After more consideration and thought...my personal feelings for Coach Painter

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

I have spent a good amount of time from commenting on threads about Coach Painter to allow myself more time to truly reflect on my comments about Coach Painter and the program.

First, I wanted to apologize to those fans who supported Coach Painter in the face of a whole lot of people who suddenly showed up to trash Coach Painter, the players, and the program in the immediate aftermath. At times, the board simply became a place to break a coach down and place blame squarely on him alone. Although that may seem where blame should be placed, it could easily been placed on the players as well due to poor play and poor execution. I actually didn't see many people placing blame on the players, which was nice to see for a change.

Secondly, I wanted to explain my though process in the days/week after the game and offer my current thoughts as well.

Immediately after the game, I was very frustrated as a fan to have seen a team who appeared at times during the season to be one of the best in the country to appear so weak and schematically poor. The strengths of this team were used against them in a major game, just as they had been against Butler, Iowa (x2), Maryland, Iowa, and finally Little Rock in the tourney. What makes it even more frustrating, is that this is a reoccurring problem for Purdue teams under Coach Painter (VCU for example) and what appears to be frequent under-achievement by his teams. However, after contemplating and watching more of the tournament, I must alter my overall thoughts about the program.

Do I feel that Coach Painter needs to be fired? No, and I don't really remember if I actually ever called for him to be fired (I'm not going to go back through my posts but if someone claims that I did, then I will gladly take responsibility for it). Coach Painter is a very good coach who has struggled to alter his style of play, coaching, and recruiting to match up with today's ever changing game and environment without the luxury of being a program with recent high amounts of success like IU, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, MSU, etc. For whatever anyone wants to say, recruiting to Purdue present some unique challenges that don't occur elsewhere. Many of you who don't support Coach Painter can't deny the ass backwards way our Athletic Department worked in the past and vast under investment that occurred over a large span of time (more apparent in the football program for a vast number of reasons I won't explain unless some one would like me to in a follow up post).

Do I feel a change should be made if Coach Painter can't show a reasonable amount of sustained growth and increased success? Yes and I believe every coach at Purdue should be held to that same standard. If that means the next AD cans Versyp, Schreiber, and any other sport that is under performing, then so be it. But a standard of excellence needs to be established by the next AD that should come with no excuses. Michigan for too long fuddled away what Lloyd Carr built by going with bad hires and allowing them too long to middle around. They finally committed themselves to being an excellent program and gave the resources necessary for their football program to succeed. The same can be said for Illinois and new AD Josh Whitman and firing a football coach who turned a program who was on par as being just as bad as Purdue and led them to a 'bowl game' as an interim coach. He then makes a splash hire in an attempt to right the ship and create a standard of excellence as he said. Coach Painter should be held to a high standard, just as any coach at a university where they are they highest or one of the highest paid employees. That standard should be to expect to compete for B1G titles and BTT titles every single year along with reaching the Sweet 16. That should be the standard and the expectation, not the hope and prayer it seems to have begun to be.

After his two disastrous seasons, many on here claimed that Coach Painter should be given the chance to turn the program around and get it to a point of being successful again. If he wasn't able to do that, he should be let go. Most people seemed to be in agreement with that statement two years ago. This upcoming season, I believe will be the biggest in Coach Painter's career as he has some good players returning and an incoming recruit who appears to be able to help in the programs area of dire needs. It also may show if Painter is going to be able to move the program further with higher level recruits in the 2017 class that so many claim will be Painter's best and that he should stockpile scholarships for. In fact, I believe the next two recruiting cycles will be very telling if Painter will be able to get Purdue to succeed on a yearly basis (like Wisconsin for example), or if the program will continue to be one that needs 3-4 years of development of players to have a chance at a conference regular season and tournament title.

In my personal opinion, Coach Painter should be given next year to see how his team unfolds and if they can be successful. If the program appears to be stuck and unable to provide continuous improvement, the new AD should be given the resources needed to find a new coach that can turn Purdue in to a program that competes on a yearly basis.

 

[B-Westy]

TLDR please.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

TLDR please.

Let me sum it up for you then: Painter should be given a short frame of time to show continued improvement as he has over the last two years through success in the conference standings, BTT, NCAA Tournament, and recruiting. If he can't, the new AD shouldn't be afraid to make a change. Smartass.

 

[B-Westy]

Let me sum it up for you then: Painter should be given a short frame of time to show continued improvement as he has over the last two years through success in the conference standings, BTT, NCAA Tournament, and recruiting. If he can't, the new AD shouldn't be afraid to make a change. Smartass.

Oh relax... that TLDR was perfect. It's exactly what I think should happen.

 

[*4purdue*]

I have spent a good amount of time from commenting on threads about Coach Painter to allow myself more time to truly reflect on my comments about Coach Painter and the program.

First, I wanted to apologize to those fans who supported Coach Painter in the face of a whole lot of people who suddenly showed up to trash Coach Painter, the players, and the program in the immediate aftermath. At times, the board simply became a place to break a coach down and place blame squarely on him alone. Although that may seem where blame should be placed, it could easily been placed on the players as well due to poor play and poor execution. I actually didn't see many people placing blame on the players, which was nice to see for a change.

Secondly, I wanted to explain my though process in the days/week after the game and offer my current thoughts as well.

Immediately after the game, I was very frustrated as a fan to have seen a team who appeared at times during the season to be one of the best in the country to appear so weak and schematically poor. The strengths of this team were used against them in a major game, just as they had been against Butler, Iowa (x2), Maryland, Iowa, and finally Little Rock in the tourney. What makes it even more frustrating, is that this is a reoccurring problem for Purdue teams under Coach Painter (VCU for example) and what appears to be frequent under-achievement by his teams. However, after contemplating and watching more of the tournament, I must alter my overall thoughts about the program.

Do I feel that Coach Painter needs to be fired? No, and I don't really remember if I actually ever called for him to be fired (I'm not going to go back through my posts but if someone claims that I did, then I will gladly take responsibility for it). Coach Painter is a very good coach who has struggled to alter his style of play, coaching, and recruiting to match up with today's ever changing game and environment without the luxury of being a program with recent high amounts of success like IU, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, MSU, etc. For whatever anyone wants to say, recruiting to Purdue present some unique challenges that don't occur elsewhere. Many of you who don't support Coach Painter can't deny the ass backwards way our Athletic Department worked in the past and vast under investment that occurred over a large span of time (more apparent in the football program for a vast number of reasons I won't explain unless some one would like me to in a follow up post).

