Burke being Burke

[BuilderBob6]

Ok, but my question still stands: Do you envision any specific round that a Purdue team will further advance to in the NCAA Tourney under CMP or are you just hoping that they'll magically do better with no specifics or details involved in your reasoning? You avoided the direct question.

lol. I see your deductive reasoning needs work. I answered your question......which was "Do you believe that he will have coached a team that advanced past an NCAA Tournament Regional Semi-Final (Sweet Sixteen) by the end of his tenure at Purdue?" Has he got to the EE? No. I said he would get farther than he did before. Translation.....Yes, he will get past a regional semi final. I didn't see another question. You didn't ask for a reason, you ask didn't for specifics or details. I didn't avoid a direct question. I answered your only question.

You, however, tried to deflect from my post about how you are labeling Painter supporters as accepting mediocrity. I guess you're good with that.

I'm not gonna play 20 questions with you.......because I've heard all your crap before and it's really not worth my time.......but I do believe in magic.

 

[Kesselschmiede]

lol. I see your deductive reasoning needs work. I answered your question......which was "Do you believe that he will have coached a team that advanced past an NCAA Tournament Regional Semi-Final (Sweet Sixteen) by the end of his tenure at Purdue?" Has he got to the EE? No. I said he would get farther than he did before. Translation.....Yes, he will get past a regional semi final. I didn't see another question. You didn't ask for a reason, you ask didn't for specifics or details. I didn't avoid a direct question. I answered your only question.

You, however, tried to deflect from my post about how you are labeling Painter supporters as accepting mediocrity. I guess you're good with that.

I'm not gonna play 20 questions with you.......because I've heard all your crap before and it's really not worth my time.......but I do believe in magic.

Careful, you have whiney mcwhineface backed in to a corner. His only resulting actions now are to either put you on ignore because he can't counter you or whine further at you. That is all he has. He lacks any real basketball knowledge above his emotional ramblings.

This thread is great as it provided clear evidence of a couple things. First, whiney mcwhineface is in the minority in his line of thinking. I forget who said it in this thread and am not going to go back and look, but it was most certainly put up by the OP for flaming material. Second, everything everyone has said about whiney mcwhineface has now been proven true.

Lastly, I am now starting a pool to get whiney mcwhienface a hooker. I Truly think that will help ease his angst and enlighten him. It's either that or he is really bound up from eating too much cheese, in which case we'll use the money to buy him enough laxative to clear out a rhino. Maybe we better get both to be sure.

 

[BBG]

Haha, I'm not bent out of shape. I'm just calling it like I see it.

Your posting in this thread sure suggests otherwise

You and 4sure really do use that as your fall-back retort when you don't want to acknowledge comments made about yourselves or your opinions.

What fallback is that? Exiting a conversation because I see it isn't going to be worth the effort or time? Your response so far shows that.

Your post history seems to contradict the idea that you "don't care" what others think about you on this board. You're always trying to be "peacemaker" or "just one of the guys that suggests to have a beer", even when the thread doesn't warrant it.

So your gripe is to call me out on is because I try and keep things civil? Actually thanks. That is a great compliment. It shows I have a even temper and things don't get to me. Apparently unlike you.

If you can't handle someone giving an honest opinion about you, maybe message boards aren't for you. Some people don't like to accept truths about themselves, even if it's just little things.

This is just flat out hysterical coming from you. Especially after you put mathboy on ignore for doing the exact thing you are talking about here. If there is ANYONE on here that can't handle people giving honest opinions about them, it is most certainly without a doubt you.

Now I am going to do what I said earlier and take my leave of this thread. Your agenda is clear and it isn't worth the effort or time to engage you with it because you won't listen to anyone else anyway.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Fair buyout is fine. The current contract guarantees all remaining payments for the remainder of the contract. I think that is egregious.

