still get to the FF while others with nationally recognized coaches struggle to get there. Why? Maybe it’s not just the coach, ya think?

 

[bonefish1]

Once again, we push the false narrative that FF appearances are totally and completely dependent on the head coach. Some schools change coaches and still get to the FF while others with nationally recognized coaches struggle to get there. Why? Maybe it’s not just the coach, ya think?

Disagree. It's ALWAYS the coach, just like it's the always the coach in recruiting. Is there luck involved, of course. But there's a reason why some coaches get to the FF multiple times or are in the conversation almost ever year. It's because they recruit well and consistently get the top talent to make deep tourney runs.
MSU will be an interesting case when Izzo retires, as will Duke with Coach K.

 

[RFSNES]

Thank all of you for the Edey UP date....Idiots

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

He was not injured last year, and by all accounts, he isn't really in the plans for this season.

He was injured his first season here and he missed opportunities for growth. That is what I am referring to.

 

[lbodel]

do you think mike Davis, Tom Crean and Archie Miller are better coaches than Painter?

Nope.

Their strengths are more in recruiting - and IU is a perfect program to maximize that. I could go coach at IU and get good recruits. Take Tom Crean - he went to a Final Four at Marquette in his fourth year with a couple very good players including Dwayne Wade who is literally a generational type of player. After that season, he never finished in the top 3 in their conference at Marquette and only made it past the first round of the NCAA Tournament 1 time. Crean didn't even make the tournament 4 out of his 9 years at Marquette. So it's a perfect example of the type of coach who may be able to recruit - but it leads to wildly inconsistent seasons because a program isn't really being built, and players are not really being developed. It's works at some schools, and it doesn't work at most.

This goes back to my whole thing that part of what you get is the investment the athletic department makes in the program. Other than quality of viewing angles in the respective arenas, IU has a better budget, facilities, staffing, marketing - and not just in the last year, but also built in over time. Some of it can be fixed quickly - adding a couple positions to your staff and the course correction is pretty quick. Marketing your program? That takes time. Purdue's improved with it, but it doesn't change overnight.

I think the current administration has whiffed on presenting a strategic plan for the future of the basketball program as they have been presenting with football for years now. Every recruit has known the plan, seen the renderings, etc. - from before a dime was spent on a new building. Presenting a plan/vision for the program doesn't involve spending a ton of money. It's simply a plan. It excites fans (who give money) and excites recruits (who you want to come play for you).

In spring 2019, excitement for Purdue Basketball was at its highest since the 3-pete. And excitement for Purdue sports at its highest since the Rose Bowl year 20 years ago (when the Ross-Ade renovation was being presented). You have to take advantages of these peaks of interest and I feel like an opportunity was missed to really put a stake in the ground.

 

[lbodel]

Disagree. It's ALWAYS the coach, just like it's the always the coach in recruiting. Is there luck involved, of course. But there's a reason why some coaches get to the FF multiple times or are in the conversation almost ever year. It's because they recruit well and consistently get the top talent to make deep tourney runs.
MSU will be an interesting case when Izzo retires, as will Duke with Coach K.

So you consider every coach that has been to a Final Four elite? And better than all other coaches?

 

[lbodel]

MSU will be an interesting case when Izzo retires, as will Duke with Coach K.

This is why I'm a broken record about what Purdue's doing to look to the future of the program.

There's about to be a "power vacuum" in the Big Ten with Izzo retiring. Who knows what happens with MSU - they could make a great hire and just continue on with no bump in the road (i.e. Roy Williams to Bill Self). I'd say a majority of schools do have a few bumps in the road during a transition like this though.

After MSU, Purdue is probably the most "stable" program - Michigan is there, but obviously has had a coaching change.

Purdue has an opportunity to really put itself in position to be the leading program, but it's gonna take some effort and commitment that we haven't seen the athletic department be willing to make.

If Purdue's not willing to do it, there's other programs that will - Illinois, Michigan, IU...they all have the ability.

 

[Mandeville LA]

Once again, we push the false narrative that FF appearances are totally and completely dependent on the head coach. Some schools change coaches and still get to the FF while others with nationally recognized coaches struggle to get there. Why? Maybe it’s not just the coach, ya think?

assigning blame is the new sport. When teams don't perform it often falls on the coach. I have never bought into it. its sport the best team/players typically win.

 

[bonefish1]

This is why I'm a broken record about what Purdue's doing to look to the future of the program.

