After reflecting on yet another disheartening (but totally predictable) conclusion to another recruiting saga, I thought I would take a poll to see what folks think is the single most significant item Purdue needs to change to start winning some of these battles. The choices listed below are an attempt to summarize various touch points for various factions I have observed over the past few years on this and other boards.
POLL: What has to change most for Purdue to succeed in Recruiting?
- Thread starter Marcellis
- Start date
So does this mean Zo, Cal, Two Tone, Miller, and all the other coaches who ALSO missed on Swanigan, need to change their style too?
B definitely and a little bit of C. Speaking as a previous Head Coach at the high school level and I would assume it is the same at the collegiate level....you can't change who you are and you can't coach a style of play you don't believe in UNLESS you turn the actual coaching to your staff and just become an over-see'r in practice and a game manager during the game!
I think E is the more interesting question. Virginia plays a similar philosophy. There are already questions going around nationally if Virginia's style of play is good for the tournament. I don't have an issue with what Painter did last year for example. Establishing good post players in a half court offense and playing good defense are recipe's for winning. Didn't Kentucky play that way. The ISSUE I have is talent or being able to recruit that talent.
Bluitt at Xavier would have been perfect for Purdue's team last year yet Painter could not recruit him over Xavier. He could not sell Bluitt on the idea with 2 big men in the middle wide open shots would be available outside?
Question? Why are alot of posters on here assuming that Michigan St. Cheats with their money signs in quotes? Do you have any proof? What I see is that MSU has a similar style of Basketball as Purdue and Izzo's history would lead any player if you were honest to pick MSU over Purdue.
Bluitt at Xavier would have been perfect for Purdue's team last year yet Painter could not recruit him over Xavier. He could not sell Bluitt on the idea with 2 big men in the middle wide open shots would be available outside?
Question? Why are alot of posters on here assuming that Michigan St. Cheats with their money signs in quotes? Do you have any proof? What I see is that MSU has a similar style of Basketball as Purdue and Izzo's history would lead any player if you were honest to pick MSU over Purdue.
Yes. I have proof as does the rest of the nation. Izzo was suspended from coaching for one game, sanctions imposed by the NCAA, for recruiting violations.
Could it possibly be, Painter misses here, but still does fine in 15-16 with strong bunch of 4 year kids?
"Find a new athletic director and restructure the criteria for who gets to be a member of the Board of Trustees" could be another option. The overall results of a program start with the decision-making of the people at the top. Those decisions trickle down and affect everyone else involved in the basketball program.
How about instead of recruiting, what will it take for Purdue to ever get to a Final Four again?
Or is the answer better recruiting?
Or is the answer better recruiting?
Ok, let's not fool ourselves here. MSU paid a high school basketball coach $475 to work a 5 day summer camp for middle school kids. He was paid the same amount as every other coach that came in to work with Izzo and the kids for 5 days (15-18 coaches per camp). This coach had an unknown relationship with a recruit that MSU had sent information to through the mail. This recruit did not pick MSU and is currently playing elsewhere in college. The person who coached at the summer camp was not the recruit's high school coach or the recruit's AAU coach. The person was friends with the recruit's dad (having grown up with the recruit's dad and played high school basketball with him 20 years ago).
This is the only known incident involving Izzo in his 20 years as the head coach at MSU.
If you think this is worth claiming MSU is a dirty program, then you'd have to say the same for almost every program in college basketball that has been found guilty of a secondary violation of NCAA standards (and that would apply to almost 90% of NCAA football and basketball programs)
Honestly, better recruiting is the first step. Sure you have some teams that make the Final Four from out of nowhere from time to time without top recruits (George Mason, Butler, etc) but most years the teams making the Final Four start with good recruits who become even better players with good coaching. Even the best coaches aren't taking 2 and 3 star players and making Final Four runs. Sure, sometimes those players are better than their rankings and turn out to be great role players, but you need some big time talent to make a deep run.
The actual answer is that there isn't ONE answer.
