Luck has more to do with winning a championship than anything else. Put together the best players you can with a quality coach and if you aren't lucky you won't win. Every year there are locks to win the title and most of those locks run into a hot team, have an injury or a night they couldn't throw the ball in the ocean and they're out. Single elimination does that. Blue bloods would win 90% of the titles if the NCAA ever went to a multiple elimination format.
Are we too close to the situation to see what is going on?
- Thread starter Mandeville LA
- Start date
I have watched two NFL teams that won the Super Bowl. The Saint Louis rams and the the Saints. I watched both team from preseason until the very end. The on thing in common that stuck out to me was that, even though they were very talented teams, every ball bounced there way. It just the way it works for some teams.
[QUOTE="SIBoiler2, post: 1447152, member: 5116"]Luck has more to do with winning a championship than anything else. Put together the best players you can with a quality coach and if you aren't lucky you won't win. Every year there are locks to win the title and most of those locks run into a hot team, have an injury or a night they couldn't throw the ball in the ocean and they're out. Single elimination does that. Blue bloods would win 90% of the titles if the NCAA ever went to a multiple elimination format.[/QUOTE]
That simply isn't true. Every Champion has good fortune/luck somewhere in the tournament. But to say it has more to do with luck than anything else makes no sense.
You have to go back 20 years to find a champion that didn't win at least 30 games that season (97 Arizona). Big time programs win over 90% now. It would be even higher with a series format. It isn't mostly about luck. It's mostly about talent, good coaching and a little luck.
That simply isn't true. Every Champion has good fortune/luck somewhere in the tournament. But to say it has more to do with luck than anything else makes no sense.
You have to go back 20 years to find a champion that didn't win at least 30 games that season (97 Arizona). Big time programs win over 90% now. It would be even higher with a series format. It isn't mostly about luck. It's mostly about talent, good coaching and a little luck.
blue bloods in the tourney:
in the last 50 years, only 20 different schools have won the title. just the top 8 title programs all time won over 2/3s of the titles during that span.
single elim vs series:
in the pros with playoffs having a series format rather than single elimination, the best team going in typically does not win.
since the mid 90s, the best regular season teams only win the championship this % of the time:
45% nba
24% nhl
23% mlb
No question Matt is very cautious. I think every team has it (some individual desire...and that is also what pushes individual improvement)..some just carry on anyway...
There you go Nag. You can't refute the argument because there is no valid basis to your original statement. You just take shots at our program to tear it down but you have no substance to support your vitriol.
If you mean that pointing out that your statement is incorrect and you are unable to produce a valid counter argument is repression then yes you are correct. I see two options for you...repeat the same whining repression complaint or repeat your original statement again. Oh, hey, option three. Move on. Pick another topic to make veiled statements that seem like a discussion point but really are only intended to say Purdue is no good.
The best thing I ever did was put him and wol on ignore with the other trolls that come here. Nag is predictable in that you either agree with him or he throws some tantrum like a two year old. The problem for him is that he can't back anything up as you pointed out above.
What is rather funny is he will get on other posters for things that he does himself, frequently, then pulls out the 'you add no value' or other such nonsense. Which is about as hypocritical as it comes because in my time of being here, he has yet to post anything worthwhile.
Not quite accurate. You can look at our game against Kansas as evidence to prove there is more luck involved than you are giving credit for. Kansas came out and played the best game of their season against us then laid an egg after that. Had we had a little luck and that reversed, we would of been still playing.
I don't know how often you watched Kansas last year, but if you think we would have beat them in a 3 out 5 or 4 out of 7 series, we were watching different teams play. The better team won that game and would have had an even better chance of beating us in a series format. Were they fortunate to beat us by 30? Yes, I think so. Were they "lucky" to beat us period, not at all.
I'd rather not focus on one game rather than the hundreds during the tournament, but you brought up the Kansas game so I addressed it.
I will state again, luck is involved in winning the tournament. But it is not the most important thing. The last team to really be an upset champion was the 1988 Kansas team with Danny Manning. Go back and look at the champions list. They are all big time programs that had great seasons that year. If luck was the most important thing that wouldn't be the case.
Luck is involved, but it isn't close to the most important factor in winning a championship.
I don't dispute that there is some luck and unknowns involved with getting to the FF, but PU hasn't been there in 38 years, and the common denominator in that time are Keady/Painter.
The Head coach is the single most important factor when it comes to recruiting and success on the court, including getting to FF.
Painter has been at PU for what, 12 years and hasn't gotten past the Sweet 16.
He may get a FF or a NC, but how long does he get before its determined the athletic administration decides to make a change?