There's about to be a "power vacuum" in the Big Ten with Izzo retiring. Who knows what happens with MSU - they could make a great hire and just continue on with no bump in the road (i.e. Roy Williams to Bill Self). I'd say a majority of schools do have a few bumps in the road during a transition like this though.

After MSU, Purdue is probably the most "stable" program - Michigan is there, but obviously has had a coaching change.

Purdue has an opportunity to really put itself in position to be the leading program, but it's gonna take some effort and commitment that we haven't seen the athletic department be willing to make.

If Purdue's not willing to do it, there's other programs that will - Illinois, Michigan, IU...they all have the ability.

I'm in agreement with you on a lot of points.
Do you have any ideas on what specifically Purdue or Painter needs to be doing to get those players that will get them over the hump?
How much of it do you think is Painter and how much is Painter not having the financial resources some other programs have?
Is it giving a pile of money to the best lead recruiter you can buy?
Is is a marketing issue?
I don't think it's a style of play issue. Painter showed with Carsen that if you're that type of player, then you can pretty much do whatever you want on the court.

 

[bonefish1]

assigning blame is the new sport. When teams don't perform it often falls on the coach. I have never bought into it. its sport the best team/players typically win.

But the coach is responsible for the skill level of the players he's able to recruit. That's 100% on the coach.

 

[lbodel]

I'm in agreement with you on a lot of points.
Do you have any ideas on what specifically Purdue or Painter needs to be doing to get those players that will get them over the hump?
How much of it do you think is Painter and how much is Painter not having the financial resources some other programs have?
Is it giving a pile of money to the best lead recruiter you can buy?
Is is a marketing issue?
I don't think it's a style of play issue. Painter showed with Carsen that if you're that type of player, then you can pretty much do whatever you want on the court.

I think most of the differences you see of Purdue vs. other programs - it's not necessarily Painter and co's issues - with the understanding we're not going to start being shady, deal with drama queens, etc. There's not a lack of recruits that we would take - we have to win more of the battles. Which means you have to offer what the programs you are competing with are offering — and quite frankly, be better than them in some.

I like to look at it more from the perspective if you rank Purdue 1-14 in all of the nitty gritty categories, what do we stand out above our peers in? Essentially a pros/cons list of comparing Purdue to all of our peers. There's things you can't control, like the location of your university, and there's things you can control like the quality of facilities.

If you're #1 in the league in 3 categories out of 20 - but towards the bottom in the 17 others, it probably negates itself. But if you can be in the top 5 in all 20 of them, you don't show a "weakness" to a recruit.

For example: What does Purdue stand out better in to a recruit compared to Michigan? Facilities..no. Support staff..no. Campus/location...no. Game atmosphere..edge to Purdue. Purdue Athletics can't make West Lafayette/Lafayette Ann Arbor, but it can control facilities, support staff, game atmosphere, etc.

So then you look at what CAN we stand out in? Just a few examples:

Recruiting:
a. I don't think our assistant coach pool is amazing and it's not terrible, but we've seen some fairly consistent turnover with our coaches. Obviously when an assistant gets a head coaching job, that's a great opportunity. Will having a "higher profile" position focused on recruiting help bring in someone that maybe has some more name recognition? And/or help keep an assistant vs. taking a lower profile head coach job, or simply a lateral move? Sure, it could...but as a standalone, probably not. Would it help Purdue stand out compared to Iowa, Illinois, Michigan? Probably.

b. Painter's staff is the smallest in the Big Ten. When he was able to "grow it", Painter had to choose between having an analyst position and having a recruiting coordinator. For example, football has 3 FTEs focused on recruiting. Basketball has 0. Simply adding 1 FTE position - $100k/year out of Purdue's $100M+ budget.


Facilities: What's happened with previous administrations is a moot point now, but at the end of the day Purdue now has the "worst" basketball facilities in the Big Ten. Almost all of our peers have dedicated facilities for basketball for practice courts (minimum 1 men, 1 women), strength training, athletic training, studying/lounge, etc. Basketball right now is sharing all of that space (outside 1.5 practice courts that men and women share) with all of Purdue's olympic sports. Is it workable? Sure, but again - when a recruit goes to IU and sees this dedicated building to basketball training and then goes to Purdue where basketball is sharing it with 500 other athletes - think it helps? Nope.