I agree that is excessive and, frankly, I doubt that Mitch Daniels would agree to putting the university in that position again (i.e. where the Hazell buyout, specifically, is taking termination off the table as an option, for now). We'll eventually see the terms of Painter's extension and my guess is that the buyout will be more reasonable. I don't have an issue with a high buyout in the next two years, but in the final three to four years it should allow termination to be a realistic option so that the new AD's hands aren't tied.

I recall hearing that in Painter's case the high buyout is a two way street. Burke wanted to make it hard for Painter to leave, so Painter got job security, in return.

 

[nat100]

I agree that is excessive and, frankly, I doubt that Mitch Daniels would agree to putting the university in that position again (i.e. where the Hazell buyout, specifically, is taking termination off the table as an option, for now). We'll eventually see the terms of Painter's extension and my guess is that the buyout will be more reasonable. I don't have an issue with a high buyout in the next two years, but in the final three to four years it should allow termination to be a realistic option so that the new AD's hands aren't tied.

I recall hearing that in Painter's case the high buyout is a two way street. Burke wanted to make it hard for Painter to leave, so Painter got job security, in return.

Through June 30, 2017 his buyout is 750k. After that it is 500k. Not prohibitive. If you look at hazell's contract, purdue loaned him the money for his exit from Kent is gradually forgiving it over the term of his contract.

 

[70boiler]

Fair buyout is fine. The current contract guarantees all remaining payments for the remainder of the contract. I think that is egregious.

It just seems to me that expecting a major university to do nothing more than stand by the contract obligations it agreed to in the past should not be looked at as egregious.

 

[nat100]

It just seems to me that expecting a major university to do nothing more than stand by the contract obligations it agreed to in the past should not be looked at as egregious.

The fact they agreed to that amount of buyout is egregious. Also, buyouts are renegotiated frequently

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Through June 30, 2017 his buyout is 750k. After that it is 500k. Not prohibitive. If you look at hazell's contract, purdue loaned him the money for his exit from Kent is gradually forgiving it over the term of his contract.

Good point, but coaches' buyouts tend to be relatively low, from what I have seen. John Beilein, for example, reportedly has no buyout: http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/11/john_beilein_contract_extensio.html

Painter's initial buyout of $1.5 million was much higher, IIRC, than his almost non-existent buyout previously.

 

[70boiler]

The fact they agreed to that amount of buyout is egregious. Also, buyouts are renegotiated frequently

In effect what was negotiated was that there would be no buyout available. You or I may feel that there could have been different terms but the fact of the matter is that Purdue wanted Painter for x number of years and agreed to pay hum for x number of years and he agreed to be available for those years. Hardly egregious.

 

[nagemj02]

Your posting in this thread sure suggests otherwise


What fallback is that? Exiting a conversation because I see it isn't going to be worth the effort or time? Your response so far shows that.


So your gripe is to call me out on is because I try and keep things civil? Actually thanks. That is a great compliment. It shows I have a even temper and things don't get to me. Apparently unlike you.


This is just flat out hysterical coming from you. Especially after you put mathboy on ignore for doing the exact thing you are talking about here. If there is ANYONE on here that can't handle people giving honest opinions about them, it is most certainly without a doubt you.

Now I am going to do what I said earlier and take my leave of this thread. Your agenda is clear and it isn't worth the effort or time to engage you with it because you won't listen to anyone else anyway.

If things don't get to you, why do you continue to respond? You're very good at contradicting yourself. You're just deflecting my comments because you know they're true and you don't want to acknowledge it.

P.S. I put mathboy on ignore because I don't think he ever has any valid points, not because of anything he's said about me.

 

[nagemj02]

lol. I see your deductive reasoning needs work. I answered your question......which was "Do you believe that he will have coached a team that advanced past an NCAA Tournament Regional Semi-Final (Sweet Sixteen) by the end of his tenure at Purdue?" Has he got to the EE? No. I said he would get farther than he did before. Translation.....Yes, he will get past a regional semi final. I didn't see another question. You didn't ask for a reason, you ask didn't for specifics or details. I didn't avoid a direct question. I answered your only question.

