After not having a chance to get to this Thursday, here's another installment of our basketball mailbag series.
This will be the final part, so if your question wasn't answered, we apologize.
Part II
Question: Coach Painter’s new contract ? are there any negatives to this? Do kids now see him as a millionaire coach who does not care about them but is all about his own income etc.?
Answer: No, no negatives whatsoever.
If anything, Painter's new deal should benefit recruiting, because it can illustrate that the university is pretty serious about winning and more than anything, show recruits that it's overwhelmingly likely Painter will be their coach the entirety of their careers should they come to Purdue.
Eight years is a long time, and an almost necessary parameter for a contract nowadays with recruiting dynamics - i.e. recruiting freshmen - being what they are now, especially in Indiana. Forecast the future and take any coach Purdue may be recruiting against and ask, 'Where will he be in eight years?' You'll get a lot of uncertain responses.
As for the money, yes, Painter now will be compensated among the top coaches in the country, earning a reported $2.3 million guaranteed now per year. His raise wasn't as dramatic as it might look.
It's substantial, but what's happened, too, is that a lot of his bonus monies from his previous deal have been converted to guaranteed income. So in reality, he didn't get a flat-out million-dollar raise. His guaranteed money went up a mil, but he was making more than the $1.3 million his prior contract guaranteed him.
If a coach's salary is going to hurt recruiting, someone should tell that to John Calipari, who's making $4 million, or Bill Self, who's making $3 mil. They're doing just fine.
Now, if Painter changes into Judge Smails from 'Caddyshack' or something, then that might be an issue. But I think it's fair to say that Painter is not going to change.
Question: Looking at the 2012 & 2013 team what do you think each team might be missing given what Purdue will field based on who we have recruited for each team/year?
Answer: Well, I don't want to say size, because I think Travis Carroll is going to be a good player for Purdue, and Sandi Marcius could still be as well, but I don't know if the Boilermakers have that one guy who can control the paint defensively and on the boards, not that those sorts of players grow on trees.
Incoming forwards Donnie Hale and Jacob Lawson are big-time shot-blockers, but it's because of their athleticism and length as opposed to sheer size.
Incoming bigs Jay Simpson and Derek Willis will join the front line in coming years, but Simpson is 6-8 and a below-the-rim guy and as of right now, Willis is an unbelievably skilled player for his size, but physicality is an area of his game he'll want to improve prior to college, as just about any high school sophomore would. I'm not sure either you want to pigeon-hole him as a post player anyway.
So that's the one thing that may not be already in place, a reason Purdue's interest in A.J. Hammons has made a lot of sense. It isn't to say players can't grow into that role. It's certainly something Purdue's shown it can absolutely be successful without, too. It's not like JaJuan Johnson was ever Dwight Howard at Purdue.
It should be said too that we're kinda nit-picking here. Purdue's gonna have players for a pretty long time to come, it would seem.
Question: Who starts @ point in 2012 from what you have seen?
Answer: Good question.
Bryson Scott is a guy who was recruited to play immediately and he will no matter what, but he doesn't show up 'til 2013.
I can't comment on Kyle Molock because I haven't seen him play much and haven't seen him at all since his injury, but there's no question Ronnie Johnson has emerged as a big-time player who has a chance to be very good in college.
He seemingly gets better every time he plays, capped most recently by his brilliant junior all-star performance Monday night at Washington. You have to understand, too, that all-star basketball is difficult, especially for point guards guiding a team that was basically just thrown together. But Johnson made that group look like a team when he was in the game. His shooting has been tremendous of late, also.
That's a difficult position to step right into in college, though, but Johnson will obviously have a chance to do just that.
But at Purdue, starting is nice, but it has to have two good point guards, in part because of the demands made on the position defensively. From a fatigue standpoint, it's not fair to ask one guy to pressure full-court all game, then expect them to not have Jell-O knees in the final minutes.
Lewis Jackson and Kelsey Barlow have given Purdue that luxury and it's clear the Boilermakers will have it again in the future with Johnson and Scott, who's every bit the caliber of player that can be a major factor immediately.
The nice thing about Scott, too, is he can play off the ball just as easily as he can play with it, so he and Johnson or whoever else can play together, affording Purdue an extra ball-handler/decision-maker in the backcourt without sacrificing scoring or shooting. Scott can really shoot. Right now, it hurts Purdue with Barlow in the game alongside Jackson because Barlow doesn't command attention as a perimeter threat.
It should be noted, too, that from an experience standpoint, Terone Johnson will be a junior in 2012, so it's possible that he could fill that point guard role also.
Purdue's going to need him to score beginning next season, but he's shown he can handle the point already and could conceivably migrate further in that direction into the future.
Rapheal Davis, who'll be a freshman in '12, too, has some point guard skills and a 6-foot-5 body, but I don’t think that will ever be his primary position.
You never know, though. I didn't think Barlow would be a point guard coming out of high school, either. Painter did, though. He knows slightly more than me.
Are the Indiana AAU kids over hyped and over exposed to early….some seem to be rated highly and then drop (some drop totally out of all rankings) as they get older?