Do I feel a change should be made if Coach Painter can't show a reasonable amount of sustained growth and increased success? Yes and I believe every coach at Purdue should be held to that same standard. If that means the next AD cans Versyp, Schreiber, and any other sport that is under performing, then so be it. But a standard of excellence needs to be established by the next AD that should come with no excuses. Michigan for too long fuddled away what Lloyd Carr built by going with bad hires and allowing them too long to middle around. They finally committed themselves to being an excellent program and gave the resources necessary for their football program to succeed. The same can be said for Illinois and new AD Josh Whitman and firing a football coach who turned a program who was on par as being just as bad as Purdue and led them to a 'bowl game' as an interim coach. He then makes a splash hire in an attempt to right the ship and create a standard of excellence as he said. Coach Painter should be held to a high standard, just as any coach at a university where they are they highest or one of the highest paid employees. That standard should be to expect to compete for B1G titles and BTT titles every single year along with reaching the Sweet 16. That should be the standard and the expectation, not the hope and prayer it seems to have begun to be.

After his two disastrous seasons, many on here claimed that Coach Painter should be given the chance to turn the program around and get it to a point of being successful again. If he wasn't able to do that, he should be let go. Most people seemed to be in agreement with that statement two years ago. This upcoming season, I believe will be the biggest in Coach Painter's career as he has some good players returning and an incoming recruit who appears to be able to help in the programs area of dire needs. It also may show if Painter is going to be able to move the program further with higher level recruits in the 2017 class that so many claim will be Painter's best and that he should stockpile scholarships for. In fact, I believe the next two recruiting cycles will be very telling if Painter will be able to get Purdue to succeed on a yearly basis (like Wisconsin for example), or if the program will continue to be one that needs 3-4 years of development of players to have a chance at a conference regular season and tournament title.

In my personal opinion, Coach Painter should be given next year to see how his team unfolds and if they can be successful. If the program appears to be stuck and unable to provide continuous improvement, the new AD should be given the resources needed to find a new coach that can turn Purdue in to a program that competes on a yearly basis.

Bla...bla...bla the annual wait til next year post. It's like a band aid, the slower you rip it off, the longer it's going to hurt.

 

[cprh9u]

Let me sum it up for you then: Painter should be given a short frame of time to show continued improvement as he has over the last two years through success in the conference standings, BTT, NCAA Tournament, and recruiting. If he can't, the new AD shouldn't be afraid to make a change. Smartass.

That's par for the course for B-Westy. I agree with your final assessment largely because Painter worked in a huge buyout into his current contract and there is no way he is going anywhere for 2 years at a minimum.

 

[BBG]

Bla...bla...bla the annual wait til next year post. It's like a band aid, the slower you rip it off, the longer it's going to hurt.

Except in this case Painter isn't getting fired. So it's not a "wait until next year" per se.... it's more of a "he is going to be here anyway so why not see what happens then judge?"

I get CMP isn't perfect, no coach is but clamoring for him to get fired now when there are at least 2 years to worry about it, is just fruitless imo. But that is just me.

 

[lbodel]

I have spent a good amount of time from commenting on threads about Coach Painter to allow myself more time to truly reflect on my comments about Coach Painter and the program.

First, I wanted to apologize to those fans who supported Coach Painter in the face of a whole lot of people who suddenly showed up to trash Coach Painter, the players, and the program in the immediate aftermath. At times, the board simply became a place to break a coach down and place blame squarely on him alone. Although that may seem where blame should be placed, it could easily been placed on the players as well due to poor play and poor execution. I actually didn't see many people placing blame on the players, which was nice to see for a change.

Secondly, I wanted to explain my though process in the days/week after the game and offer my current thoughts as well.

Immediately after the game, I was very frustrated as a fan to have seen a team who appeared at times during the season to be one of the best in the country to appear so weak and schematically poor. The strengths of this team were used against them in a major game, just as they had been against Butler, Iowa (x2), Maryland, Iowa, and finally Little Rock in the tourney. What makes it even more frustrating, is that this is a reoccurring problem for Purdue teams under Coach Painter (VCU for example) and what appears to be frequent under-achievement by his teams. However, after contemplating and watching more of the tournament, I must alter my overall thoughts about the program.

Do I feel that Coach Painter needs to be fired? No, and I don't really remember if I actually ever called for him to be fired (I'm not going to go back through my posts but if someone claims that I did, then I will gladly take responsibility for it). Coach Painter is a very good coach who has struggled to alter his style of play, coaching, and recruiting to match up with today's ever changing game and environment without the luxury of being a program with recent high amounts of success like IU, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, MSU, etc. For whatever anyone wants to say, recruiting to Purdue present some unique challenges that don't occur elsewhere. Many of you who don't support Coach Painter can't deny the ass backwards way our Athletic Department worked in the past and vast under investment that occurred over a large span of time (more apparent in the football program for a vast number of reasons I won't explain unless some one would like me to in a follow up post).

Do I feel a change should be made if Coach Painter can't show a reasonable amount of sustained growth and increased success? Yes and I believe every coach at Purdue should be held to that same standard. If that means the next AD cans Versyp, Schreiber, and any other sport that is under performing, then so be it. But a standard of excellence needs to be established by the next AD that should come with no excuses. Michigan for too long fuddled away what Lloyd Carr built by going with bad hires and allowing them too long to middle around. They finally committed themselves to being an excellent program and gave the resources necessary for their football program to succeed. The same can be said for Illinois and new AD Josh Whitman and firing a football coach who turned a program who was on par as being just as bad as Purdue and led them to a 'bowl game' as an interim coach. He then makes a splash hire in an attempt to right the ship and create a standard of excellence as he said. Coach Painter should be held to a high standard, just as any coach at a university where they are they highest or one of the highest paid employees. That standard should be to expect to compete for B1G titles and BTT titles every single year along with reaching the Sweet 16. That should be the standard and the expectation, not the hope and prayer it seems to have begun to be.

After his two disastrous seasons, many on here claimed that Coach Painter should be given the chance to turn the program around and get it to a point of being successful again. If he wasn't able to do that, he should be let go. Most people seemed to be in agreement with that statement two years ago. This upcoming season, I believe will be the biggest in Coach Painter's career as he has some good players returning and an incoming recruit who appears to be able to help in the programs area of dire needs. It also may show if Painter is going to be able to move the program further with higher level recruits in the 2017 class that so many claim will be Painter's best and that he should stockpile scholarships for. In fact, I believe the next two recruiting cycles will be very telling if Painter will be able to get Purdue to succeed on a yearly basis (like Wisconsin for example), or if the program will continue to be one that needs 3-4 years of development of players to have a chance at a conference regular season and tournament title.