You, however, tried to deflect from my post about how you are labeling Painter supporters as accepting mediocrity. I guess you're good with that.

I'm not gonna play 20 questions with you.......because I've heard all your crap before and it's really not worth my time.......but I do believe in magic.

How far do you believe Purdue can go in the NCAA Tournament under Matt Painter? Is an Elite Eight the ceiling?

 

[mathboy]

If things don't get to you, why do you continue to respond? You're very good at contradicting yourself. You're just deflecting my comments because you know they're true and you don't want to acknowledge it.

P.S. I put mathboy on ignore because I don't think he ever has any valid points, not because of anything he's said about me.

Just thinking the same thing about your whinny ass.

Let's see if you really have me on ignore. - please, no one directly reply or copy this note.

 

[Kesselschmiede]

If things don't get to you, why do you continue to respond? You're very good at contradicting yourself. You're just deflecting my comments because you know they're true and you don't want to acknowledge it.

P.S. I put mathboy on ignore because I don't think he ever has any valid points, not because of anything he's said about me.

Dude, just shut up already whiney mcwhineface. You are called out for contradicting yourself all the freakin time. Here you are attacking someone that so far has done nothing to you but try and help you out. And you go and treat them like that?

You're just a freakin asshole plain and simple. How sad you life must be for you to whine like this so freakin much. The only person that looks bad in all of this, is you.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

It just seems to me that expecting a major university to do nothing more than stand by the contract obligations it agreed to in the past should not be looked at as egregious.

Often it depends upon the circumstances and the way the negotiations are handled up-front (or should I state.....presented). If an extension is going to be on the table for three years, it seems reasonable that the buy-out terms might be re-negotiated, so long as one side is not trying to significantly shift the leverage or basically taking a "this is a take it or leave it" proposition. A lot of this is diffused if things are brought up properly before any proposed agreement is presented, basically setting up expectations and a "give and take" environment. Of course that does depend on the course of conduct and negotiations of the current deal.

Just for example.....Maybe the buy-out is shortened, but the University gives up something else......maybe the conditions are reduced.......maybe incentive bonuses are created......maybe there are changes in the budget for assistants, travel, etc......there's all kinds of ways you can horse-trade these things.....it depends upon what's really important to each side.

I do agree that in general, it's not a good idea to try and use an extension to re-trade issues that were made certain or "closed for discussion" in a previous deal......or if things are sprung on one side without an advance warning.......that just is a recipe for resentment and ultimate disaster.

 

[mathboy]

P.S. I put mathboy on ignore because I don't think he ever has any valid points, not because of anything he's said about me.

What Nage means is that I don't agree with him and his point of view. Hence the "not valid" perspective. I guess the only "valid" points are those shared by people who have fallen down the same rat-hole as our friend.

I don't enjoy picking fights with people on this board, but I will defend myself. I will also tend to call Bull Sh-t on folks that make outlandish or intentionally erroneous statements. If that gets me put on "Ignore" by those folks, then maybe the board is better off for it.

 

[Inspector100]

......................................

P.S. I put mathboy on ignore because I don't think he ever has any valid points, not because of anything he's said about me.

So that means the things MB said about you are "valid points."

 

[BigRed3588]

What Nage means is that I don't agree with him and his point of view. Hence the "not valid" perspective. I guess the only "valid" points are those shared by people who have fallen down the same rat-hole as our friend.

I don't enjoy picking fights with people on this board, but I will defend myself. I will also tend to call Bull Sh-t on folks that make outlandish or intentionally erroneous statements. If that gets me put on "Ignore" by those folks, then maybe the board is better off for it.

This may have already been said (didn't read all the posts, too long), but this extension absolutely made sense. Look at the 2017/2018 classes in Indiana. Our dumbass coach is going after one, maybe two and then bolting to recruit the east coast. There will be plenty of top 75 players up for grabs with Butler and ND being your primary in-state competition. It's a lot easier to pitch your program when you can tell the kids their coach will be there four years. Smart move IMO, just gotta land 2 or 3 of those in-state studs and that money/extension is justified.

