Well if KU just shot for their season averages, then we lose by 18, not 30. We would have needed them to basically lay bricks all game to even the talent disparity. So is the bigger variable in the bad outcome for PU the talent disparity, or that KU failed to oblige us with an abnormally bad shooting night?
Are we too close to the situation to see what is going on?
- Thread starter Mandeville LA
- Start date
Boiled Steele, I never slandered you, or anybody. I even admitted several times some of my facts and memories were wrong and started a civil thread to discuss them. . and I never criticized Painter. You just chose to ignore me rather than engage me in conversation / discussion or try to see things from my perspective. and that's your right.
on the other hand, Dakota Girl often disagrees with my wild ideas, but she reads them and sometimes agrees with them and a couple of times actually liked them. I disagree with TC4Three on a lot of issues, but our disagreements are civil. And some people I have disagreed with in the past, I now have a better appreciation of and respect for.
We learn a lot more from each other than we learn separately.
boy! Another first post that clearly displays the ass-holery of the poster. At least Sloppy didn't try to catfish the board. He is straight up with his comments.
My point was the following: UConn a couple of years ago was a far more recent example of a long-shot winning the tournament than was the Kansas/Manning team. Citing the more recent example would have been a far better choice.
In my view, teams that win the tournament do it based upon three factors: talent, match-ups and luck. You need all three to be working for you to win, barring a super-dominant team that we have not seen in quite a while.
Even the UCLA run under Wooden had the advantage of regional selection being strongly geographically-based and only one per conference selection which kept other highly-ranked Pac-8 teams out of the tournament. That conference dominated the West and thus made advancement out of that regional comparatively easy.
Looking at the NCAA, while there is a positive correlation between #1 seeds advancing and winning it is less so than in the past. Moving teams and style of play around the country has put more randomness into the tournament. Having a strong team is important, but who you play and luck go a long way in your fate as well.
In my view, teams that win the tournament do it based upon three factors: talent, match-ups and luck. You need all three to be working for you to win, barring a super-dominant team that we have not seen in quite a while.
Even the UCLA run under Wooden had the advantage of regional selection being strongly geographically-based and only one per conference selection which kept other highly-ranked Pac-8 teams out of the tournament. That conference dominated the West and thus made advancement out of that regional comparatively easy.
Looking at the NCAA, while there is a positive correlation between #1 seeds advancing and winning it is less so than in the past. Moving teams and style of play around the country has put more randomness into the tournament. Having a strong team is important, but who you play and luck go a long way in your fate as well.
Fair enough, so we have 2 examples in the past 30 years and both of them are basketball power schools. I think Scheffler90 had a very good point: It seems we have people that want to put "luck" as a very important component (one even said it is the single biggest component) because it then frames the tournament as some completely random crap shoot. That simply isn't true. The tournament has been dominated by basketball power schools that have the most talent.
When you give more weight to luck it makes it much easier to dismiss lack of tourney success as just random bad luck, or running into a hot team. Instead of looking at the recruiting and coaching first and then luck.
I have said from the beginning of this thread that luck plays a role. But it is not even close to the most important component in winning a championship.
But note: luck is more than just getting the benefit of some close calls that could go either way or the odd bounce of the ball. Luck also includes getting good matchups in style of play, i.e. avoiding a style that hurts you, and also having a strong competitor that you were expected to meet in the future get upset and eliminated before you got to them.
Those factors are more important than you appear to give credit to when seeking to advance in the tournament.
If luck was that important we wouldn't have the champions we have year after year.
Note: Talent and good coaching overcome what you are calling luck (bad matchups, styles that hurt you.....)
I know why some would prefer that it was just some random tournament where anything can happen. But that isn't what actually happens in the vast majority of years. We aren't talking about any 1 particular game. We are talking about the actual national champion year after year. A little luck? Sure. Even close to the most important thing? Nope.
I do not consider the match-ups and brackets as luck. I see them as commissioners behind closed doors trying to influence the outcome of games. You can't tell me allowing Kansas to play in Kansas City was random, or UW playing at Milwaukee was random, or Duke and UNC always playing a couple of games in North Carolina is random. or UK playing in Louisville. And the same thing happens each year as Commissioners get together behind close doors to make their seedings and locations. And in some cases a seeding was changed to provide that team a better home court advantage.
Many people thought after last year's quick BIG 10 tourney exit, we'd fall to a 5-6 seed. It wasn't luck we ended up with a #4 seed.
Seedings, match-ups and location all play factors in the NCAA tourney and al l three are bigger factors than luck.
Many people thought after last year's quick BIG 10 tourney exit, we'd fall to a 5-6 seed. It wasn't luck we ended up with a #4 seed.
Seedings, match-ups and location all play factors in the NCAA tourney and al l three are bigger factors than luck.
The Final Four drought (37 years and counting) also plays a role in how some of us view the program, the Keady/Painter correlation, and what time has shown us in regards to Painter's overall abilities as a coach. Six years ago when he got a restructured contract, CMP referenced getting to Final Fours and possibly winning National Titles in one of his interviews with the media. The question is how long are we going to wait for that to happen or not happen under this current staff?
