Absolutely! Better athletes are generally going to beat lesser athletes.
When it comes down to it, the guy who can jump higher, run faster, etc is going to be able to make plays vs a guy who can’t do those things better than his competitor.
Recruiting improvements?
- Thread starter Boilermaker
- Start date
Absolutely! Better athletes are generally going to beat lesser athletes.
When it comes down to it, the guy who can jump higher, run faster, etc is going to be able to make plays vs a guy who can’t do those things better than his competitor.
And what’s he got to show for it? Getting blown out in 2 Sweet 16 games!
So, either Painter is a great recruiter and terrible tourney coach or a poor recruiter and poor tourney coach. Which is it?
You could be right, but I can't understand how you got there. You admit you don't know his recruiting style, but state that he must change. How do I know what must happen when I don't know what it is that created the
need to be changed? How do I understand cause and effect if I don't understand the cause? Again, not saying you are wrong. I just don't understand the reasoning.
Considering Treed saying he recruited like others...I don't follow how you get there
Maybe being more aggressive like Brohm? Rondale commits to Texas, and Brohm stayed on him until he flipped. Seems like CMP refuses to do that. He backed off both Biggie and Haas, until they reopened their recruitments.
Different sport and different unwritten rules. Once they commit for basketball you back off.
My whole point is that I don't know how one makes a statement as a cause, but doesn't know what the problems with the cause are. Shoot, he could be right...people can be right and not really know why they are right. I can follow someone's feelings when he or she says I just think Purdue can do better. I understand how people can look at Purdue and say Purdue doesn't get enough talent and leave it at that. It is when we try to determine the cause of what we see as a problem that I sometimes get lost. People will say Matt is stubborn, but the reality is if someone can rationally get hims to see things different..he would change whatever. He puts a lot more into trying to win than the whole forum. He doesn't change because he doesn't believe those things..and just because you do something that doesn't work out doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do either.
Where I am a bit different is not in disagreeing that Purdue doesn't have as much talent day in and day out as those at the top of the Big typically, but in stipulating a reason. I admit, I don't know why it appears that Purdue doesn't get the same level of talent as those Purdue is compared. Could it be teh coach? Sure. Could it be asst coaches? sure. could it be other things? sure. could it be a combination of things that varies within each individual? sure?
We know that star power is found late in the tourney, but we don't know how star power does overall...in all the other teams that get beat. is it not the star power overall, but merely the pro players on a few teams that make a run usually in a tourney? In industry a person takes a reject and runs it through teh testing again and it passes. That person ships it. Was the first failure false and the second time true because that is what we want? Do we ever take parts that pass and retest them to see if they fail? could they fail if retested? many times we look for things that we "feel" justifies what we believe. Are many of the posts any different? None of this is aimed at anyone in particular...just some things for consideration coming from one that admits he doesn't know
Whoa. You are expecting logic to be persuasive to Lenny? Might be tough.
He is convinced that there is some sort of magical "ceiling" that coaches bump into. A ceiling without form or structure that somehow exhibits itself regardless of the injury situation, or luck of the draw. I think you have taken on a challenge that might be beyond most of us. In fact, I think there is a ceiling on the level of understanding of the game that limits what some fans can achieve.
I didn't really want to pinpoint anyone in particular since I see similar feelings from time to time. Unless they are trolling...they want the best for Purdue. What is prevalent in the forum is all the different people holding different feelings...different thoughts...different understandings and motivations. Those elements are found in every team as well. Hence the phrase the mental is to the physical as 4:1
All of us have our battles in life. Some more severe than others...some just seemingly severe without a good baseline. Some of us work harder on some days than others...focus more on some days...have more or less stress some days. The distractions in our lives can be found in disimilar ways in the players many times..and yet their performance is for all to see...evaluate and critique...and they slowly learn that. Anyway, many more people are driven by emotion than otherwise...
Have you ever read this TJ? I am assuming yes, but in case I'm wrong...…….
Recommended Viewpoint
RECRUITING YOUR CULTURE by Matt Painter
January 19, 2018 coachspeak10
There is not a coach in our business who does not want to win, and win big. Certainly there are many similarities among all programs, but there are also key differences in perspectives on the best way to put together a team and build a program.