Answer: Absolutely.
The passion for basketball in this state has so many eye-balls on these kids at such an early age that players are discovered seemingly so much earlier than they are in other places. Because there are so many damn players in this state, too, it's a territory that's got people falling all over themselves to try to recruit. That, coupled with the urgency to be 'first' on a kid, has made this a complete cluster.
I'm not saying it's wrong for college coaches to do what they have to do in this regard, because it's merely the playing conditions they have to compete under. If School X doesn't offer a kid as a freshman, School Y will. School X, consequently, is screwed.
But it's probably not good for the kids or their families - and certainly not the college coaches who have to make $200,000 decisions on players who shouldn't be able to get into R-rated movies - to go through the ego-stroking too early. Attention can make people both crazy and stupid.
In Indiana, one thing that's hard to understand is why these guys all seem to feel such urgency to commit right away. I shouldn't necessarily say it's just Indiana kids because Derek Willis popped for Purdue immediately and he's from Kentucky. That, and plenty of recruits have seen early offers dry up because they weren't willing to commit.
But it does kind of stand to reason to suggest that because recruiting starts so early in this state, kids feel they're in position to decide earlier and earlier. It's like sophomore year has become the new senior year.
It used to be where if you were getting letters as a junior, you were big-time. Now, if you're not getting offers as a freshman, you're a project.
It's all so silly, but it's the way it is, and a dangerous game for colleges.
Consider this: Of Purdue's last eight commitments, seven of them committed prior to their junior year, some of them prior to their sophomore year.
Of the four players who signed as part of Purdue's legendary fall signing class of '07 - Robbie Hummel, JaJuan Johnson, E'Twaun Moore and Scott Martin - only Moore had really made a name for himself prior to his junior season.
As for the guys 'dropping,' there's always going to be an ebb and flow with how players are viewed, because they all develop different. A guy who's a stud as a freshman may simply level off, then get passed by a hundred other players who do improve.
The impossibility of foreseeing the future is obviously the great flaw in rankings.
Often, it's physical. If a 15-year-old has an 18-year-old's body, guess who's going to stand out and get ranked. But once everyone around him starts maturing physically, they catch up and that player no longer stands out. It doesn't mean they're not a good player, though, something that gets lost in the hysteria created by rankings.
Copyright, Boilers, Inc. 2011. All Rights Reserved. Reproducing or using editorial or graphical content, in whole or in part, without permission, is strictly prohibited. E-mail GoldandBlack.com/Boilers, Inc.
Check out GoldandBlack.com on
This will be the final part, so if your question wasn't answered, we apologize.
Question: Coach Painter’s new contract ? are there any negatives to this? Do kids now see him as a millionaire coach who does not care about them but is all about his own income etc.?
Answer: No, no negatives whatsoever.
If anything, Painter's new deal should benefit recruiting, because it can illustrate that the university is pretty serious about winning and more than anything, show recruits that it's overwhelmingly likely Painter will be their coach the entirety of their careers should they come to Purdue.
Eight years is a long time, and an almost necessary parameter for a contract nowadays with recruiting dynamics - i.e. recruiting freshmen - being what they are now, especially in Indiana. Forecast the future and take any coach Purdue may be recruiting against and ask, 'Where will he be in eight years?' You'll get a lot of uncertain responses.
As for the money, yes, Painter now will be compensated among the top coaches in the country, earning a reported $2.3 million guaranteed now per year. His raise wasn't as dramatic as it might look.
It's substantial, but what's happened, too, is that a lot of his bonus monies from his previous deal have been converted to guaranteed income. So in reality, he didn't get a flat-out million-dollar raise. His guaranteed money went up a mil, but he was making more than the $1.3 million his prior contract guaranteed him.
If a coach's salary is going to hurt recruiting, someone should tell that to John Calipari, who's making $4 million, or Bill Self, who's making $3 mil. They're doing just fine.
Now, if Painter changes into Judge Smails from 'Caddyshack' or something, then that might be an issue. But I think it's fair to say that Painter is not going to change.
Question: Looking at the 2012 & 2013 team what do you think each team might be missing given what Purdue will field based on who we have recruited for each team/year?
Answer: Well, I don't want to say size, because I think Travis Carroll is going to be a good player for Purdue, and Sandi Marcius could still be as well, but I don't know if the Boilermakers have that one guy who can control the paint defensively and on the boards, not that those sorts of players grow on trees.
Incoming forwards Donnie Hale and Jacob Lawson are big-time shot-blockers, but it's because of their athleticism and length as opposed to sheer size.
Incoming bigs Jay Simpson and Derek Willis will join the front line in coming years, but Simpson is 6-8 and a below-the-rim guy and as of right now, Willis is an unbelievably skilled player for his size, but physicality is an area of his game he'll want to improve prior to college, as just about any high school sophomore would. I'm not sure either you want to pigeon-hole him as a post player anyway.