 

[cprh9u]

Through June 30, 2017 his buyout is 750k. After that it is 500k. Not prohibitive. If you look at hazell's contract, purdue loaned him the money for his exit from Kent is gradually forgiving it over the term of his contract.

So Purdue can simply pay 500k beginning July 1st next year to get rid of Painter? Or is it 500k per year guaranteed? If the former, I'm totally fine with this contract. It's like an NFL contract, where the guaranteed money is all that really matters as opposed to his last contract, which was guaranteed every season making it impossible for a school like Purdue to upgrade.

 

[nat100]

So Purdue can simply pay 500k beginning July 1st next year to get rid of Painter? Or is it 500k per year guaranteed? If the former, I'm totally fine with this contract. It's like an NFL contract, where the guaranteed money is all that really matters as opposed to his last contract, which was guaranteed every season making it impossible for a school like Purdue to upgrade.

No, his obligation if he wants to leave is $500k. If purdue wants to terminate him, they owe him the balance of his contract. Right now it would be in excess of $14M if they didnt change the wording.

 

[Kesselschmiede]

So that means the things MB said about you are "valid points."

The only people whiney mcwhineface puts on ignore are those that have valid points that pretty much demolish any argument he is trying to make.

He has a history of posting crap, getting called out on it and then he subsequently begins to whine until finally he puts you on ignore because he can't argue against anything you said as it goes against his whiney and unfounded narrative.

 

[cprh9u]

No, his obligation if he wants to leave is $500k. If purdue wants to terminate him, they owe him the balance of his contract. Right now it would be in excess of $14M if they didnt change the wording.

Yeah, I just looked it up and saw that. Looks like we won't know for sure for another month. If they guaranteed all 6 years then this is Burke's worst contract yet.

 

[Kesselschmiede]

Yeah, I just looked it up and saw that. Looks like we won't know for sure for another month. If they guaranteed all 6 years then this is Burke's worst contract yet.

No it's not if so. Painter is an above average coach so locking him in while he is really starting to build something is probably one of the few good decisions Burke has made.

And the fact that it goes against the minority negatrons on here, is just icing on the cake.

 

[nat100]

No it's not if so. Painter is an above average coach so locking him in while he is really starting to build something is probably one of the few good decisions Burke has made.

And the fact that it goes against the minority negatrons on here, is just icing on the cake.

LOL. They didnt lock him in by upping their own termination penalty.

Locking him in would have been upping his termination penalty.

 

[Chuchumutha]

1. Ben Howland (Mississippi State)
2. Rick Byrd (Belmont)
3. Linc Darner (Green Bay)
4. Greg Kampe (Oakland)
5. Matt Driscoll (North Florida)

If we were to make a move like you suggest, I liken it to when Illinois dumped Weber. He had a solid resume but just not good enough for the Illini nation. Groce, at that time, had a better profile than any of the coaches you mention above. I'm not saying that we would have the same results if we made a change, but I do believe it is more likely than not that we would not be better off.

 

[nat100]

If we were to make a move like you suggest, I liken it to when Illinois dumped Weber. He had a solid resume but just not good enough for the Illini nation. Groce, at that time, had a better profile than any of the coaches you mention above. I'm not saying that we would have the same results if we made a change, but I do believe it is more likely than not that we would not be better off.

Im curious as to how Groce had a better resume than Howland?

 

[boilerzz]

Im curious as to how Groce had a better resume than Howland?

On a pure results on the court perspective, I don't think anyone could suggest Groce had a better resume. The only argument is that Groce went to a Sweet Sixteen the year prior to his hire and at that time, Howland hadn't made it out of the first weekend in the previous four years.

But from an attractive candidate perspective, I'd have argued Groce to be more attractive. At the time Groce was hired, Howland was in the middle of some significant controversy at UCLA that ultimately contributed to his firing the next year.