That simply isn't true. Every Champion has good fortune/luck somewhere in the tournament. But to say it has more to do with luck than anything else makes no sense.
You have to go back 20 years to find a champion that didn't win at least 30 games that season (97 Arizona). Big time programs win over 90% now. It would be even higher with a series format. It isn't mostly about luck. It's mostly about talent, good coaching and a little luck.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. If luck were that big of a factor, you'd think PU would have gotten lucky at some point over the last 38 years.
(Here's a secret....the key to tourney success is a scoring point guard who can get his own shot)
Someone made a statement that luck is more important than talent or coaching in winning a title, and Dry was simply refuting that. If that WERE true, it would have been statistically impossible for UCLA to win 7 NCAA titles in a row. I'm going out on a limb and say that Kareem and Walton had more to do with that streak than luck did.
Luck has nothing to do with getting hammered by 30 points. KU just had a lot better players at more positions.
I doubt any administration would fire a coach just because he never guided a team to a final four. keady wasn't fired. As long as a coach consistently wins 20 games and leads his team to the tourney, and attendance is good, he will be retained. It took Dean Smith a long time to win a championship. A previous post pointed out Painter was in the top 10 of coaches making NCAA appearances, and guys ahead of him like Izzo and Coach K are almost 20 years older. When it comes to firing a coach like Painter, one has to realize you are not going to be able to hire somebody who is any better. I pose a question to all those who want to fire Painter, who are you going to replace him with? Some AAU coach? Hi Steel !
There is always an element of luck in an NCAA tournament. But it is only one factor. Familiarity of the court also comes into play as does home court advantage. Duke and North Carolina have frequently been able to play their first two games somewhere in North Carolina. Even when placed in the Western bracket, they always seem to play their first two games near home. Purdue played Kansas in Kansas City. I have to believe Kansas has played there before. I have to believe the outcome would have been different if the game was played at Indy. I've also noticed In the past 5 years Purdue has played some preseason games at locations that were selected as hosts for NCAA tourney games to get a feel for the stadium.
I feel there is one very effective tool to eliminate the luck factor. It's called making your free throws when it counts. When you get to the tourney, you know your games are going to be decided by 5 points or less. And if you have the lead, the other team is going to foul you to stop the clock. If you hit your one and one, you maintain your lead. When you miss, you lose. In the past, Purdue had been a terrible Ft shooting team, especially in the final minute. Even in this past year, Purdue missed FTs that could have sealed the victory. Making your FTs wins tourney games. Swanigan was a rebounding machine. And because of his rebounds, we beat ISU. However, if we had just made our FTs down the stretch, the outcome of The ISU game would never have been in doubt. The same was true in our losses to Cincy and Ark little rock. It wasn't the last second lucky shot that beat us, it was our choking at the FT line that killed us.
Teams get lucky. Play fundamental defense rather than prevent defense and make your FTs, and you win. When a team changes their game to try to seconds off the clock, they tend to lose momentum and the things that built their lead.
I feel there is one very effective tool to eliminate the luck factor. It's called making your free throws when it counts. When you get to the tourney, you know your games are going to be decided by 5 points or less. And if you have the lead, the other team is going to foul you to stop the clock. If you hit your one and one, you maintain your lead. When you miss, you lose. In the past, Purdue had been a terrible Ft shooting team, especially in the final minute. Even in this past year, Purdue missed FTs that could have sealed the victory. Making your FTs wins tourney games. Swanigan was a rebounding machine. And because of his rebounds, we beat ISU. However, if we had just made our FTs down the stretch, the outcome of The ISU game would never have been in doubt. The same was true in our losses to Cincy and Ark little rock. It wasn't the last second lucky shot that beat us, it was our choking at the FT line that killed us.
Teams get lucky. Play fundamental defense rather than prevent defense and make your FTs, and you win. When a team changes their game to try to seconds off the clock, they tend to lose momentum and the things that built their lead.
If you want your team to make a change because the coach hasn't reached the Final Four, you are rooting for the wrong team. And good luck finding a new one because I'm trying to recall the last coach with a track record similar to Painter's that was fired without there being some off the court issue or recruiting violations. The closest I can come up with is Crean and he made just 4 NCAA tournaments in 9 seasons.
How do you know you couldn't get someone better than painter?
How do you know MBob isn't going to run the AD differently than Burke?
Painter has proven the following:
He's a decent recruiter.
He's a good B10 season coach.
He can get to the tourney.
He can get big men into the NBA.
He hasn't proven:
To be a good/great recruiter.
To be able to land the top in-state talent (Biggie was an exception).
To be a good tourney coach.
To be able to get past the Sweet 16.