In my personal opinion, Coach Painter should be given next year to see how his team unfolds and if they can be successful. If the program appears to be stuck and unable to provide continuous improvement, the new AD should be given the resources needed to find a new coach that can turn Purdue in to a program that competes on a yearly basis.

Putting ultimatums and such on things (which I'm not saying you are...but you are slightly with your comments about next year) is a silly business practice when it comes to college athletics. There's a bigger picture involved.

For example, there are at least 8 other Big Ten programs that would take either our last 5 or 10 years over what they have had.

There's also no sustained measure of success. People were clearly happy about our regular season and conference tournament. Would you rather finish 6th in the Big Ten, lose in the quarterfinals of the BTT and go to the Sweet 16 and lose (and particularly if it was Maryland style - where you didn't really play anyone and then got swiftly taken out)?

If we beat LR, we would have been underdogs in all of our remaining games. If we beat LR then lost to Iowa State, is there anger? We would have supposed to lose. It doesn't seem like a season's success should hinge on the difference between the first round and second round...like it blows we lost, but it would have been an uphill battle to win any game after that (and yes I think we could have competed with anyone, but we would not have been favored).

In addition to basketball specific stuff - there's also the athletic department as a whole. Danny Hope got fired after making 2 bowl games in a row. Now we're hanging onto a coach that has barely qualified for a bowl game in 3 cumulative years of wins. The fact that there's as much debate about Painter being fired...is crazy.

The NCAA Tournament is a brutal, brutal thing and probably one of the most inaccurate ways to determine the best teams (Syracuse?). Getting pissy about 1 upset that we have had in Painter's career....not really worthwhile, in my opinion.

Overall, I enjoyed this team and they showed improvement throughout the season. There were obviously frustrating games, but they were fun and seemed to have fun in putting up all of these wins. The team finished the season ranked higher than they started and while it was frustrating having that upset happen, I also look back and am grateful that it HAS been rare that Purdue has been upset in the NCAA Tournament. I like our returning team and we'll face new challenges next year, as well as some of the same that the team will work on to fix. But to act like we're some garbage team with a garbage coach who can't achieve anything...meh.

 

[*4purdue*]

Except in this case Painter isn't getting fired. So it's not a "wait until next year" per se.... it's more of a "he is going to be here anyway so why not see what happens then judge?"

I get CMP isn't perfect, no coach is but clamoring for him to get fired now when there are at least 2 years to worry about it, is just fruitless imo. But that is just me.

I've told you in other post, that I know he's not going anywhere.... new AD or not. Doesn't mean we have to agree with it. The "wait until next year" is not a complaint about CMP, it's a complaint about the naive posters on this board that say they can't make up their mind and need more that 11 years to determine if he's a good coach or not.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

we just won 26 games, finished 10/12 in the country and will have another good team next year. I know the season did not end well and we missed some goals, but it's not fire the coach time. The 5/12 game is a death sentence and we did not deserve it. I think there have only been 7 in the final 4 since 1979. Just let it go. We have a great group for next year.

 

[BBG]

I've told you in other post, that I know he's not going anywhere.... new AD or not. Doesn't mean we have to agree with it. The "wait until next year" is not a complaint about CMP, it's a complaint about the naive posters on this board that say they can't make up their mind and need more that 11 years to determine if he's a good coach or not.

I got ya. Problem is quantifying a good coach is kind of a subjective thing. Not trying to nitpick so don't take it that way, I just see both sides of this "argument" I guess. *shrugs*... he just needs to get to a final four in the next couple years and make everyone happy.

 

[FirstDownB]

As much back and forth as there has been over the past week and a half, I feel like this thread has brought about as much middle ground as you're going to get. Think of him as a great coach for Purdue's future.. Or think of him as a cancer that cannot be removed until you go through 2 more years of chemo.. Think of him however you want to in your own mind! The end result is the same. He IS NOT GETTING FIRED anytime soon.

Is there such thing as a cease fire on the Painter issue? If so I'm willing to negotiate the terms. The sooner this conversation is shelved (if only until next year) the better.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

I got ya. Problem is quantifying a good coach is kind of a subjective thing. Not trying to nitpick so don't take it that way, I just see both sides of this "argument" I guess. *shrugs*... he just needs to get to a final four in the next couple years and make everyone happy.

I agree that quantifying success is a hard thing to do, especially at Purdue...rather I would like to get to a place where fans can confidently say and think Purdue has a chance to finish in the top 4 of the conference regular season, win the BTT, and get to the Sweet Sixteen every year. That would place them in the category of MSU and Wisconsin, who are arguably the best two programs over the last 10-15 years in the conference. Once a team is in the Sweet 16, anything can happen.

 

[Cevol03]

All of these discussions are a waste of time. Painter is safe for the next 2-3 years. We can't afford to fire both football and basketball staffs and football is clearly in a worse position. The next 2 years will be spent firing Hazell, hiring a likely more expensive replacement, and then trying to recover a little from the financial blow.

 

[BBG]

I agree that quantifying success is a hard thing to do, especially at Purdue...rather I would like to get to a place where fans can confidently say and think Purdue has a chance to finish in the top 4 of the conference regular season, win the BTT, and get to the Sweet Sixteen every year. That would place them in the category of MSU and Wisconsin, who are arguably the best two programs over the last 10-15 years in the conference. Once a team is in the Sweet 16, anything can happen.

And I think we can all agree to what you said.

 

[TC4THREE]

The issue I have with your thoughts is that you've appeared to already rule the Harbaugh hire at Michigan and the Lovie Smith hire at Illinois as successes when the truth is that neither has accomplished much of anything yet at their respective new jobs.

Now I agree that Harbaugh is likely to be a good hire. He has won everywhere he's been and I think he's more than capable of taking Michigan and making them a team that compete with anyone. He just hasn't done it yet.

Lovie Smith? He was an ok NFL coach who just got handed a low-to-mid tier college program in a major conference. I need to see much more there before I would even think about rating that as a good hire.

That said, I am completely on board if you are advocating a new football coach.

 

[boiler_pride]

Even if a fan wants Painter fired, she needs to realize it will not and should not happen this year. Despite the early exit from the tournament, the season was not a bad one. Sure, we could (and should) have done a lot more, but we still finished in top 25 (top 5 in B1G) and had a decent run in the BTT. Moreover, there are no clear cut superior coaches available in the market. In addition, the program is currently on the rebound. We have won more games than the previous year for 2 years in a row, after having the reverse trend for 4 years in a row.