It's not common for Final Fours to be dominated by 1 and 2 seeds. Those are the teams with arguably the most talent on their rosters and they often do not make the Final Four.
And you also need to be realistic in that we actually DO have talent.
George Mason made a Final Four with 0 four star players. Butler made back-to-back Final Fours with 2 four star players.
We have 5 of them. And you could argue that Cline and Edwards could be counted (both were four stars on at least 1 recruiting service).
Wisconsin had 2 players that were above 3 star recruits (Dekker and Koenig). Their recipe for success was the experience of their team. They had 0 freshmen playing and most of their team were at least 3 years into the program (whether redshirt soph, junior or seniors).
This idea that you have to do this and this to get to a Final Four is just bogus. A lot of it is your draw - Michigan State's was very friendly for them this year. A lot of it is your team make-up - Wisconsin's this year is like Purdue's the season Robbie Hummel tore his ACL. A lot of it is luck. A lot of it has to do with hitting your stride in the right time - Iowa State was killing it at the end of their season and won the Big 12 tournament, then crapped the bed in the tournament.
A Final Four team often has to do with everything coming together in a perfect storm. It's not easy to do and it's not easy to replicate. Talent doesn't get you there - otherwise #1 seeds would makeup the Final Four every year (this year was an anomaly). UNC gets some of the best talent in the country every year, but hasn't been to a Final Four since 2009.
But I'm so tired of people acting like our talent level just blows. We don't have a 2 and 3 star talent that we're trying to make into great players.
It's not common for Final Fours to be dominated by 1 and 2 seeds. Those are the teams with arguably the most talent on their rosters and they often do not make the Final Four.
And you also need to be realistic in that we actually DO have talent.
George Mason made a Final Four with 0 four star players. Butler made back-to-back Final Fours with 2 four star players.
We have 5 of them. And you could argue that Cline and Edwards could be counted (both were four stars on at least 1 recruiting service).
Wisconsin had 2 players that were above 3 star recruits (Dekker and Koenig). Their recipe for success was the experience of their team. They had 0 freshmen playing and most of their team were at least 3 years into the program (whether redshirt soph, junior or seniors).
This idea that you have to do this and this to get to a Final Four is just bogus. A lot of it is your draw - Michigan State's was very friendly for them this year. A lot of it is your team make-up - Wisconsin's this year is like Purdue's the season Robbie Hummel tore his ACL. A lot of it is luck. A lot of it has to do with hitting your stride in the right time - Iowa State was killing it at the end of their season and won the Big 12 tournament, then crapped the bed in the tournament.
A Final Four team often has to do with everything coming together in a perfect storm. It's not easy to do and it's not easy to replicate. Talent doesn't get you there - otherwise #1 seeds would makeup the Final Four every year (this year was an anomaly). UNC gets some of the best talent in the country every year, but hasn't been to a Final Four since 2009.
But I'm so tired of people acting like our talent level just blows. We don't have a 2 and 3 star talent that we're trying to make into great players.
For what it's worth, at least ESPN had Kaminsky as a 4 star (and number 13 center nationally) and Nigel Hayes was a 4 star as well (#22 national PF). That being said, they also had Koenig as only a 3 star. That means Wisconsin had 1 5-star and 2 4-star starters on this year's team.
I am just basing it on Rivals. Like I said, Cline and Edwards were rated better elsewhere, but just trying to keep it to 1 recruiting service to keep it consistent.
The point being, there are many different make-ups to teams that make the Final Four. This Wisconsin team was very much like the Baby Boilers as seniors - heavy influence of upper classmen and seniors to be specific. They had a big concentration of them at the top and like Purdue experienced when those guys left, it's tough to go in and replace them. Wisconsin's had 2 four star recruits in their last 3 recruiting classes. It's hard to recruit when you have such an established line-up.