How many times do we, as coaches, ignore things in recruiting because we absolutely have to have a big man that year? Sometimes we overlook red flags in the quest for talent, and the baggage a recruit brings to campus ends up being more trouble than the recruit is worth. Yet, even after being burned a few times, many of us will still choose to take the talent and ignore the baggage. But do we have to?
We all preach culture, but then we make it impossible to have a great one (or even good) if we have players who are incapable of functioning within the culture we work hard to create. I have an unbelievable job as the head coach at my alma mater – Purdue University. I am very fortunate to be in this position and try never to lose sight of that fact. We have been able to go to nine of the last 11 NCAA Tournaments. There are only 15 schools in the country that can make that claim (five schools have gone to all 11, four to 10 and nine to nine of the last 11). But, as any coach would understand, what eats at me is why didn’t we go to 11 out of 11? So, I spend a lot of time analyzing why we missed the tournament those two years.
We had been able to build our program after an incredible 25-year run by Gene Keady. He’s a man I have tremendous respect for as a person and coach.
When I became head coach, I had to establish myself with our team, recruits and fan base. There was a lot of work to do. In my first two years in West Lafayette, (one as an assistant coach and one as a head coach) we won 16 games. Total. We did the rebuild just like Coach Keady had done it with tough, hard-nosed guys that fit at Purdue. We recruited Carl Landry, David Teague, Chris Kramer, Ryne Smith, DJ Byrd, Keaton Grant, Lewis Jackson, E’Twaun Moore, JaJaun Johnson and Robbie Hummel and many more that we felt fit the culture we knew we needed to be successful. But then we (or more accurately, I) got away from that.
We started hearing things in our locker room about starting and minutes and not about the main goal – winning. What do we all do when these things start to happen? We attempt to fix it. We have team meetings, individual meetings & clean up the sloppiness of our practices. This hopefully leads to everybody buying in and when you have the talent, the change and improvement can lead to more wins. But what does this lead to when you have younger guys who are not thinking of the team and won’t buy in? Usually more losses, and life becomes miserable. How did we get to this point? What do we do to get out of this rut?
It is very hard to reshuffle the deck in our profession and keep our jobs. But after two losing seasons, we had to find out who we could “hang our hats” on to be our guys that were bought in and who could get us back to competing at the top of our league and going to the NCAA tournament. Instead of discussing what (and who) was wrong at this time, there was one big right in our equation: Rapheal Davis. He was the one guy that I thought was 100% about winning and that had the tools to do something about it. He worked hard, was a tremendous leader, came from a great family, and it ate at him when we struggled. He was bothered by it just as much as the coaches were. So, I took the captain title away from a couple of guys at the end of the first losing year that weren’t doing what they were supposed to and named Raphael a captain. I publicly blamed myself for the position our program was in at the end of our second losing season. But, I knew we had a start. A guy who could carry the torch for our program and lead by example and who would voice his opinion when the coaches were not present. There is nothing like hope in our profession. He gave us hope, and we built by adding some pieces (a great freshman class and a timely 5th year transfer) and subtracting others. The last three years we have added some high character guys who also have talent. And more importantly, we have walked away from recruiting guys who had tremendous talent but who we knew, deep down, just weren’t the right fit for the culture of our program. That has got us back in the tournament three-straight years, and we have finished third, third and first in our league. Our talent and character have both improved. The chemistry within our team is never perfect, but we have guys who try to fix it themselves when we hit rough patches. It actually helps us now when we face some adversity from time to time because it allows us to grow as a unit.
We all do everything in our power to help our players with aspects of being a student-athlete in today’s world, but frankly there is little we can do that can compare to what has been instilled in them in the first 18 years of life before they get to us. The recruiting segment of “getting a Purdue guy” is the most important element in this equation. When I look at our teams, the common denominator in our winning seasons, and especially on those teams who took our program from last to third in the Big Ten in 2015, has been their willingness to be coachable, their upbringing and discipline to be a good teammate and player for Purdue.
When you are able to recruit and have a team full of guys who fit your culture, you are able to do the things we all love. Focus on practice, teaching, game planning and hopefully winning. And at the end of the day, that’s why most of got into this profession.