So that's the one thing that may not be already in place, a reason Purdue's interest in A.J. Hammons has made a lot of sense. It isn't to say players can't grow into that role. It's certainly something Purdue's shown it can absolutely be successful without, too. It's not like JaJuan Johnson was ever Dwight Howard at Purdue.
It should be said too that we're kinda nit-picking here. Purdue's gonna have players for a pretty long time to come, it would seem.
Question: Who starts @ point in 2012 from what you have seen?
Answer: Good question.
Bryson Scott is a guy who was recruited to play immediately and he will no matter what, but he doesn't show up 'til 2013.
I can't comment on Kyle Molock because I haven't seen him play much and haven't seen him at all since his injury, but there's no question Ronnie Johnson has emerged as a big-time player who has a chance to be very good in college.
He seemingly gets better every time he plays, capped most recently by his brilliant junior all-star performance Monday night at Washington. You have to understand, too, that all-star basketball is difficult, especially for point guards guiding a team that was basically just thrown together. But Johnson made that group look like a team when he was in the game. His shooting has been tremendous of late, also.
That's a difficult position to step right into in college, though, but Johnson will obviously have a chance to do just that.
But at Purdue, starting is nice, but it has to have two good point guards, in part because of the demands made on the position defensively. From a fatigue standpoint, it's not fair to ask one guy to pressure full-court all game, then expect them to not have Jell-O knees in the final minutes.
Lewis Jackson and Kelsey Barlow have given Purdue that luxury and it's clear the Boilermakers will have it again in the future with Johnson and Scott, who's every bit the caliber of player that can be a major factor immediately.
The nice thing about Scott, too, is he can play off the ball just as easily as he can play with it, so he and Johnson or whoever else can play together, affording Purdue an extra ball-handler/decision-maker in the backcourt without sacrificing scoring or shooting. Scott can really shoot. Right now, it hurts Purdue with Barlow in the game alongside Jackson because Barlow doesn't command attention as a perimeter threat.
It should be noted, too, that from an experience standpoint, Terone Johnson will be a junior in 2012, so it's possible that he could fill that point guard role also.
Purdue's going to need him to score beginning next season, but he's shown he can handle the point already and could conceivably migrate further in that direction into the future.
Rapheal Davis, who'll be a freshman in '12, too, has some point guard skills and a 6-foot-5 body, but I don’t think that will ever be his primary position.
You never know, though. I didn't think Barlow would be a point guard coming out of high school, either. Painter did, though. He knows slightly more than me.
Are the Indiana AAU kids over hyped and over exposed to early….some seem to be rated highly and then drop (some drop totally out of all rankings) as they get older?
Answer: Absolutely.
The passion for basketball in this state has so many eye-balls on these kids at such an early age that players are discovered seemingly so much earlier than they are in other places. Because there are so many damn players in this state, too, it's a territory that's got people falling all over themselves to try to recruit. That, coupled with the urgency to be 'first' on a kid, has made this a complete cluster.
I'm not saying it's wrong for college coaches to do what they have to do in this regard, because it's merely the playing conditions they have to compete under. If School X doesn't offer a kid as a freshman, School Y will. School X, consequently, is screwed.
But it's probably not good for the kids or their families - and certainly not the college coaches who have to make $200,000 decisions on players who shouldn't be able to get into R-rated movies - to go through the ego-stroking too early. Attention can make people both crazy and stupid.
In Indiana, one thing that's hard to understand is why these guys all seem to feel such urgency to commit right away. I shouldn't necessarily say it's just Indiana kids because Derek Willis popped for Purdue immediately and he's from Kentucky. That, and plenty of recruits have seen early offers dry up because they weren't willing to commit.
But it does kind of stand to reason to suggest that because recruiting starts so early in this state, kids feel they're in position to decide earlier and earlier. It's like sophomore year has become the new senior year.
It used to be where if you were getting letters as a junior, you were big-time. Now, if you're not getting offers as a freshman, you're a project.
It's all so silly, but it's the way it is, and a dangerous game for colleges.
Consider this: Of Purdue's last eight commitments, seven of them committed prior to their junior year, some of them prior to their sophomore year.
Of the four players who signed as part of Purdue's legendary fall signing class of '07 - Robbie Hummel, JaJuan Johnson, E'Twaun Moore and Scott Martin - only Moore had really made a name for himself prior to his junior season.
As for the guys 'dropping,' there's always going to be an ebb and flow with how players are viewed, because they all develop different. A guy who's a stud as a freshman may simply level off, then get passed by a hundred other players who do improve.
The impossibility of foreseeing the future is obviously the great flaw in rankings.
Often, it's physical. If a 15-year-old has an 18-year-old's body, guess who's going to stand out and get ranked. But once everyone around him starts maturing physically, they catch up and that player no longer stands out. It doesn't mean they're not a good player, though, something that gets lost in the hysteria created by rankings.
Copyright, Boilers, Inc. 2011. All Rights Reserved. Reproducing or using editorial or graphical content, in whole or in part, without permission, is strictly prohibited. E-mail GoldandBlack.com/Boilers, Inc.
Check out GoldandBlack.com on