I will agree if Purdue played Kansas in a best of 7 series last year, we'd still probably lose. People were hoping we'd get lucky and pull off the upset. But the reality was Kansas was the better and more talented team. I believe the outcome would have been closer, but the end result would have been the same. You should not build your team on the basis of using luck to win. You need to build your team on a foundation of talent. When two teams have equal talent, luck comes into play. But it was obvious from the start, that Kansas had a lot more talent than Purdue had last year. Playing on emotions can only take you so far.
I am reminded of Wheeler's last high school championship game. His opponent was double teaming their star player and had effectively shut him down and taken him out of the game, but Wheeler stepped up and had the game of his life. When Kansas shut down Swanigan, nobody else from Purdue stepped up. It was the same thing with Big Dog. A one man team can only take you so far. You have to have balance or at least a second person who can take over if your #1 option is being covered. This year's team should be better in that regard as there is no star.
I am reminded of Wheeler's last high school championship game. His opponent was double teaming their star player and had effectively shut him down and taken him out of the game, but Wheeler stepped up and had the game of his life. When Kansas shut down Swanigan, nobody else from Purdue stepped up. It was the same thing with Big Dog. A one man team can only take you so far. You have to have balance or at least a second person who can take over if your #1 option is being covered. This year's team should be better in that regard as there is no star.
I will agree with everything you said. I would love to see Painter recruit the best talent from Indiana. But my simple reply is, if you want to fire Painter, you should have somebody in mind before doing so. You don't just fire a guy like Painter and then start a coaching search. Who would you suggest Purdue hire to replace Painter? Because if Painter is not getting the job done, who out there would be better? It's easy to point out flaws and criticize. It's not as easy to identify a person capable of doing a better job. Would you go with an experienced coach? Or would you play the roulette wheel with some new guy who has a son who is #1 in the nation and hope you get lucky? A lot of people love Coach Zo. He's a tremendous recruiter, but his coaching results don't match Painter. I like coaches Weber and Alford. Would either come to Purdue? Maybe they would. But I would have to get some type of agreement from them before I would fire Painter.
I'm not advocating for Painter to be fired. I like what's he's doing with our guard play which is the key to tourney success. Plus, he's young, has gotten some guys to the
NBA recently and is opening up the offense.
However, I do think it's a bad sign when he can't get any players to commit from a loaded in state class. I think if those recruiting trends continue, MBob has to take that into consideration in terms of what the goals of the program are.
And to your other point, if MP were to get fired, I have no idea who we would get, but o would be in favor of someone not affiliated with the program as a former player or coach. Start fresh and change the entire culture.
The UConn team that won the tournament despite being a low seed and getting in only because they won the BE tournament would disagree with your Kansas/Manning observation.
and this is where I agree with you. in replacing painter, I'd want somebody from outside with no ties and start fresh with a new philosophy. if I fired Painter, I would not want Painter junior. Painter is sort of Keady jr. in that he runs basically the same type of program.
What I have never been able to understand, is why with all the success Painter and keady have had at Purdue, why it has been so hard for Purdue to recruit the elite Indiana basketball players. I would think Purdue would be an easy sell to in state players.
I grew up in Wisconsin. and UW was mostly bad at everything except track, cross country, swimming and hockey. but at one point in time, the UW AD made it a priority to recruit and sign the best athletes in the state. Wisconsin athletes became the top target. Yes, a few leave, but a lot stay. and it's made a difference. UW is a great academic school, and also a great party school. But it was not until they made it a priority to keep the best Wisconsin athletes in Wisconsin that they started to win. Madison was always a great party town.
if Purdue could just land the top Indiana recruits and get a player or two from La Lum, they would have a great team and wouldn't have to expand their recruiting search. But I have never understood why they can't do that. If Painter had signed JJJ, he would not have gone after Haarms or Ewing. this is nothing against Haarms or Ewing. But I believe all of Purdue would have loved to see a local boy JJJ lead us to the final Four. I believe a lot of Swanigan's popularity at Purdue was because he was from Indiana.
I don't blame Painter. Keady was much the same way. Who are this year's Indiana's all state players? Carmody? Langford? Phinisee? Anderson? Hunter? Am I missing anybody? We'd have a great recruiting class if we just could sign our local talent. Look back at the last 4 years. if we just signed Indiana's elite talent, we'd be a perennial final 4 team.
I wanted JJJ really bad. If Izzo had not been given his HOF honor (well diserved) and shown up at JJJ's house that night, with tears in his eyes, JJJ might have gone to Purdue. That is just the way recruiting goes. We still got the #2 BIG class.