EDITOR’S NOTE
Matt Painter is quite simply one of the very best in College Basketball. He has averaged 21 wins in his 12 seasons at Purdue and has registered 25 or more wins on 6 occasions. He first became a Head coach in 2003 at Southern Illinois where he went 25-5 and was named MVC Coach of the Year in his first year before being named Associate Head coach at his Alma Mater, Purdue, in 2004. He became Purdue’s Head coach in 2005. Matt has been named Big Ten Coach of the Year in 2008, 2010 and 2011.
Yes, I have seen that. Actually, that was on a backburner..relative to star power and players not recruited hard and/or misses if appropriate. There is so much we don't know or could ever know just watching games. I mean Matt takes a test and shares that with potential players and has them take it as well to make sure they are happy. FEw things worse than unhappy campers that leave after a year or so.
The point is, I don’t have to know the cause, I just have to know the result or outcome. And in Painters case whatever it is from his first contact with a top recruit to his last, somewhere along the line, something Painter says or does turns him off from Purdue.
It could simply be that Painter isn’t very charismatic or simply isn’t able to sell the vision that it takes to get 5 stars.
We’ve all met people in our lives that draw us in, that make us interested in whatever the discussion topic is, who make it seem like we’re important. We form a very positive opinion of that person, whether they were sincere or not. But it doesn’t matter because they’ve already hooked us and we’re sold on them. These types are somewhat rare, but I suspect some of the great recruiters possess these traits. I suspect Brohm does.
Maybe other coaches and their staffs are better able to make recruits feel that way about a school than Painter and his staff can make them feel about Purdue.
But the bottom line is, and it’s been proven by Painters recruiting results, that he’s simpler not able to get top talent on a consistent basis.
I understand that. Anyone can go on gut feel and still be right. Everyone has an opinion and many times the link to the criteria is missing...and yet that person could be right. I think your response was fair.
But it’s not gut feel. Matt’s been recruiting at P as HC for 15 years now. He’s landed 1, single 5*. That’s a pattern or trend or consistent, whatever you want to call it. But no matter what, I think it demonstrates his inability to close 5* talent.
It is not gut feel? Unless you have documented data that states that players never came to Purdue because of this or that...it is gut feel.
You have already decided without that data that it is Matt and Matt only that dictates what players come to Purdue and which ones don't. You could be right in your assumption that everything is based upon, but without evidence it is only an assumption. It is a good starting point for a hypothesis, but not the result of a study. If you don't see the difference...there is little I can do to help you with that. I'm not stating you are wrong...I don't know. I'm just stating you have results and are trying to develop a causal relationship in X predicting Y where the X is Matt in various amounts or however he would be measured...and hopefully but not probably equal spaced.
Jimmy did worse than Joey in the fourth grade and Jimmy has always done better than Joey in the previous grades...therefore the fourth grade teacher is the fault...
But the common denominator is Painter. And as most people would agree, the head coach is the single most important factor when determining where a recruit will decide to go.
Obviously there are other factors, but the HC is the most important.
Do you think Shaka Smart could recruit better at P than Painter? What about Izzo? What about Rick Barnes?
Because if you believe Painter is the best recruiter we can get and the HC doesn’t matter that much in recruiting, then your mind is made up and our debate is at a standstill.
There isn't a debate because you believe what you wish and I admit I don't know. Under those conditions how could we think there was a debate? I don't think I said you were wrong...what facts would I have to say that? I just pointed out that you take assumptions and determine an answer...that I have repeatedly said could be correct, but noted the flaws in being sure of anything. Assuming you were able to get data to confirm that the coach is almost always the largest factor in a players decision, you fall short of saying it by itself is all that is needed. In other words as important as you claim you imply it is, less than 50% of a players decision is the coach.
Now suppose that Jimmy has done poorer than Joey ever since they started school. Was Jimmy's shortcomings due to all the asst coaches (teachers) or head coach (principal) ? Again, I'm not saying you are wrong. But your ending spot should be the start of a hypothesis rather than the end point. Also noted is that I have not said I was right. You have circumstantial evidence and people have been convicted with only that if enough, and that could in theory lead to Matt's demise at Purdue if those in power agree with you. I don't think they do, but that doesn't make me right in my assumption any more than it makes you wrong in yours. I guess I'm parsing things a bit more when considering testing claims of difference.