One factor that worked against Painter is we went big when everyone else is going small. Actually, it's more complicated than that. I think the Golden State model is spreading really fast. For that model to work, you need a scoring PG (aka Curry) and a ball-handling 4 (aka Draymond Green). These two also are usually your two best players. You space the rest of the team around those positions and play fast but efficient.

What's ironic is that's what we had a lot during Painter's career here. We even had a lineup with Hummel at center and DJ Byrd at the 4! We got outrebounded like mad but the formula was there. This year though, we had a very traditional lineup. 3 guards, a big PF, and a big C. It didn't help that our guards are below average players, especially offensively. This lineup did fairly well in a lot of games, but I'm not sure if it is adequate today to become a successful tournament team with it. Eventually you'll run into one of these modern teams. I feel like that's how UALR really beat us. Painter tried to match with them which probably back-fired when it's all said and done.

So, what's in store next year? Sure we have a new PG coming in but I stopped taking this board's word when it comes to PGs. I very well remember the comparisons between Yogi and RJ. Yogi was the selfish shoot-first PG, RJ was the pass-first distributor. I think it's safe to say the board missed the mark pretty terribly on that one. I also remember when Bryson committed. He'd be an impact player from day 1. A defensive bulldog who can finish in traffic. Well...

Anyway, if Biggie stays (I feel like it's unlikely, but then again, I felt AJ was a goner last year) we'll have the same traditional "old basketball" lineup and might have the same problem in the tournament next year. Without Biggie, I'm not sure what Painter does. Redshirts have had little to no impact under Painter so I don't expect Taylor to be an impact player. Maybe Basil can be a (very) poor man's ball-handling undersized 4. I doubt so, but I think Painter might try.

 

[Do Dah Day]

Even if a fan wants Painter fired, she needs to realize it will not and should not happen this year. Despite the early exit from the tournament, the season was not a bad one. Sure, we could (and should) have done a lot more, but we still finished in top 25 (top 5 in B1G) and had a decent run in the BTT. Moreover, there are no clear cut superior coaches available in the market. In addition, the program is currently on the rebound. We have won more games than the previous year for 2 years in a row, after having the reverse trend for 4 years in a row.

One factor that worked against Painter is we went big when everyone else is going small. Actually, it's more complicated than that. I think the Golden State model is spreading really fast. For that model to work, you need a scoring PG (aka Curry) and a ball-handling 4 (aka Draymond Green). These two also are usually your two best players. You space the rest of the team around those positions and play fast but efficient.

What's ironic is that's what we had a lot during Painter's career here. We even had a lineup with Hummel at center and DJ Byrd at the 4! We got outrebounded like mad but the formula was there. This year though, we had a very traditional lineup. 3 guards, a big PF, and a big C. It didn't help that our guards are below average players, especially offensively. This lineup did fairly well in a lot of games, but I'm not sure if it is adequate today to become a successful tournament team with it. Eventually you'll run into one of these modern teams. I feel like that's how UALR really beat us. Painter tried to match with them which probably back-fired when it's all said and done.

So, what's in store next year? Sure we have a new PG coming in but I stopped taking this board's word when it comes to PGs. I very well remember the comparisons between Yogi and RJ. Yogi was the selfish shoot-first PG, RJ was the pass-first distributor. I think it's safe to say the board missed the mark pretty terribly on that one. I also remember when Bryson committed. He'd be an impact player from day 1. A defensive bulldog who can finish in traffic. Well...

Anyway, if Biggie stays (I feel like it's unlikely, but then again, I felt AJ was a goner last year) we'll have the same traditional "old basketball" lineup and might have the same problem in the tournament next year. Without Biggie, I'm not sure what Painter does. Redshirts have had little to no impact under Painter so I don't expect Taylor to be an impact player. Maybe Basil can be a (very) poor man's ball-handling undersized 4. I doubt so, but I think Painter might try.

This is a great, well thought-out and as accurate as anyone can be at this point post. We are missing the type and/or quality of player at certain positions to compete in every game against the style that is prevalent. Jankovic could well be the magic potion if he decided to transfer and picks us. Other than that, we will wait and see what Basil brings. I hear a lot about athleticism and verticality, and hear he lacks lateral movement. I have no clue if he does or not. I know there were good reports about his practices.

As great as Swanni is, he is not a stretch 4 and wasn't able to defend one this year. Maybe he can next year. Our offense didn't use much of a stretch 4 even when Edwards played there. Can we be successful - or gawd forbid, even more successful - with a lineup without Haas? I'm not suggesting so, but hmmmm. I can't imagine that he leaves, but if he does ... now who/what?

Is it too difficult to penetrate with our dbl-post sets crowding the lane? If so, do we continue to push that with Haas/Swanni? Questions, questions questions.

Who are our two most athletic players? Can they play defense? We need athletes on the floor. We don't need them to cost us on the defensive end? Questions.

Will Vinnie play all of next year like he played at the end of this year. We have to assume so. If so, that fills a hole we had most of the year and we don't need to find someone to fill it. If not, well ....

Who do we really try to get for next year? What position, what style, what size, what strengths, what weaknesses, what athleticism, a 4-year guy or a 1-year guy. Experienced, or not?

 

[Chuchumutha]

I typically don't comment on these "keep/can" Painter threads because they are a complete waste of time. It's like a grumpy old man waving his fist at a cloud. Painter is here to stay for as long as he decides. As for the two year timeline, here's how it's going down. Purdue will be top 25 make the tourney the next two years. That will be four straight years of tourney appearances. Sometime between now and then, he will be given a 3-4 year extension. Commence holding your breath and stomping your feet.

 

[bonefish1]

I have spent a good amount of time from commenting on threads about Coach Painter to allow myself more time to truly reflect on my comments about Coach Painter and the program.

First, I wanted to apologize to those fans who supported Coach Painter in the face of a whole lot of people who suddenly showed up to trash Coach Painter, the players, and the program in the immediate aftermath. At times, the board simply became a place to break a coach down and place blame squarely on him alone. Although that may seem where blame should be placed, it could easily been placed on the players as well due to poor play and poor execution. I actually didn't see many people placing blame on the players, which was nice to see for a change.

Secondly, I wanted to explain my though process in the days/week after the game and offer my current thoughts as well.