The point being, there are many different make-ups to teams that make the Final Four. This Wisconsin team was very much like the Baby Boilers as seniors - heavy influence of upper classmen and seniors to be specific. They had a big concentration of them at the top and like Purdue experienced when those guys left, it's tough to go in and replace them. Wisconsin's had 2 four star recruits in their last 3 recruiting classes. It's hard to recruit when you have such an established line-up.
I voted for getting an assistant coach (a la Martin) who is an impact recruiter. I like Painter's team identity, and think he is overall solid at player development. I really like the direction he steers the team and the roster is as solid now as it's been since the baby boilers. I wouldn't want to mess with that formula too much. Most other options would change the program, when all that's really needed is a more consistent stream of solid recruits sprinkled with the occasional blue-chipper.
I'm going to say strength of schedule makes a big impact. MSU consistently plays top notch competition in their non conference schedule and this results in more exposure and more national televised games. This type of stuff makes a difference to 5 star recruits who want to get NBA scouts attention.
These things are not simple though.
1. Duke hasn't played a non-conference road game in years outside of like 2 in the Big Ten/ACC Challenge. It's like over 5+ years since they have. Why? Because teams like this don't have to. Why would a Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc. go play on the road when they don't have to? Do we want to just go play road games to these teams?
2. For neutral site games, it's a bit easier, but still tough. Remember how the Wooden Tradition fizzled out cause they stopped being able to schedule good teams.
3. You have to be on their level already. Michigan State can schedule a home and home with Kansas because guess what, if either of those teams lose, it's not a big deal. A loss to Kansas is going to be an assured "ok" thing because Kansas has the name. You don't see a lot of the "elite" schools scheduling good, but not elite schools for a reason.
4. Most good teams play in some sort of tournament, which many count on for their "big games". The best teams are in the best tournaments, which means their schedule is in pretty good shape.
5. The Big Ten has taken good steps in increasing scheduling. I don't know if its been done on purpose or not, but the top ACC/Big Ten games used to be played in neutral settings. Recently they've been all on-campus from what I can remember. The Big Ten adding the Big East to a similar series is a same thing. Not every Big Ten program will participate in that every year since the BE is smaller, but they have some quality teams there.
6. This is NOT a Purdue problem. If you think Purdue has all these great teams calling them up to play, you're nuts. It's incredibly hard to schedule, you see it all over the country, not just Purdue.
7. A lot of it has to do with money. First off, Purdue is a tough place to play. It takes convincing for a coach to want to come into Mackey. Secondly, a lot of schools ask for money. If we aren't dealing with much of a budget for that, then we don't have much to offer teams. The mid-major conference teams are looking for cash.
1. Duke hasn't played a non-conference road game in years outside of like 2 in the Big Ten/ACC Challenge. It's like over 5+ years since they have. Why? Because teams like this don't have to. Why would a Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc. go play on the road when they don't have to? Do we want to just go play road games to these teams?
2. For neutral site games, it's a bit easier, but still tough. Remember how the Wooden Tradition fizzled out cause they stopped being able to schedule good teams.
3. You have to be on their level already. Michigan State can schedule a home and home with Kansas because guess what, if either of those teams lose, it's not a big deal. A loss to Kansas is going to be an assured "ok" thing because Kansas has the name. You don't see a lot of the "elite" schools scheduling good, but not elite schools for a reason.
4. Most good teams play in some sort of tournament, which many count on for their "big games". The best teams are in the best tournaments, which means their schedule is in pretty good shape.
5. The Big Ten has taken good steps in increasing scheduling. I don't know if its been done on purpose or not, but the top ACC/Big Ten games used to be played in neutral settings. Recently they've been all on-campus from what I can remember. The Big Ten adding the Big East to a similar series is a same thing. Not every Big Ten program will participate in that every year since the BE is smaller, but they have some quality teams there.
6. This is NOT a Purdue problem. If you think Purdue has all these great teams calling them up to play, you're nuts. It's incredibly hard to schedule, you see it all over the country, not just Purdue.