Marketing: Purdue's undoubtedly gotten better - in the last few years Purdue has finally started bragging about having the most Big Ten championships, for example. There's just been a lack of "swagger" with it, which people at the end of the day identify with. With that, there's also been pretty inconsistent branding (i.e. you have IU's candy stripes all over the place, but you can hardly find the "Play Hard" shorts.....I've posted before you can maybe buy 1 basketball jersey, when Michigan State is selling 10+ versions). I think because of this happening for years where Purdue wanted to be "unaggressive", it bled into our fan base. When we play a game in Indianapolis, somewhere we have 100,000 alums, it is not even half full of Purdue fans - when we played in the Big Ten Tournament championship game in Indianapolis, it wasn't even close to a sell out. Of course, Purdue didn't really promote going - why? Cause they didn't directly profit from selling tickets. Purdue's gotten better with this...but it's still a bit apathetic.


Overall, obviously money is a factor with a lot of these items above and the current situation with COVID limits things for the time being.

But as I mentioned before, they had this big long term plan for football -- they can still do this for basketball. You don't have to do everything and pay for it all then. What's the vision Purdue has for its basketball program? Painter doesn't control the facilities built, number of staff it has, etc. -- unless he basically threatens to leave and forces someone's hand which is obviously not what you really want to see.

 

[mathboy]

I think most of the differences you see of Purdue vs. other programs - it's not necessarily Painter and co's issues - with the understanding we're not going to start being shady, deal with drama queens, etc. There's not a lack of recruits that we would take - we have to win more of the battles. Which means you have to offer what the programs you are competing with are offering — and quite frankly, be better than them in some.

I like to look at it more from the perspective if you rank Purdue 1-14 in all of the nitty gritty categories, what do we stand out above our peers in? Essentially a pros/cons list of comparing Purdue to all of our peers. There's things you can't control, like the location of your university, and there's things you can control like the quality of facilities.

If you're #1 in the league in 3 categories out of 20 - but towards the bottom in the 17 others, it probably negates itself. But if you can be in the top 5 in all 20 of them, you don't show a "weakness" to a recruit.

For example: What does Purdue stand out better in to a recruit compared to Michigan? Facilities..no. Support staff..no. Campus/location...no. Game atmosphere..edge to Purdue. Purdue Athletics can't make West Lafayette/Lafayette Ann Arbor, but it can control facilities, support staff, game atmosphere, etc.

So then you look at what CAN we stand out in? Just a few examples:

Recruiting:
a. I don't think our assistant coach pool is amazing and it's not terrible, but we've seen some fairly consistent turnover with our coaches. Obviously when an assistant gets a head coaching job, that's a great opportunity. Will having a "higher profile" position focused on recruiting help bring in someone that maybe has some more name recognition? And/or help keep an assistant vs. taking a lower profile head coach job, or simply a lateral move? Sure, it could...but as a standalone, probably not. Would it help Purdue stand out compared to Iowa, Illinois, Michigan? Probably.

b. Painter's staff is the smallest in the Big Ten. When he was able to "grow it", Painter had to choose between having an analyst position and having a recruiting coordinator. For example, football has 3 FTEs focused on recruiting. Basketball has 0. Simply adding 1 FTE position - $100k/year out of Purdue's $100M+ budget.


Facilities: What's happened with previous administrations is a moot point now, but at the end of the day Purdue now has the "worst" basketball facilities in the Big Ten. Almost all of our peers have dedicated facilities for basketball for practice courts (minimum 1 men, 1 women), strength training, athletic training, studying/lounge, etc. Basketball right now is sharing all of that space (outside 1.5 practice courts that men and women share) with all of Purdue's olympic sports. Is it workable? Sure, but again - when a recruit goes to IU and sees this dedicated building to basketball training and then goes to Purdue where basketball is sharing it with 500 other athletes - think it helps? Nope.

Marketing: Purdue's undoubtedly gotten better - in the last few years Purdue has finally started bragging about having the most Big Ten championships, for example. There's just been a lack of "swagger" with it, which people at the end of the day identify with. With that, there's also been pretty inconsistent branding (i.e. you have IU's candy stripes all over the place, but you can hardly find the "Play Hard" shorts.....I've posted before you can maybe buy 1 basketball jersey, when Michigan State is selling 10+ versions). I think because of this happening for years where Purdue wanted to be "unaggressive", it bled into our fan base. When we play a game in Indianapolis, somewhere we have 100,000 alums, it is not even half full of Purdue fans - when we played in the Big Ten Tournament championship game in Indianapolis, it wasn't even close to a sell out. Of course, Purdue didn't really promote going - why? Cause they didn't directly profit from selling tickets. Purdue's gotten better with this...but it's still a bit apathetic.