Immediately after the game, I was very frustrated as a fan to have seen a team who appeared at times during the season to be one of the best in the country to appear so weak and schematically poor. The strengths of this team were used against them in a major game, just as they had been against Butler, Iowa (x2), Maryland, Iowa, and finally Little Rock in the tourney. What makes it even more frustrating, is that this is a reoccurring problem for Purdue teams under Coach Painter (VCU for example) and what appears to be frequent under-achievement by his teams. However, after contemplating and watching more of the tournament, I must alter my overall thoughts about the program.

Do I feel that Coach Painter needs to be fired? No, and I don't really remember if I actually ever called for him to be fired (I'm not going to go back through my posts but if someone claims that I did, then I will gladly take responsibility for it). Coach Painter is a very good coach who has struggled to alter his style of play, coaching, and recruiting to match up with today's ever changing game and environment without the luxury of being a program with recent high amounts of success like IU, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, MSU, etc. For whatever anyone wants to say, recruiting to Purdue present some unique challenges that don't occur elsewhere. Many of you who don't support Coach Painter can't deny the ass backwards way our Athletic Department worked in the past and vast under investment that occurred over a large span of time (more apparent in the football program for a vast number of reasons I won't explain unless some one would like me to in a follow up post).

Do I feel a change should be made if Coach Painter can't show a reasonable amount of sustained growth and increased success? Yes and I believe every coach at Purdue should be held to that same standard. If that means the next AD cans Versyp, Schreiber, and any other sport that is under performing, then so be it. But a standard of excellence needs to be established by the next AD that should come with no excuses. Michigan for too long fuddled away what Lloyd Carr built by going with bad hires and allowing them too long to middle around. They finally committed themselves to being an excellent program and gave the resources necessary for their football program to succeed. The same can be said for Illinois and new AD Josh Whitman and firing a football coach who turned a program who was on par as being just as bad as Purdue and led them to a 'bowl game' as an interim coach. He then makes a splash hire in an attempt to right the ship and create a standard of excellence as he said. Coach Painter should be held to a high standard, just as any coach at a university where they are they highest or one of the highest paid employees. That standard should be to expect to compete for B1G titles and BTT titles every single year along with reaching the Sweet 16. That should be the standard and the expectation, not the hope and prayer it seems to have begun to be.

After his two disastrous seasons, many on here claimed that Coach Painter should be given the chance to turn the program around and get it to a point of being successful again. If he wasn't able to do that, he should be let go. Most people seemed to be in agreement with that statement two years ago. This upcoming season, I believe will be the biggest in Coach Painter's career as he has some good players returning and an incoming recruit who appears to be able to help in the programs area of dire needs. It also may show if Painter is going to be able to move the program further with higher level recruits in the 2017 class that so many claim will be Painter's best and that he should stockpile scholarships for. In fact, I believe the next two recruiting cycles will be very telling if Painter will be able to get Purdue to succeed on a yearly basis (like Wisconsin for example), or if the program will continue to be one that needs 3-4 years of development of players to have a chance at a conference regular season and tournament title.

In my personal opinion, Coach Painter should be given next year to see how his team unfolds and if they can be successful. If the program appears to be stuck and unable to provide continuous improvement, the new AD should be given the resources needed to find a new coach that can turn Purdue in to a program that competes on a yearly basis.

I quit reading when you claimed Purdue has unique recruiting challenges. That's a weak excuse and false.

 

[Do Dah Day]

I quit reading when you claimed Purdue has unique recruiting challenges. That's a weak excuse and false.

I don't know how the word "unique" is being used by either one of you, but I talk to freshman athletes at Purdue almost every day. One thing nearly every one of them says is that they didn't grow up dreaming about coming to Purdue. In NO WAY does that mean they are not happy to be here nor that they think they made a bad choice. It simply means that kids grow up wanting to play for Duke or NC or an SEC football school. Anthrops wanted to play here. There have been others (Eldridge, Parkinson), but for the most part, we were not the school they thought about while growing up.

Do you really believe that if a 4-star that we are after gets offers from Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Michigan State, or even any two od them, that we would not have a challenge getting him here?

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reporting the conversations I've had over the past years.

 

[banshee90]

I quit reading when you claimed Purdue has unique recruiting challenges. That's a weak excuse and false.

Somehow Wisconsin became an easier place to recruit than Indiana. People need to stop acting like or academics are rigorous. We have the same nba degrees available as any other major program. Sure if you want to do something other than pro we got your back but that is no excuse for recruiting.

Are we a blue blood nah, but neither is half the people that make it to s16.

 

[TJBoiler]

I have spent a good amount of time from commenting on threads about Coach Painter to allow myself more time to truly reflect on my comments about Coach Painter and the program.

First, I wanted to apologize to those fans who supported Coach Painter in the face of a whole lot of people who suddenly showed up to trash Coach Painter, the players, and the program in the immediate aftermath. At times, the board simply became a place to break a coach down and place blame squarely on him alone. Although that may seem where blame should be placed, it could easily been placed on the players as well due to poor play and poor execution. I actually didn't see many people placing blame on the players, which was nice to see for a change.

Secondly, I wanted to explain my though process in the days/week after the game and offer my current thoughts as well.

Immediately after the game, I was very frustrated as a fan to have seen a team who appeared at times during the season to be one of the best in the country to appear so weak and schematically poor. The strengths of this team were used against them in a major game, just as they had been against Butler, Iowa (x2), Maryland, Iowa, and finally Little Rock in the tourney. What makes it even more frustrating, is that this is a reoccurring problem for Purdue teams under Coach Painter (VCU for example) and what appears to be frequent under-achievement by his teams. However, after contemplating and watching more of the tournament, I must alter my overall thoughts about the program.

Do I feel that Coach Painter needs to be fired? No, and I don't really remember if I actually ever called for him to be fired (I'm not going to go back through my posts but if someone claims that I did, then I will gladly take responsibility for it). Coach Painter is a very good coach who has struggled to alter his style of play, coaching, and recruiting to match up with today's ever changing game and environment without the luxury of being a program with recent high amounts of success like IU, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, MSU, etc. For whatever anyone wants to say, recruiting to Purdue present some unique challenges that don't occur elsewhere. Many of you who don't support Coach Painter can't deny the ass backwards way our Athletic Department worked in the past and vast under investment that occurred over a large span of time (more apparent in the football program for a vast number of reasons I won't explain unless some one would like me to in a follow up post).

