Dude was beat to h#ll by Kansas in the game prior.
ummmm.....No. He scored 30 in the first half and 44 for the game. If he was beat to helL, then it sure didn't prevent him from scoring.
Dude was beat to h#ll by Kansas in the game prior.
never will forget that hip check that Pollard gave Dog when he was shooting, he immediately starting limping afterwards, Pollard also hacked other players as well.
You made a statement that is full of fallacies, so I figure the burden of proof is on you.You seem to have a lot of time on your hands; why don't you do a search online at the 80 Final Four teams over the last 20 years and see if there's any patterns that you notice.
My contention, is that you're going to see a lot of the same names repeated with a few Cinderellas and non-traditional basketball powers mixed in. It's also my contention that those repeat FF teams also happen to be the ones that get the best recruiting classes (in other words, recruit guys with the most stars next to their names).
Prove me wrong.
ummmm.....No. He scored 30 in the first half and 44 for the game. If he was beat to helL, then it sure didn't prevent him from scoring.
Wow...you know a lot. Got any stock tips for me?
While UK and Duke have not won every title the last 20 years, for 40 of the last 41 years there has been a McDonald's AA or 5* player on every championship team.So, to follow your logic, UK, with the best recruiting classes, has won the NCAA the last 20 years, every year?
Well... "Most of the time" is what you said, right? I think UK has won once in the last 20 years. Is your definition of "Most of the time" one out of 20? Sorry, but this is not working for me.
It ain't that simple, and that is the fundamental problem with your thinking.
His scoring fell off significantly in the 2nd half. I don't think you thought that through. Try again.
"In light of a 2019 Final Four, in which just 16 former top-100 recruits played in Minneapolis, it’s fair to wonder how strong the correlation is between success on the recruiting trail, at least in the eyes of recruiting services who assign star ratings to prospects, and winning."
Analyzing College Basketball’s Relationship Between Recruiting Rankings and Wins
https://watchstadium.com/news/analy...ween-recruiting-rankings-and-wins-04-17-2019/
Basketball season must be approaching. Bonefish is complaining about Purdue's talent. Next he'll pick a player to be his whipping boy to blame for any loss.
I notice it's the same on the football board. This year he chose to blame Ben for his miserable life.
It would be 16 of 400Just so I'm clear, what you're saying is despite the fact that 16% of the top 100 played in the FF on 4 teams out of 351.
That's an average of 4 per team, while the other 347 teams had an avg of .25 top 100 recruits?
Definitely don't agree with several titles, but I do think he probably have 1 with that type of talent.if painter had Duke or Kansas or UK's talent, he'd have several championships by now. Talent gets you to the final 4, a little luck and a lot of coaching wins it. and sometimes coaching can overcome lack of talent, but not on a yearly consistent basis.
Opinions are just that opinions it’s cool yet time and time again teams are showing with less they win with more.Basketball season must be approaching. Bonefish is complaining about Purdue's talent. Next he'll pick a player to be his whipping boy to blame for any loss.
I notice it's the same on the football board. This year he chose to blame Ben for his miserable life.
This has to be one of the most homer quotes ever. Do you think painter would have the same success at Northwestern as he does at Purdue? Painter's a good coach, but to say there's no difference is beyond ridiculous.I don't really see any significant difference in Coach k and Painter, other than Coach k's recruiting ability. if Coach k was at Northwestern, would he have the same success?
if painter had Duke or Kansas or UK's talent, he'd have several championships by now. Talent gets you to the final 4, a little luck and a lot of coaching wins it. and sometimes coaching can overcome lack of talent, but not on a yearly consistent basis.
I don't really see any significant difference in Coach k and Painter, other than Coach k's recruiting ability. if Coach k was at Northwestern, would he have the same success?
Don’t forget the loads of money K has had to spend on recruits. That had to help.I would argue that Coach K would have that success anywhere. What does Duke have going for it as a program other than Coach K?