I’m a huge fan of the 2014 class as well, but I remember having to defend them after the North Florida and Gardner Webb losses their freshman year.
The current freshmen are going to have very good careers. Wheeler, Williams, Hunter, and Sasha are going to be very good players, IMO.
What’s your measuring stick for success? Define “very good”.
Are they B10 championship good?
Final Four good?
Or 20 wins, tourney appearances and Sweet 16 good?
I would expect them to be competing for the Big Ten championship by their junior year. Whether they win it or not remains to be seen because Michigan, MSU, IU, and OSU all are likely to be very good. I’m not expecting a Final Four, unless Purdue has a surprise run.
I STILL see Purdue in a 2-3 zone where AJ would guard the triggerman and once the ball was inbounds return to the center of the zone..seeing potential problems. I couple that with my memory of seeing the asst coaches quickly grabbing the head coach during the time out in the final seconds under their basket...opposite of their bench...and sure enough once the trigger man inbounded the ball it drew out the guy on the baseline a bitr higher and aj returned to the center of the zone and their triggerman got the return pass for a baseline jumper for a big basket I seem to recall.
was 63-62 N florida
54 seconds left Dallas Moore made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Demarcus Daniels.
now 66 to 62 bad guys
How do I erase these memories?
Last edited:
I'm trying to follow the logic of the post. I guess the bottom line is its not up to me to figure out why Painter isn't a great recruiter, the data over the last 13 years would indicate he isn't.
Purdue has had 1 top 100 recruit according to 247 in the 2016 through 2019 class.
The argument that Painter constantly finds talent others don't see is contradicted by the fact that Purdue has had 2 players who played for Painter over the last 13 years who have played 100 games in the NBA. (Moore and Landry). Moore is the only Purdue alumni playing in the league after Biggie was recently sent to the G League. By the way Moore was a top 50 recruit.
Compare the 1 Purdue player, to these schools. Depending on status with injury and G League ups and downs Michigan has 8 to 10 players in the NBA, MSU (5 to 7), IU (7 or 8), OSU (4 or 5) or Wisconsin (4).
Purdue has had 1 top 100 recruit according to 247 in the 2016 through 2019 class.
The argument that Painter constantly finds talent others don't see is contradicted by the fact that Purdue has had 2 players who played for Painter over the last 13 years who have played 100 games in the NBA. (Moore and Landry). Moore is the only Purdue alumni playing in the league after Biggie was recently sent to the G League. By the way Moore was a top 50 recruit.
Compare the 1 Purdue player, to these schools. Depending on status with injury and G League ups and downs Michigan has 8 to 10 players in the NBA, MSU (5 to 7), IU (7 or 8), OSU (4 or 5) or Wisconsin (4).
But you’re treating this like a math equation where it’s black and white with only one answer. There is no theory to prove. There’s only historical data to go by. And looking at Painters recruiting history, there’s nothing to indicate it will change.
No what I have said is that you are looking at results and then assuming you know the cause without understanding the cause enough to explain it...lacking data. None suggest you are wrong, just that you are lacking to prove you are right...
On the other side I can guarantee through data a highly postive, correlated academic achievement for right handers based on the left foot size...for any amount people would wish to lose.
Results are the only thing that matter. I don't have to know the ins and outs of Painter's strategies to know if its working or not. I'm not in a position to say he should do this or that differently but when you have a 14 year history of results, you can look at the data and say Painter isn't a great recruiter.
TJ is correct in his caution to assign cause for an observed result. Bonefish says there is only one common denominator. I disagree. The university itself is common, so is the practice facility, the dorms, the campus, the stinky bean plant, the geography of the location, the relatively dead town of Lafayette. All these things are factors in recruiting, and are "common denominators" with regard to recruiting.
As for results, I don't see Hummel's injury taken into account. I don't see Vince Edwards, and Haas' injuries taken into account. All I see is an overly simplistic agenda-driven series of generalities and assumptions being thrown around to see what might stick.
Super simple question for you Mathboy: considering all the variables you list, do you believe there are other coaches out there who could recruiter better to Purdue than Painter has?
In other words: is Painter the best possible recruiter Purdue could get?