Do I feel a change should be made if Coach Painter can't show a reasonable amount of sustained growth and increased success? Yes and I believe every coach at Purdue should be held to that same standard. If that means the next AD cans Versyp, Schreiber, and any other sport that is under performing, then so be it. But a standard of excellence needs to be established by the next AD that should come with no excuses. Michigan for too long fuddled away what Lloyd Carr built by going with bad hires and allowing them too long to middle around. They finally committed themselves to being an excellent program and gave the resources necessary for their football program to succeed. The same can be said for Illinois and new AD Josh Whitman and firing a football coach who turned a program who was on par as being just as bad as Purdue and led them to a 'bowl game' as an interim coach. He then makes a splash hire in an attempt to right the ship and create a standard of excellence as he said. Coach Painter should be held to a high standard, just as any coach at a university where they are they highest or one of the highest paid employees. That standard should be to expect to compete for B1G titles and BTT titles every single year along with reaching the Sweet 16. That should be the standard and the expectation, not the hope and prayer it seems to have begun to be.

After his two disastrous seasons, many on here claimed that Coach Painter should be given the chance to turn the program around and get it to a point of being successful again. If he wasn't able to do that, he should be let go. Most people seemed to be in agreement with that statement two years ago. This upcoming season, I believe will be the biggest in Coach Painter's career as he has some good players returning and an incoming recruit who appears to be able to help in the programs area of dire needs. It also may show if Painter is going to be able to move the program further with higher level recruits in the 2017 class that so many claim will be Painter's best and that he should stockpile scholarships for. In fact, I believe the next two recruiting cycles will be very telling if Painter will be able to get Purdue to succeed on a yearly basis (like Wisconsin for example), or if the program will continue to be one that needs 3-4 years of development of players to have a chance at a conference regular season and tournament title.

In my personal opinion, Coach Painter should be given next year to see how his team unfolds and if they can be successful. If the program appears to be stuck and unable to provide continuous improvement, the new AD should be given the resources needed to find a new coach that can turn Purdue in to a program that competes on a yearly basis.

A Good Post. I might add that what you are saying is pretty much my point in other post's. Painter was never going to get fired nor should he have been because of losing a tough 2OT NCAA game. He has 3 years on his contract. If the program does not grow. Then Painter will likely leave after year 2. I seriously doubt he will coach that 3rd year if Painter is on his way out. That would be a disaster in recruiting. Excluding the tournament. Purdue had 2 awful years in which Painter acknowledged was his fault. Now last year his team came on late barely getting in the tournament with basically a new roster of young players. This year they were ranked #10. I call that growing the program. The 2 losses in the tourney were unfortunate. I do blame the players as much as Painter in the last 5 minutes of games when they had leads and did not execute. WHAT? The players don't want to win. Is It's Painter's fault a player is not careful with the ball and can't handle def pressure? If you want to say YES due to recruiting a player. I won't argue that point.

I see that red shirt PG is transferring. That tells me Painter is planning on going after a playmaker or an indication that Cullen from New Mexico is going to transfer in.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I quit reading when you claimed Purdue has unique recruiting challenges. That's a weak excuse and false.

Except that it is a true statement which has been proven to you time and time again. At this point it is confirmed that you are just simply trolling and not really a Boiler. Go back to peegs little one, these discussions here are above your IQ level.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

I have spent a good amount of time from commenting on threads about Coach Painter to allow myself more time to truly reflect on my comments about Coach Painter and the program.

First, I wanted to apologize to those fans who supported Coach Painter in the face of a whole lot of people who suddenly showed up to trash Coach Painter, the players, and the program in the immediate aftermath. At times, the board simply became a place to break a coach down and place blame squarely on him alone. Although that may seem where blame should be placed, it could easily been placed on the players as well due to poor play and poor execution. I actually didn't see many people placing blame on the players, which was nice to see for a change.

Secondly, I wanted to explain my though process in the days/week after the game and offer my current thoughts as well.

Immediately after the game, I was very frustrated as a fan to have seen a team who appeared at times during the season to be one of the best in the country to appear so weak and schematically poor. The strengths of this team were used against them in a major game, just as they had been against Butler, Iowa (x2), Maryland, Iowa, and finally Little Rock in the tourney. What makes it even more frustrating, is that this is a reoccurring problem for Purdue teams under Coach Painter (VCU for example) and what appears to be frequent under-achievement by his teams. However, after contemplating and watching more of the tournament, I must alter my overall thoughts about the program.

Do I feel that Coach Painter needs to be fired? No, and I don't really remember if I actually ever called for him to be fired (I'm not going to go back through my posts but if someone claims that I did, then I will gladly take responsibility for it). Coach Painter is a very good coach who has struggled to alter his style of play, coaching, and recruiting to match up with today's ever changing game and environment without the luxury of being a program with recent high amounts of success like IU, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, MSU, etc. For whatever anyone wants to say, recruiting to Purdue present some unique challenges that don't occur elsewhere. Many of you who don't support Coach Painter can't deny the ass backwards way our Athletic Department worked in the past and vast under investment that occurred over a large span of time (more apparent in the football program for a vast number of reasons I won't explain unless some one would like me to in a follow up post).

Do I feel a change should be made if Coach Painter can't show a reasonable amount of sustained growth and increased success? Yes and I believe every coach at Purdue should be held to that same standard. If that means the next AD cans Versyp, Schreiber, and any other sport that is under performing, then so be it. But a standard of excellence needs to be established by the next AD that should come with no excuses. Michigan for too long fuddled away what Lloyd Carr built by going with bad hires and allowing them too long to middle around. They finally committed themselves to being an excellent program and gave the resources necessary for their football program to succeed. The same can be said for Illinois and new AD Josh Whitman and firing a football coach who turned a program who was on par as being just as bad as Purdue and led them to a 'bowl game' as an interim coach. He then makes a splash hire in an attempt to right the ship and create a standard of excellence as he said. Coach Painter should be held to a high standard, just as any coach at a university where they are they highest or one of the highest paid employees. That standard should be to expect to compete for B1G titles and BTT titles every single year along with reaching the Sweet 16. That should be the standard and the expectation, not the hope and prayer it seems to have begun to be.

After his two disastrous seasons, many on here claimed that Coach Painter should be given the chance to turn the program around and get it to a point of being successful again. If he wasn't able to do that, he should be let go. Most people seemed to be in agreement with that statement two years ago. This upcoming season, I believe will be the biggest in Coach Painter's career as he has some good players returning and an incoming recruit who appears to be able to help in the programs area of dire needs. It also may show if Painter is going to be able to move the program further with higher level recruits in the 2017 class that so many claim will be Painter's best and that he should stockpile scholarships for. In fact, I believe the next two recruiting cycles will be very telling if Painter will be able to get Purdue to succeed on a yearly basis (like Wisconsin for example), or if the program will continue to be one that needs 3-4 years of development of players to have a chance at a conference regular season and tournament title.