 

[Dakota Girl]

This has to be the funniest thing I have read from the fire Painter crowd. First it was he cared too much about defense now he doesn't care enough!

Oh yeah. That quote about Painter not caring about defense is an instant classic.

 

[Dakota Girl]

lol. I see your deductive reasoning needs work. I answered your question......which was "Do you believe that he will have coached a team that advanced past an NCAA Tournament Regional Semi-Final (Sweet Sixteen) by the end of his tenure at Purdue?" Has he got to the EE? No. I said he would get farther than he did before. Translation.....Yes, he will get past a regional semi final. I didn't see another question. You didn't ask for a reason, you ask didn't for specifics or details. I didn't avoid a direct question. I answered your only question.

You, however, tried to deflect from my post about how you are labeling Painter supporters as accepting mediocrity. I guess you're good with that.

I'm not gonna play 20 questions with you.......because I've heard all your crap before and it's really not worth my time.......but I do believe in magic.

That's Funny. This board needs more funny.

 

[70boiler]

Often it depends upon the circumstances and the way the negotiations are handled up-front (or should I state.....presented). If an extension is going to be on the table for three years, it seems reasonable that the buy-out terms might be re-negotiated, so long as one side is not trying to significantly shift the leverage or basically taking a "this is a take it or leave it" proposition. A lot of this is diffused if things are brought up properly before any proposed agreement is presented, basically setting up expectations and a "give and take" environment. Of course that does depend on the course of conduct and negotiations of the current deal.

Just for example.....Maybe the buy-out is shortened, but the University gives up something else......maybe the conditions are reduced.......maybe incentive bonuses are created......maybe there are changes in the budget for assistants, travel, etc......there's all kinds of ways you can horse-trade these things.....it depends upon what's really important to each side.

I do agree that in general, it's not a good idea to try and use an extension to re-trade issues that were made certain or "closed for discussion" in a previous deal......or if things are sprung on one side without an advance warning.......that just is a recipe for resentment and ultimate disaster.

I was trying to suggest that there is anything wrong, or right for that matter, about both sides entering into a renogotiation process. Rather I was suggesting if there is no real buyout provision, there is nothing wrong with that either.

 

[nagemj02]

So that means the things MB said about you are "valid points."

I don't remember many of the specific things he said about me other than "STFU" a couple years ago when I suggested Painter should be let go. Also, he freaked out when I suggested that the 2003-2004 Boilers weren't a national title contender, even with ("the savior") Chris Booker available and Kenneth Lowe healthy. So yes, I acknowledge that I remember some of his opinions directed towards me.

However, in terms of having no valid points, I'm referring more to his opinions about the state of the program, as well as his general basketball knowledge.

 

[nagemj02]

If we were to make a move like you suggest, I liken it to when Illinois dumped Weber. He had a solid resume but just not good enough for the Illini nation. Groce, at that time, had a better profile than any of the coaches you mention above. I'm not saying that we would have the same results if we made a change, but I do believe it is more likely than not that we would not be better off.

Groce was coaching at Ohio U.. Howland at Mississippi State is higher-profile than that and I would argue that Rick Byrd's success at Belmont has made them a higher-profile program during his tenure than Ohio U. was during Groce's tenure (despite their Sweet Sixteen appearance in 2012).

Weber is not doing any better at Kansas State. He's on the hot-seat there. I agree that Groce hasn't done too well at Illinois up to this point.

Hypothetically, I would still take the chance on a new coach at Purdue in the near future. With Purdue men's hoops, some things are so instilled in its culture that I don't think they'll ever completely be de-emphasized by a new staff (such as "defense lives here"). So, culturally, I think Purdue's men's hoops program is better off right now than Illinois' was when they fired Weber and hired Groce. So basically, I'm trying to say that I don't believe it would be as much of a risk for Purdue as it was for Illinois because there are already quite a few things that have been emphasized in the program over the last 36 years (and counting), so I doubt all of those things would be quickly forgotten with a new coaching staff, even if it was a staff composed of people with no previous Purdue connections.