Overall, obviously money is a factor with a lot of these items above and the current situation with COVID limits things for the time being.

But as I mentioned before, they had this big long term plan for football -- they can still do this for basketball. You don't have to do everything and pay for it all then. What's the vision Purdue has for its basketball program? Painter doesn't control the facilities built, number of staff it has, etc. -- unless he basically threatens to leave and forces someone's hand which is obviously not what you really want to see.

Freaking right on target!!!!

Thanks!

 

[purduepat1969]

It was stated by GBI that Wheeler and Gillis could see spot minutes at the 5. Again, my interpretation of Painter's words are that he isn't expected much from them. He isn't saying "Dow has made a a lot of progress this summer and is going to really contribute to this team". He just says the opportunity is there, and we will see if he seizes it.

If Wheeler plays minutes at the 5 spot this year, we might as well stop watching Purdue basketball, because it will be a sh!t show...

 

[northside100]

Disagree. It's ALWAYS the coach, just like it's the always the coach in recruiting. Is there luck involved, of course. But there's a reason why some coaches get to the FF multiple times or are in the conversation almost ever year. It's because they recruit well and consistently get the top talent to make deep tourney runs.
MSU will be an interesting case when Izzo retires, as will Duke with Coach K.

Sure, it’s always the coach and never the school.

Men's NCAA basketball Final Four appearances 2023 | Statista

Which team has the most appearances in the Final Four of the NCAA basketball tournament? At the top of the rankings is North Carolina, while UCLA sat in second.

www.statista.com

 

[Purdue79fan]

Does anyone remember Gary McQuay? He was a 6' 8" athlete that was asked to start in a big game for the Boilers vs Xavier in Indy after Brad Miller broke his hand in the prior game. Keady decided to go up tempo against top 10 Xavier and Purdue was up 20 at the half. Wheeler is an athlete and in the right situation could play the 5...

 

[lbodel]

Does anyone remember Gary McQuay? He was a 6' 8" athlete that was asked to start in a big game for the Boilers vs Xavier in Indy after Brad Miller broke his hand in the prior game. Keady decided to go up tempo against top 10 Xavier and Purdue was up 20 at the half. Wheeler is an athlete and in the right situation could play the 5...

Wheeler had a bad year shooting the ball, no doubt. But he does a lot of good things - he's our leading returning rebounder after Tre I believe. You don't average 4-5 rebounds/game in 17 minutes a game by being clueless.

He certainly has things to course correct and we'll see if it gets done. He has potential though, and Painter definitely has seen it himself.

 

[boilernuke]

Disagree. It's ALWAYS the coach, just like it's the always the coach in recruiting. Is there luck involved, of course. But there's a reason why some coaches get to the FF multiple times or are in the conversation almost ever year. It's because they recruit well and consistently get the top talent to make deep tourney runs.
MSU will be an interesting case when Izzo retires, as will Duke with Coach K.

Coach is very important but I guarantee Duke will continue to get players after Coach K because the boosters that pay for current recruits and giving houses to their parents will continue that after he is gone.

 

[ehuffma1]

Wheeler had a bad year shooting the ball, no doubt. But he does a lot of good things - he's our leading returning rebounder after Tre I believe. You don't average 4-5 rebounds/game in 17 minutes a game by being clueless.

He certainly has things to course correct and we'll see if it gets done. He has potential though, and Painter definitely has seen it himself.

Wheeler can come back and score the ball by shooting 3’s at 33% or higher and running the floor on fast breaks. I think he will be fine. He can rebound and do other things to contribute. We will need him to play well bc the alternative is a RS freshman.

 

[SIBoiler2]

I've been saying this about Ivey since we were in his final four. He would have won Mr. Basketball had he gone to an IHSAA school.
The kid will be special. A combo of Etwaun and Carsen.

The IU Star would have changed the rules to make him eligible if he'd committed to IU.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

I didn't say who I thought was the greatest, I asked who you thought was the greatest.
And what's the criteria?

You think Bradshaw was better than Peyton or Favre? You think Brad Johnson was better than Marino?

 

[Purdue85]

You think Bradshaw was better than Peyton or Favre? You think Brad Johnson was better than Marino?