In my personal opinion, Coach Painter should be given next year to see how his team unfolds and if they can be successful. If the program appears to be stuck and unable to provide continuous improvement, the new AD should be given the resources needed to find a new coach that can turn Purdue in to a program that competes on a yearly basis.

He should not be fired, but at the same token, people have to realize what they are going to get. They are going to get a 23-10ish season with a few losses to way inferior teams (Illinois or the directional schools last year), get a few "upset" wins over "better" teams at home, rarely close out the big win on the road or a neutral court, and for every Sweet 16 you will go to, it will equal not making the tournament at all at some point. You also will see something that will be problematic in the first games of the season, told not to worry about it, it will then prove to be a recurring problem all year and eventually lead to your end of season demise.

The positive of MP is that he seems to have stabilized recruiting thanks in large part to Swanigan which gave him and the post-Hummel era some recruiting credibility. If he can be an above average recruiter and not lose out on in-state kids to Michigan for a while, he will be OK.

So my summation would be we could do worse than MP, but we could also do better. I like him, I just don't like his ceiling.

 

[BBG]

He should not be fired, but at the same token, people have to realize what they are going to get. They are going to get a 23-10ish season with a few losses to way inferior teams (Illinois or the directional schools last year), get a few "upset" wins over "better" teams at home, rarely close out the big win on the road or a neutral court, and for every Sweet 16 you will go to, it will equal not making the tournament at all at some point. You also will see something that will be problematic in the first games of the season, told not to worry about it, it will then prove to be a recurring problem all year and eventually lead to your end of season demise.

The positive of MP is that he seems to have stabilized recruiting thanks in large part to Swanigan which gave him and the post-Hummel era some recruiting credibility. If he can be an above average recruiter and not lose out on in-state kids to Michigan for a while, he will be OK.

So my summation would be we could do worse than MP, but we could also do better. I like him, I just don't like his ceiling.

This might be one of the fairest assessments I have seen in a while. Well done.

 

[bonefish1]

I don't know how the word "unique" is being used by either one of you, but I talk to freshman athletes at Purdue almost every day. One thing nearly every one of them says is that they didn't grow up dreaming about coming to Purdue. In NO WAY does that mean they are not happy to be here nor that they think they made a bad choice. It simply means that kids grow up wanting to play for Duke or NC or an SEC football school. Anthrops wanted to play here. There have been others (Eldridge, Parkinson), but for the most part, we were not the school they thought about while growing up.

Do you really believe that if a 4-star that we are after gets offers from Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Michigan State, or even any two od them, that we would not have a challenge getting him here?

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reporting the conversations I've had over the past years.

I'm not disagreeing on that topic, what you're referring to is a recruiting battle, which all the top programs face. It's certainly not unique to Purdue.
A 5 star is basically going to have his pick of programs. All those programs are going to be fighting over him. The determining factor is going to come down to the coach and his philosophy, playing time, ability to showcase for the next level, etc.
what it doesn't come down to are the silly things like weather, girls, nightlife, etc.

 

[mathboy]

Maybe I should weight in about my perspective about our coach. I think Painter has made mistakes in recruiting and in game management. Those posters who point them out are not wrong.

However, he has also made the right decisions in recruting and in game management far more frequently than he has made the wrong descisions. I could sight specifics, but I think most of you undertand what I am talking about. Matt Painter is certainly open to criticism, but it should be a balanced perspective. Basketball is not an exact science, and what worked before might not work the next time. All coaches make mistakes.

My perspective is that Matt is learning daily how to do a better job at his profession. He will probabaly coach at least another 20 years, and he is along way from his peak. Those of you that picture Matt's performance as an unchanging action in each game are not seeing with real insight into the game. People talk about Matt's ceiling??? How could they know that, since he has improved every year in how he approaches the game. (Please don't look at the record of his teams to disprove. Improvements are not always reflected in the W/L column. For example, the recent rule changes directly affected defensive teams like Purdue).

Each year his teams have played better, often being amoung the nation's leaders in several catagories (for example, rebounding, assists per basket, defense, etc.). That sort of top-20 perforrnace does not happen by accident. My evaluation today is that the coach is exceeding average, but still has several areas to improve on.

Frankly, his 2017 class is the watershed event in his long term career at Purdue, IMHO.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

I'm not disagreeing on that topic, what you're referring to is a recruiting battle, which all the top programs face. It's certainly not unique to Purdue.
A 5 star is basically going to have his pick of programs. All those programs are going to be fighting over him. The determining factor is going to come down to the coach and his philosophy, playing time, ability to showcase for the next level, etc.
what it doesn't come down to are the silly things like weather, girls, nightlife, etc.

I think he needs to go after the 5 stars in-state for sure. He needs to go after them hard, but at the same time, not put all the eggs in one basket. Then when one pantses us late in the game (Branden Dawson haunts me), we can pick up the pieces with a Glenn Robinson II, or a 4 star recruit vs going down to the next tier of 2/3 star kid.

 

[NC_Boiler]

My frustrations with the basketball program are related to a lack of strategy growth or progression. For example, Painter coached Purdue teams have consistently struggled to break the press. It's terrible that Painter doesn't take an offseason and develop a strategy to consistently break the press. He should then coach his players to execute his strategies, and it should be practiced to the point that its instincts. When being pressed, a player cannot think about his next play. Otherwise, its too late.

I also feel that Painter needs to evolve his offensive strategy some. Defenses are not playing honest against Purdue. Defenses play overly aggressive against Purdue as they know Purdue waits until late in the shot clock to take a shot, never goes backdoor for a bucket, and never attacks the basket early in the shot clock for a shot. By doing things like that, defenses have to play honest and it opens up the offense some.

Also, I sometimes feel that Painter over coaches his players at times. The better basketball teams are those that have players who play off their instincts rather than having to think about what the coach has told them to do. If a player has to think about what to do, then its too late and the opportunity has passed.

Until Painter realizes that the game of college basketball has evolved away from defensive teams, Purdue teams will always struggle. The rules in college favor scoring and offense (i.e. hand check rule, shot clock, etc.), and basketball players have become so talented and good that you can't expect to stop a team every time down the floor. Good basketball players are going to make plays and shots more times down the floor than they don't.