 

[Inspector100]

I don't remember many of the specific things he said about me other than "STFU" a couple years ago when I suggested Painter should be let go. Also, he freaked out when I suggested that the 2003-2004 Boilers weren't a national title contender, even with ("the savior") Chris Booker available and Kenneth Lowe healthy. So yes, I acknowledge that I remember some of his opinions directed towards me.

However, in terms of having no valid points, I'm referring more to his opinions about the state of the program, as well as his general basketball knowledge.

No, you can not move the goal post again. You now admit that Mathboy has stated some valid points and they were about you, not this trash about state of the program and basketball knowledge.

You know, you discuss/argue like my sister. And very much like and IU troll. I appolegize to to the rest of the board for feeding the troll.

 

[mathboy]

No, you can not move the goal post again. You now admit that Mathboy has stated some valid points and they were about you, not this trash about state of the program and basketball knowledge.

You know, you discuss/argue like my sister. And very much like and IU troll. I appolegize to to the rest of the board for feeding the troll.

I'm not going to get involved in this mess by responding directly to any false statements made about me at this point. Nage has done enough to hang himself with his exaggerations and misstatements. Besides, it is not the reason I come to this board and share my thoughts. Regardless of anyone's personal issues with me, I think we are pretty much all Purdue fans, although we differ on some small issues.

 

[purdue4sure]

I don't remember many of the specific things he said about me other than "STFU" a couple years ago when I suggested Painter should be let go. Also, he freaked out when I suggested that the 2003-2004 Boilers weren't a national title contender, even with ("the savior") Chris Booker available and Kenneth Lowe healthy. So yes, I acknowledge that I remember some of his opinions directed towards me.

However, in terms of having no valid points, I'm referring more to his opinions about the state of the program, as well as his general basketball knowledge.

If you put me on ignore, will you please continue to call me out in threads where I haven't posted? It's very flattering.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Groce was coaching at Ohio U.. Howland at Mississippi State is higher-profile than that and I would argue that Rick Byrd's success at Belmont has made them a higher-profile program during his tenure than Ohio U. was during Groce's tenure (despite their Sweet Sixteen appearance in 2012).

Weber is not doing any better at Kansas State. He's on the hot-seat there. I agree that Groce hasn't done too well at Illinois up to this point.

Hypothetically, I would still take the chance on a new coach at Purdue in the near future. With Purdue men's hoops, some things are so instilled in its culture that I don't think they'll ever completely be de-emphasized by a new staff (such as "defense lives here"). So, culturally, I think Purdue's men's hoops program is better off right now than Illinois' was when they fired Weber and hired Groce. So basically, I'm trying to say that I don't believe it would be as much of a risk for Purdue as it was for Illinois because there are already quite a few things that have been emphasized in the program over the last 36 years (and counting), so I doubt all of those things would be quickly forgotten with a new coaching staff, even if it was a staff composed of people with no previous Purdue connections.

I see Illinois differently. It is the only major public university in one of the most talent rich basketball states in the country. It also has a strong tradition and traditionally has attracted many more highly athletic players than Purdue.

Also, Weber didn't have nearly as strong a track record as Painter has. He took over an extremely strong program and, to his credit, made an NCAA championship game with Self's players, but his conference record in his last 5 seasons at Illinois was 41-49. (Groce is even worse at 29-43, btw. Over the past 10 years, Illinois is 79-99 in conference vs Purdue's 110-68.) Illinois had much less to lose by letting Weber go than Purdue would have with Painter. It is far from certain that a coaching change at Purdue wouldn't take Purdue even lower than Illinois has been over the last decade.

 

[nagemj02]

No, you can not move the goal post again. You now admit that Mathboy has stated some valid points and they were about you, not this trash about state of the program and basketball knowledge.

You know, you discuss/argue like my sister. And very much like and IU troll. I appolegize to to the rest of the board for feeding the troll.