Keeping Indiana kids "home" is a nice idea, but out of date. Today, kids see the whole of the country as fair game. State loyalty is really a thing of the past. The only hold on these kids is that they can play somewhere where their family can go to games. Most games are on some network, somewhere, so they can watch their kid anyway, regardless of where they go.
I don't disagree that it's tougher to keep kids in state with the amount of TV coverage. But imho, players are looking for a program/coach/system that will showcase and develop them for the next level. For the top players, those with NBA potential, they're only in school 2-3 years anyway. So getting away from home may not be a priority.
I think for Painter, the challenge is the proximity of other good programs in the area all going after the same players.
I do agree Wole. I would add that the lack of perimeter shooting capability in the Cincy and Little Rock games were huge factors in those losses. They dared us to hit a shot outside of 15 feet in the last 5 mins and we utterly imploded. That's when the free throw misses sealed the losses.
Steve Alford? LOL. An IU grad is going to leave UCLA so he can coach at Purdue. Cmon man.
And the kid from Little Rock making two three's that had no business going in but did. It's a game things happen.
Yep, ignore is the way to go. I've ignored 4 or 5 posters that constantly complain about the program, Painter, recruiting, etc, and it has made the free board much more enjoyable.
And timeout (s) wasn't called to stop the bleeding. And we didn't get the ball inside enough to AJ when we needed the most. And....and...
And another reason why I am glad none of us are coaching the team as there is monumental evidence to suggest we would fail miserably.
Sadly that is about the only way to go. It would be different if they were open to counter arguments or when faced with facts that essentially refute their statement they would just own up and move on, but people like nag and wol simply can't do that and just continue posting their slander.
Ignore just makes the forum so much easier to read and the real discussions can take place.
Okay, so there has been (2) teams in the past 30 years??
That Uconn victory also was the 4th for the school and second in a 4 year period. So let's don't act like they were some unknown commodity. Are you making the argument that luck is the most important element to winning the tournament?
In the last 11 years there have been only 3 High School sub-100 recruits that started for title winning teams.
Question: if luck played that large a role in the tournament, shouldn't we see a lot more non top-100 players as starters, given the proportion of top-100 vs non top-100? Same with Jucos?
I feel the "luck" variable is used as a means to justify underperformance. As long as we can argue it's all a crap shoot, then there is much less need to discuss recruiting, coaching, etc...
Question: if luck played that large a role in the tournament, shouldn't we see a lot more non top-100 players as starters, given the proportion of top-100 vs non top-100? Same with Jucos?
I feel the "luck" variable is used as a means to justify underperformance. As long as we can argue it's all a crap shoot, then there is much less need to discuss recruiting, coaching, etc...
The Kansas game in the NCAA's still burns my ass. That said, and I should look it up but don't where I can find it, what KU shot in the second half. It felt like they did not miss. I am not say that as a excuse, I am saying that if KU shot close to 60% or better there is not a lot you can do about it.
I have seen a lot of games over the last 30 years where teams shoot at a 60% clip and they very really lose.
Did Purdue do everything they could to stop KU? Probably not. Is it really hard to stay on the floor with a team that just goes off, yes.
I have seen a lot of games over the last 30 years where teams shoot at a 60% clip and they very really lose.
Did Purdue do everything they could to stop KU? Probably not. Is it really hard to stay on the floor with a team that just goes off, yes.
My thoughts:
1. KU won because they were better.
2. They won by 30 because once they figured out how to exploit our deficiencies our team went into panic mode.
To beat them we needed them to panic when we had them down early and start making high risk mistakes. Instead they started hitting from deep then slashed us mercelously when we started chasing the perimeter shooters. Game over.
I am hoping we are better able to defend athleticism this season.
My research team tells me that Kansas shot 34-62 for the game (54.8%), including 15-28 from deep (53.6%). In the second half, KU was very warm at 15-22 (68.2%), including 7-12 (58.3%) from deep. Very efficient second half and an impressive barrage that buried the Boilers. It was a tough way for the season to end, but Purdue lost to a better team.....not too many teams can win a game giving up those kinds of numbers to a talented team like that.
Your research team does good and speedy work. I am not saying it was all KU and yes they were the better team. As I have always told my son it looks like a different game when the ball is going in.
The Stanford game in St Louis(I was there) still hunts me. Purdue shot a very low percentage for the game. And Purdue was still in it late. I kept thinking if Purdue would have shot 33% they would have been up by ten.
Not to mention the refs letting Stanford beat the hell out of Miller.
The point I am trying to make is that shooting percentage plays into how well a team looks on any given night. As your (I mean your staffs) numbers show KU was pretty warm/hot. A lot of teams would have had problems with that.
Anyway time to move on and look forward to next season.
Similar threads