7. A lot of it has to do with money. First off, Purdue is a tough place to play. It takes convincing for a coach to want to come into Mackey. Secondly, a lot of schools ask for money. If we aren't dealing with much of a budget for that, then we don't have much to offer teams. The mid-major conference teams are looking for cash.
I think it's easy to forget how young Painter is. Is he a perfect coach? Absolutely not. But he's going up against coaches like Bo Ryan who has 23 more years of experience, John Beilein who has 18 more years of experience, Izzo has 16 more years of experience, etc.
Like it or not, we hired him at a very young age. What he's been able to accomplish so far at this age is very impressive and is not average. There's going to be a learning process that he goes through and he'll learn how to do things. He does things the right way and still has great potential.
The amount of complaining is way overblown.
Like it or not, we hired him at a very young age. What he's been able to accomplish so far at this age is very impressive and is not average. There's going to be a learning process that he goes through and he'll learn how to do things. He does things the right way and still has great potential.
The amount of complaining is way overblown.
Good point about Painter being young. Bo Ryan is an extreme example, but he was 54 when he took over at Wisconsin. Beilein was 49 when he became coach at West Virginia. Painter is 44 right now.
But I don't follow Lbodel's point about how top seeds don't dominate the final four. From my vantage point they absolutely do. Only once since 1979 has a final four occurred without a 1 or 2 seed.
Saying "Often 1-2 seeds do not make the final four" is not the same as saying "final fours are dominated by 1-2 seeds". Since there are 8 1-2 seeds and only 4 slots, in any year it is impossible for half the top seeds to make it.
I don't have access to excel so I can't run a correlation, but a quick count shows that since 1979, 89 of the 148 final four slots were either 1 or 2 seeds. That's 60%.
What about the argument that parity has recently increased? 18 of 32 since 2008 have been 1-2 seeds. That's 56%. So the top 11% of the bracket (8 seeds / 68 teams) comprises about 60% of the final four slots.
The George Mason and VCU's of the world are the outliers. The more talent a team has, the more realistic it's chance is at a final four. I think that much is not debatable. I think Purdue has 3 seed type talent. That gives a decent shot at a final four.
But it never hurts to add more talent, and that's why people are complaining about the Swanigan signing.
Seed history
But I don't follow Lbodel's point about how top seeds don't dominate the final four. From my vantage point they absolutely do. Only once since 1979 has a final four occurred without a 1 or 2 seed.
Saying "Often 1-2 seeds do not make the final four" is not the same as saying "final fours are dominated by 1-2 seeds". Since there are 8 1-2 seeds and only 4 slots, in any year it is impossible for half the top seeds to make it.
I don't have access to excel so I can't run a correlation, but a quick count shows that since 1979, 89 of the 148 final four slots were either 1 or 2 seeds. That's 60%.
What about the argument that parity has recently increased? 18 of 32 since 2008 have been 1-2 seeds. That's 56%. So the top 11% of the bracket (8 seeds / 68 teams) comprises about 60% of the final four slots.
The George Mason and VCU's of the world are the outliers. The more talent a team has, the more realistic it's chance is at a final four. I think that much is not debatable. I think Purdue has 3 seed type talent. That gives a decent shot at a final four.
But it never hurts to add more talent, and that's why people are complaining about the Swanigan signing.
Seed history
I don't buy the age thing about a college coach, if that's the case then everyone would be hiring over a coach 60 years of age, if Painter doesn't know what to do by now he never will.
The point isn't that teams should go out and only hire 60+ year olds. But as someone else pointed out, Bo Ryan was 52 WHEN HE WAS HIRED at Wisconsin. Matt Painter today is 44.
And for the 100th time, there is not ONE factor that goes into coaching success. Age is NOT the only factor. But if you don't think experience matters, you're nuts.
And for the 100th time, there is not ONE factor that goes into coaching success. Age is NOT the only factor. But if you don't think experience matters, you're nuts.
Is it common for #1/#2 seeds to make the Final Four? Of course. But this was in response to people acting like talent trumps all. If you're going to go on that logic, top 2 seeds should be making up all of the Final Four slots every year.