They weren't valid, IMO. It's subjective.

It is spelled "apologize".

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

I see Illinois differently. It is the only major public university in one of the most talent rich basketball states in the country. It also has a strong tradition and traditionally has attracted many more highly athletic players than Purdue.

Also, Weber didn't have nearly as strong a track record as Painter has. He took over an extremely strong program and, to his credit, made an NCAA championship game with Self's players, but his conference record in his last 5 seasons at Illinois was 41-49. (Groce is even worse at 29-43, btw. Over the past 10 years, Illinois is 79-99 in conference vs Purdue's 110-68.) Illinois had much less to lose by letting Weber go than Purdue would have with Painter. It is far from certain that a coaching change at Purdue wouldn't take Purdue even lower than Illinois has been over the last decade.

Interesting points, BD.......

Bill Self's record @ Illinois:

78-24; 35-13 (conference), T1, T1, 2nd
NCAA's - two trips to the Regionals and one Regional final in '01

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the Illini could have kept him for a while.

 

[Chuchumutha]

I see Illinois differently. It is the only major public university in one of the most talent rich basketball states in the country. It also has a strong tradition and traditionally has attracted many more highly athletic players than Purdue.

Also, Weber didn't have nearly as strong a track record as Painter has. He took over an extremely strong program and, to his credit, made an NCAA championship game with Self's players, but his conference record in his last 5 seasons at Illinois was 41-49. (Groce is even worse at 29-43, btw. Over the past 10 years, Illinois is 79-99 in conference vs Purdue's 110-68.) Illinois had much less to lose by letting Weber go thaPurdue would have with Painter. It is far from certain that a coaching change at Purdue wouldn't take Purdue even lower than Illinois has been over the last decade.

My primary point (which I didn't express very well) was that a dissatisfied fanbase (similar to some Purdue posters) got the change they wanted with a viable candidate (remember, they struck out on Smart) who was a highly thought of mid major coach. I think our profile would be similar if we made a change. The B1G is a very tough conference to break into. Look no further than our football team.

 

[cprh9u]

Bob Kravitz was on JMV yesterday (Indy sports writer on Indy radio talk show for those not in the market) and said he didn't understand this contract. He said it "seems like a nice parting gift from Burke". JMV agreed it didn't really make sense. But I guess they are just part of the "negatrons" around here, right? Fact- Painter is mediocre, Painter has 1 CO-B1G championship and 2 sweet 16's in 11 years and Painter hasn't advance past the 1st round of the NCAA tournament since his last extension. How in the world do you extend him again especially if his contract is fully guaranteed? I will be very interested to hear what is guaranteed.

 

[mathboy]

Bob Kravitz was on JMV yesterday (Indy sports writer on Indy radio talk show for those not in the market) and said he didn't understand this contract. He said it "seems like a nice parting gift from Burke". JMV agreed it didn't really make sense. But I guess they are just part of the "negatrons" around here, right? Fact- Painter is mediocre, Painter has 1 CO-B1G championship and 2 sweet 16's in 11 years and Painter hasn't advance past the 1st round of the NCAA tournament since his last extension. How in the world do you extend him again especially if his contract is fully guaranteed? I will be very interested to hear what is guaranteed.

Reading your post, I had a hard time separating what was part of the radio program (intended to be controversial), and what is your opinion. It is pretty simple to understand the extension. I think that has been beat near-to-death in this thread. Burke isn't going to give anyone a "parting gift". He is setting up the next AD with the right situation. As someone said in another post, the men's basketball program is the least of the new AD's concerns.

As for what I take is your opinion: "Fact - Painter is mediocre". You will note that it is your OPINION and not a FACT. I guess we will need to agree to disagree. In 11 years, Painter has had something like 4 top 20 teams, one or two of those were top 10. That is far from mediocre. I agree that he has not done as well in the NCAA's as we all would like, but I firmly believe he is on the right track to get there, but hey, that is just my opinion.