Fran Tarkenton and Jim Kelly ... 7 Super Bowl appearances, no rings.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Fran Tarkenton and Jim Kelly ... 7 Super Bowl appearances, no rings.

Yeah they sucked!!! Dilfer and Rypien were way better !!!

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

You think Bradshaw was better than Peyton or Favre? You think Brad Johnson was better than Marino?

On the first inquiry.....I actually would think about taking Bradshaw on intangibles - it's sometimes overlooked how tough he was, IMO. Granted, he did have a defense with an embarrassment of riches for hall-of-famers at each level.....

The real question is Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer?

 

[PU pit bull]

On the first inquiry.....I actually would think about taking Bradshaw on intangibles - it's sometimes overlooked how tough he was, IMO. Granted, he did have a defense with an embarrassment of riches for hall-of-famers at each level.....

The real question is Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer?

 

[bonefish1]

Coach is very important but I guarantee Duke will continue to get players after Coach K because the boosters that pay for current recruits and giving houses to their parents will continue that after he is gone.

Are you saying Duke cheats?
I like a good conspiracy theory as the next guy, but Duke doesn't pay players.

 

[lbodel]

Coach is very important but I guarantee Duke will continue to get players after Coach K because the boosters that pay for current recruits and giving houses to their parents will continue that after he is gone.

I think the first part of your post is completely accurate without even trying to wade into the waters of cheating or not.

Duke will continue to get players because it's built itself as a brand and a destination. Doesn't mean it will last forever, but it won't disappear.

IU is the simplest example - they are successful recruiting today much because of what happened in the 1980s that they continue to basically exploit 30+ years later.

They have gone through multiple coaches, with varying levels of success and varying types of coaches, and have always continued to recruit well. They recruit off the name.

That's why in my post about marketing and Purdue - that's something that takes time. IU has marketed those banners for decades, and it is ingrained in people's heads that's what you associate with IU basketball. Purdue didn't really utter having the most Big Ten championships until a few years ago when it got put on the outside of Mackey. I bet most Purdue fans didn't even know that. If Painter were head coach at IU, I guarantee he'd recruit at a higher level than he has at Purdue. It's not Painter, it's the program.

Marketing - aka the perception people have of your program - does wonders. I bet if you polled people on whether Duke's gone to a Final Four in the last 5 seasons, a majority of people would say yes. Well, they actually haven't - even with several top 10 draft picks.

 

[boilernuke]

Are you saying Duke cheats?
I like a good conspiracy theory as the next guy, but Duke doesn't pay players.

There have been multiple examples of parents getting VERY nice houses they could not otherwise afford (Zion's a more recent example). I have lived in the Carolinas for years and it is a blatant ongoing thing. I admit I stretched it a bit with paying players, but that slope is slippery and would not be shocked if it were going on. I believe there are still many clean programs out there, but there are obvious ones that cheat constantly. There is plenty of smoke around the Duke program whether you like K or not.

 

[lbodel]

There have been multiple examples of parents getting VERY nice houses they could not otherwise afford (Zion's a more recent example). I have lived in the Carolinas for years and it is a blatant ongoing thing. I admit I stretched it a bit with paying players, but that slope is slippery and would not be shocked if it were going on. I believe there are still many clean programs out there, but there are obvious ones that cheat constantly. There is plenty of smoke around the Duke program whether you like K or not.

I don't think it's worth getting involved in that discussion - whether anything nefarious was happening or not (and Duke was at all in the know or not), I think we'd all agree that Duke would recruit well.

 

[bonefish1]

There have been multiple examples of parents getting VERY nice houses they could not otherwise afford (Zion's a more recent example). I have lived in the Carolinas for years and it is a blatant ongoing thing. I admit I stretched it a bit with paying players, but that slope is slippery and would not be shocked if it were going on. I believe there are still many clean programs out there, but there are obvious ones that cheat constantly. There is plenty of smoke around the Duke program whether you like K or not.

I dislike Duke, but I believe K to be a coach of integrity (or he could just have me fooled) and runs a clean program. I also think that if there were any dirty pool being played by Duke, UNC would be all over exposing it.
I think what's unique about Duke is that they have the 800lb gorilla in UNC right down the road and they still compete at the highest level. UNC has them beat in about every area that you can consider (facilities, funding, ,etc, etc.) , but both those programs are perennial FF contenders.
I've always thought Northwestern could be a Duke like program but maybe they just haven't found the right guy?

 

[IUhaterade]

McQuay and Wheeler is an interesting comparison. They have very different bodies.