I'm not trying to get a dig in at you, I'm just curious: is your handle a reference to former IU big man Richard Mandeville ('94-'97)?
The NCAA has said for a long time that top seeds get geographically advantageous brackets, they just can't play on their home court. Purdue played in Indy and south bend as a high seed in the past.
that's why I said the locations, matchups and seedings were not luck or random. They are calculated and brokered behind closed doors by the commissioners of the power leagues. The difference in a #1 and #2 seed is huge, as their game location is very favorable. If Duke played at Milwwaukee and Portland, they might not win.
The high seeds staying local, magnified by the pod system installed a few years ago, for the early rounds is based in economics, specifically in-house crowds. They wanted to sellout early (and expectedly one-sided) games.
For example, take an example where Duke and UNC were a 1 and 2 seeds. You would not want them in the same regional. But moving the lower to say the West Coast there would be comparatively low interest in a non-local against a perceived poorly chanced oponent. The early rounds were not selling out. Pods allowed the lower of the two to stay local, enhancing sold seats, while moving them to another regional. Later rounds, and presumably better games, were already expected to get good sales.
For example, take an example where Duke and UNC were a 1 and 2 seeds. You would not want them in the same regional. But moving the lower to say the West Coast there would be comparatively low interest in a non-local against a perceived poorly chanced oponent. The early rounds were not selling out. Pods allowed the lower of the two to stay local, enhancing sold seats, while moving them to another regional. Later rounds, and presumably better games, were already expected to get good sales.
Last edited:
While Wolegib and I do disagree on many things I do read his posts, well most of them (Wole, some of them are REALLY long).
And he does engage in a legitimate conversation to support his position, even if it is wrong
.Nags has stated outright that he hates me. Maybe he had a bad experience with a dog as a child. Maybe it's because I try to force him to support his positions. Maybe it's because he has absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever (I picture him as Luetinant Steve in Good Morning Vietnam). But I still read his stuff because once in a while he makes a good point.
I get the position of using ignore too. Just depends on what you are looking for from this weird social science experiment we joined.
Well Wole, I look forward to our next disagreement.
No, I am not sure I even remember that name. I live in Mandeville LA. Not all that creative of a handle but I was pretty sure it was not being used. I grew up in Lafayette. BTW the weather is much better here in the deep south.
so this is the reasoning we now have early games of the West regional played in the East and vice versa ? to ensure maximum attendance? I would have thought with the mega TV deal the NCAA received, that the revenue from attendance from games would be minimal. In the grand scheme of things, how much revenue is lost if an arena sells 9,000 tickets instead of 13,000? I realize it's a bigger deal for women's basketball games. I still believe UNC and Duke have received a lot of favorable locations. I fully expect every year they will play their first two games near their home or on a familiar court thus almost assuring them both a sweet 16 birth.
it would be sweet if Purdue and IU always got to play their first two games at Indy.
Agreed. This was my previous point: as long as Painter wins 20 games and makes the tourney 75% of the time, does he stay as long as he wants?
What are the criteria for showing improvement and that the program is advancing?
Higher rated recruiting classes?
Deeper tourney runs?
Or, does 20 wins, good attendance and tourney appearances satisfy the athletic administration?
Personally, I think recruiting class rankings are the barometer, because if you think Painter is a good coach, wouldn't he be an even better coach with better players?
Yes. Without question. We all want to win a championship, but you don't fire a coach that has that kind of success while at Purdue.
Just reference the chart I posted in another thread a bit back that shows how Painter is ranked against other coaches and we more than likely will take a big step backwards by letting him go if he keeps having positive results most of the time.
People can call for his head all they want based on their own limited and narrow minded perception, but the actual data doesn't lie and Painter is one helluva coach.
I believe by the criteria you listed, if Painter keeps winning 20 games, makes the tourney, and attendance is good, he will stay as long as he wants. He is already receiving national acclaim as being part of the selection committee for several of our national teams.
I look no further than Joe Tiller and Gene Keady. yes, towards the end of their career they had detractors who said it was time to go, but they left on their own terms and had input for their successors.
I look at a lot of great coaches who didn't reach the final four or a championship until late in their coaching career if ever.
I look at Joe Paterno and Bowden in football. I'm not sure how many national titles or big bowl games either coach won. Many years Joe Pa was 8-3 or 9-2. and that was good enough. Bowden was much the same way.
As for basketball, Dean Smith was always noted for having great teams that never won a championship. and then he finally did.
George Thompson, Lute Olson, Massamino, Al McGuire, and Boeheim were all great coaches. But, because of their continued success, their fan base wanted and expected more. People don't realize how hard it actually is to consistently win 20 games, make the tourney and have great attendance. Michigan's coach couldn't do it. Crean couldn't do it. That other coach previously at IU couldn't do it. Zo couldn't do it.