I'm not saying Painter should be fired, but I do think he should understand that he is expected to perform. He's not being paid a bargain price. At the end of the day, its up to Painter to recruit the players and to coach them to be successful. If he can't coach them to be successful, then he is either recruiting the wrong players or lacks the appropriate coaching skills. I also think people should keep in mind that Painter shouldn't get all the credit for the teams with Hummel, Et'waun, and Jajuan. If people remember, Cuonzo Martin was the lead recruiter on those guys. I'm also not saying Cuonzo Martin should be the next Purdue coach either. Just pointing out facts.

 

[purdue4sure]

Maybe I should weight in about my perspective about our coach. I think Painter has made mistakes in recruiting and in game management. Those posters who point them out are not wrong.

However, he has also made the right decisions in recruting and in game management far more frequently than he has made the wrong descisions. I could sight specifics, but I think most of you undertand what I am talking about. Matt Painter is certainly open to criticism, but it should be a balanced perspective. Basketball is not an exact science, and what worked before might not work the next time. All coaches make mistakes.

My perspective is that Matt is learning daily how to do a better job at his profession. He will probabaly coach at least another 20 years, and he is along way from his peak. Those of you that picture Matt's performance as an unchanging action in each game are not seeing with real insight into the game. People talk about Matt's ceiling??? How could they know that, since he has improved every year in how he approaches the game. (Please don't look at the record of his teams to disprove. Improvements are not always reflected in the W/L column. For example, the recent rule changes directly affected defensive teams like Purdue).

Each year his teams have played better, often being amoung the nation's leaders in several catagories (for example, rebounding, assists per basket, defense, etc.). That sort of top-20 perforrnace does not happen by accident. My evaluation today is that the coach is exceeding average, but still has several areas to improve on.

Frankly, his 2017 class is the watershed event in his long term career at Purdue, IMHO.

I agree with this and I think you are right. 2017 will be a key year for MP and the program.

 

[mathboy]

I think he needs to go after the 5 stars in-state for sure. He needs to go after them hard, but at the same time, not put all the eggs in one basket. Then when one pantses us late in the game (Branden Dawson haunts me), we can pick up the pieces with a Glenn Robinson II, or a 4 star recruit vs going down to the next tier of 2/3 star kid.

Agree! I'd like to see him become more of a player with 5-stars nationally. No reason to limit our reach to just Indiana. I like the Texas connection that Edwards brings, and the Bama connection from Haas. The leason I get from Crean is that if you scatter enough offers to enough players, one of them will take you up on the offer (think infinite moneys & Shakespere).

 

[Do Dah Day]

I'm not disagreeing on that topic, what you're referring to is a recruiting battle, which all the top programs face. It's certainly not unique to Purdue.
A 5 star is basically going to have his pick of programs. All those programs are going to be fighting over him. The determining factor is going to come down to the coach and his philosophy, playing time, ability to showcase for the next level, etc.
what it doesn't come down to are the silly things like weather, girls, nightlife, etc.

OK, I'm good with that.

So, funny story about that ... I have conversations with the players fairly often, more so with the football guys, and a COMMON comment from them is that if they'd known there was not a Church's Fried Chicken in town, they wouldn't have come here. They have some pretty funny thoughts on the cultural differences.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

I don't know how the word "unique" is being used by either one of you, but I talk to freshman athletes at Purdue almost every day. One thing nearly every one of them says is that they didn't grow up dreaming about coming to Purdue. In NO WAY does that mean they are not happy to be here nor that they think they made a bad choice. It simply means that kids grow up wanting to play for Duke or NC or an SEC football school. Anthrops wanted to play here. There have been others (Eldridge, Parkinson), but for the most part, we were not the school they thought about while growing up.

Do you really believe that if a 4-star that we are after gets offers from Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Michigan State, or even any two od them, that we would not have a challenge getting him here?

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reporting the conversations I've had over the past years.

This is one of the unique aspects I was referring to. I didn't say that Purdue has recruiting disadvantages but rather is very unique in how they must go about their recruiting. It seems Painter is taking a very good approach this these aspects by focusing on identifying recruits at as young of an age as he can and get on them early through the use of camps and visits. This appears to be evident with the 2017 class where Painter appears to be in the mix with a higher number of high profile recruits. The most unique aspect of this is that many kids grow up in the areas of Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana wanting to play for the major universities in that state (Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Kentucky, Louisville, Notre Dame, Indiana). In terms of the overall branding of an athletic department, can you honestly place Purdue above any of those I just listed? Maybe Louisville, but they have Papa John to fill the gaps for them.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

I'm not disagreeing on that topic, what you're referring to is a recruiting battle, which all the top programs face. It's certainly not unique to Purdue.
A 5 star is basically going to have his pick of programs. All those programs are going to be fighting over him. The determining factor is going to come down to the coach and his philosophy, playing time, ability to showcase for the next level, etc.
what it doesn't come down to are the silly things like weather, girls, nightlife, etc.

I would actually venture to say Purdue has one of the better nightlife's for college kids outside of a university that is placed in a major metropolitan area. The Cactus is voted as one of the best college clubs frequently and Chauncey Hill is an amazing place for a college kid to drink and party at.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

In all complete honesty, this post did exactly what I had hoped it would do. Generate some level headed conversation that hadn't occurred on this board since the loss to Little Rock. These are the types of conversations that have been missing from this and the football board for a very long time and it has been good to read through all of your responses.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

In all complete honesty, this post did exactly what I had hoped it would do. Generate some level headed conversation that hadn't occurred on this board since the loss to Little Rock. These are the types of conversations that have been missing from this and the football board for a very long time and it has been good to read through all of your responses.

The silver lining is we did get Chris Beard of Little Rock PAID. Good for you, Chris!

 

[Do Dah Day]

I would actually venture to say Purdue has one of the better nightlife's for college kids outside of a university that is placed in a major metropolitan area. The Cactus is voted as one of the best college clubs frequently and Chauncey Hill is an amazing place for a college kid to drink and party at.

Ummmm .... athletes should not be drinking and partying ... right? At least not OUR athletes!!!! <tic>

 

[Do Dah Day]

Agree! I'd like to see him become more of a player with 5-stars nationally. No reason to limit our reach to just Indiana. I like the Texas connection that Edwards brings, and the Bama connection from Haas. The leason I get from Crean is that if you scatter enough offers to enough players, one of them will take you up on the offer (think infinite moneys & Shakespere).

PLUS ... with Creaning, if one of the lower ones accepts your offer ...no probemo ....

 

[BBG]

In all complete honesty, this post did exactly what I had hoped it would do. Generate some level headed conversation that hadn't occurred on this board since the loss to Little Rock. These are the types of conversations that have been missing from this and the football board for a very long time and it has been good to read through all of your responses.

Amen.