I also wouldn't characterize George Mason/VCU as the "alternative" to #1/#2 seeds not making it. Yes it is VERY rare for a double digit seed to make the Final Four. But there's an "in-between" there. As you mention, you have a decent shot as a 3 seed with that kind of talent.
However, just in the last four years:
-3 #4 seeds have made it
-4 teams seeded #7-9 have made it
The overall point I'm trying to make is that there are a plethora of factors that go into making a Final Four. So this idea of "what's the one thing we need" to make a Final Four is a pointless argument of people making random demands. People saying "we can't make a Final Four til we land a 5 star recruit" is just stupid.
This year's Final Four was a pretty good make-up of various scenarios. The most talented team (Kentucky) made it just on talent alone, but their inexperience and perhaps light schedule led to a loss. The most experienced team (Wisconsin) was not the most talented - maybe even the least talented of the four teams - but experience and toughness paid off big for them. Michigan State was not an amazing team at all, but benefited from excellent match-ups that they faced on the way. And then Duke had a mix of a tough schedule, great talent and was peaking at the right time (Duke earlier in the season could not play a lick of defense).
These four teams all made it to the Final Four for different reasons and in different ways. The notion that there's a "formula" you follow is just more entertainment value than realistic.
I also wouldn't characterize George Mason/VCU as the "alternative" to #1/#2 seeds not making it. Yes it is VERY rare for a double digit seed to make the Final Four. But there's an "in-between" there. As you mention, you have a decent shot as a 3 seed with that kind of talent.
However, just in the last four years:
-3 #4 seeds have made it
-4 teams seeded #7-9 have made it
The overall point I'm trying to make is that there are a plethora of factors that go into making a Final Four. So this idea of "what's the one thing we need" to make a Final Four is a pointless argument of people making random demands. People saying "we can't make a Final Four til we land a 5 star recruit" is just stupid.
This year's Final Four was a pretty good make-up of various scenarios. The most talented team (Kentucky) made it just on talent alone, but their inexperience and perhaps light schedule led to a loss. The most experienced team (Wisconsin) was not the most talented - maybe even the least talented of the four teams - but experience and toughness paid off big for them. Michigan State was not an amazing team at all, but benefited from excellent match-ups that they faced on the way. And then Duke had a mix of a tough schedule, great talent and was peaking at the right time (Duke earlier in the season could not play a lick of defense).
These four teams all made it to the Final Four for different reasons and in different ways. The notion that there's a "formula" you follow is just more entertainment value than realistic.
yes experience helps, but by now I would think Painter should have a lot of experience, I may be nuts, but a coach who has coached as long as Painter has, plus his time playing at Purdue, he should have plenty of experience, maybe some don't pick up things as fast , but how much longer you think Painter needs to get the experience to be a better coach
But again, it's not a black and white issue.
In terms of in-game coaching, sure, it's probably well established. You're not going to see a dramatic change most likely.
However, managing a program is much different. How he was managing his program 5 years ago is probably different than he is today with different resources available. There are obviously ever changing rules - how much do you embrace some changes or not embrace them. Establishing yourself in a program obviously is important in terms of recruiting the best staff you can get. Long gone are the days of assistant coaches staying in the same place for 15+ years ala Bruce Weber. Having a network in that regard will change as you get more experience and you build your network and coaching pedigree.
There's so much that goes into coaching outside of what we see.
In terms of in-game coaching, sure, it's probably well established. You're not going to see a dramatic change most likely.
However, managing a program is much different. How he was managing his program 5 years ago is probably different than he is today with different resources available. There are obviously ever changing rules - how much do you embrace some changes or not embrace them. Establishing yourself in a program obviously is important in terms of recruiting the best staff you can get. Long gone are the days of assistant coaches staying in the same place for 15+ years ala Bruce Weber. Having a network in that regard will change as you get more experience and you build your network and coaching pedigree.
There's so much that goes into coaching outside of what we see.
Similar threads