You may not like Painter's rather bland non flashy style, and he doesn't make the press as much as Pintino and Calipari do, but he gets the job done and keeps winning. and there are only a handful of other coaches who would come close to what he's accomplished.
I've learned through many hiring practices, the new hire very seldom comes close to the accomplishments of the person who left. For good and a little boring bad, Painter is here to stay.
I am led to wonder how well John Wooden would have done as a Purdue coach. and how well he would have been treated and received as a coach. That's probably why Alford shied away from being the IU coach. It's not easy to return to your alma mater as a coach. expectations will always be higher than reality.
I know. I'm a Packers fans and suffered through the years of Bart Starr as a coach. he was good , but never good enough. and you hated to see him lose.
I know. I'm a Packers fans and suffered through the years of Bart Starr as a coach. he was good , but never good enough. and you hated to see him lose.
Yes, that is the reason why the pod system was set up. It was not the $$$ accrued by the increased attendance that was the issue as it was the apparent perception of the tv viewership that lots of obviously empty seats in the background suggests to viewers that this is not interesting and not worth watching.
The networks pay the NCAA billions for the tournament and have to recoup that investment through advertising dollars. Advertising is dependent upon total viewership as well as the demographics of the viewership. Eyeballs matter and lots of empty seats in the arena send the message that if the fans don't care, why should you? Eyeballs then go away, and with them the ad bucks.
Look at the baseball season: the national broadcasts later in the season concentrate on the better teams. Out of the running teams, e.g. "sellers" at the trade deadline, typically see a decline in on-site attendance (bodies in the seats, not sold tickets as these are often not used) as the season winds down. That lack of interest translates into the broadcast schedule.
The NFL allows the networks to adjust the "featured" games as the season goes on to concentrate on playoff-bound or playoff-contending teams.
TV runs the show as far as sports is concerned.
Dammit Wole you are making it hard for me to like you!
Skol Vikings!
Sorry, I was born and raised in Wisconsin. My blood is green. I went to Purdue because of the Glee Club and people in my home town thought Purdue was an ivy league school. Who was I to tell them differently ? that was also before the internet and sports forums. Purdue had this new degree called computer science. and some programing languages called Pascal, Fortran and Cobol. C was a letter in the alphabet at that time. C++ was a grade I usually received on my chemistry exams.
You were born green...you can't help it
Rogers vs. Vikings D will be fun!
Always thought the Vikings should have never left the Met......but times change....
Love it! I do miss the met but you can't play in small college level stadium now.Always thought the Vikings should have never left the Met......but times change....
He wouldn't have had Sam Gilbert to help him reel in top recruits. Didn't he have kind of an average record at Indiana State before taking over the UCLA job? Don't get me wrong, he was a very good coach but having some of the UCLA boosters around (such as Gilbert) that were willing to do whatever it took to help UCLA get top players year-after-year was unquestionably beneficial to his program.
I agree that Painter is a good coach and the fact that he's only 46 and unlikely to be lured away from Purdue is a positive.
But.....if he doesn't improve his recruiting, I think we'll be destined to be a good regular season program, but still lack the individual talent to get us over the hump with consistent deep tourney runs.
I will say though, that Purdue's problem in the tourney has always been a go-to PG who can deliver in crunch time. I definitely believe CE is that player and Painter needs to leverage that to land players with similar skill sets vs. defense first guys like we've had in the past.
I actually agree with all you said here. One note I would add is that the game itself has changed over the last few years with the rule changes and what not. And I think it just takes Purdue as a whole longer to adjust than some other schools and not for a lack of trying, but a difficulty in erasing the stigma of our type of basketball.
For example and I hate to bring him up, but RJ made mention when we he departed about how PGs don't get freedom to or something like that which wasn't true. And that resonated and made it's rounds and took a while to overcome and as much as I like PJ, I think we are only now seeing it with CE and the freedom he has.
I have always thought that CMP was a decent recruiter and certainly can find talented players, but has been hand-cuffed a bit over the last few years either from a unsupported administration or having to erase a false stigma of Purdue's play style.
Yup....I've never been a fan of the "Defense Lives Here" thing. While some old school fans and purists appreciate defense, the reality is that most kids playing AAU and at the top of recruiting lists are looking for opportunities to showcase their talent offensively, because that's what will get them to the next level.
I agree that both Keady and Painter, and Purdue in general, had a reputation for putting D first (sort of like Wisky has developed a rep for playing grind it out/35 second possessions even though they made 2 FFs). Whether statistics support it or not doesn't matter, it's what the perception is among recruits.
I think Painter realizes this and CE is the best example. It helps that CE has all the skills (which PJ does not. PJ can dump it in to a big and hit a 3 but he's not creating his own shot, or creating problems for the D because of his dribble penetration) from hitting a 25 footer to finishing at the rim. Painter needs to send highlight tapes of CE's freshman year to every PG he's recruiting and say "We need more guys like this!"
Similar threads