They play in a high school gym, compete with a major power 10 miles away, are a small, academically challenging school, etc, etc. It makes it all that more impressive what Coach K has done.
Don’t forget the loads of money K has had to spend on recruits. That had to help.
Any NCAA coach could eventually win a NC with Duke, KU or UK talent. That's not even a legit point.
The coach is responsible for bringing in the talent. When coach K leaves, I suspect Duke will have a major drop off in the talent they bring in.
I haven't looked it up but I would bet that Purdue has a significantly higher athletic dept budget and basketball recruiting budget than Duke. Unless you're being funny and saying Duke pays players which I highly doubt.
Once again you have your head up your armpit, and show it on this forum.I haven't looked it up but I would bet that Purdue has a significantly higher athletic dept budget and basketball recruiting budget than Duke. Unless you're being funny and saying Duke pays players which I highly doubt.
Let me help those who would rather just polute this forum and not look at any facts:
"At the other end of the spending spectrum was Duke, the ACC powerhouse with the nation’s biggest basketball budget — $19,507,686 — and a price tag of $696,703.07 per win".
Once again you have your head up your armpit, and show it on this forum.
.
I agree that Duke would continue to draw talent. Blue bloods will continue to draw talent until they show a reason why they shouldn't. Look at former blue blood, IU. Four different coaches after RMK and they continue to draw top talent. None of these coaches were considered to be great recruiters when they arrived, so it obviously isn't just the coach. The same can be said for Louisville.Goodness gracious, I'm going to agree with Lenny a second time in the same offseason.
Although Duke had some success before Krzyzewski, it was nowhere near what he's done....analogous to John Wooden @ UCLA. He did change his recruiting strategy a little over the years to adapt, and Duke also has access to more resources today (built on success) than one would think for a private institution with high academic standards. And though I loathe the over-the-top adoration like Dukie V, etc., I have to give credit where credit is due - it's impressive what he's done there the last 30+ years.
North Carolina, Kentucky, and Kansas have sustained success through various coaches....not sure if Duke can from just an institutional standpoint.....but if they make the right hire.....who knows......we shall see.
With Duke being a private institution, it's tougher to get public information - Ibodel may be able to fill in some gaps. From 2018 Forbes article:
Mike Krzyzewski's Duke Blue Devils reported the highest expense total of any NCAA men's basketball program last year ($19.5 million), but the program also reported nearly $34.4 million in revenue. (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)
Not your Granddaddy's Duke.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidc...k-among-its-biggest-winners-too/#343918df7a22
Carsen too!Your program has to be marketable for the player as well. We had Moore and Carson last year and those 2 brought great attention to their programs.
What REALLY beat him to hell was his teammate-wrestling opponent back at the hotel, later that night.ummmm.....No. He scored 30 in the first half and 44 for the game. If he was beat to helL, then it sure didn't prevent him from scoring.
Correct. Word on the street is whoever it was had a little more fight in him than the dog Thought.What REALLY beat him to hell was his teammate-wrestling opponent back at the hotel, later that night.
The weakest 20 coaches for the NCAA's Div. I 350 teams couldn't win a title if you gave them 500 years. We're talking about having Duke, KU, or UK talent 365 days a year, right ?Any NCAA coach could eventually win a NC with Duke, KU or UK talent. That's not even a legit point.
The coach is responsible for bringing in the talent. When coach K leaves, I suspect Duke will have a major drop off in the talent they bring in.
We'll give you until the sun eventually flames out in 2 1/2 BILLION years, and you're not going to win anything.Those blue blood schools Don't have the best coaches they have the best money to buy talent. You give me the type of talent they get yearly let me coach there for 10 years or 20 I'm going To win me a title or 2.
Now if we could just Stop missing on the highly rated guys maybe we will get to a final 4. Unfortunately painter will not lie to those guys So I don't ever see Purdue getting them. I'm to the point tell them whatever they wanna hear The other coaches lie And it works for themWhile UK and Duke have not won every title the last 20 years, for 40 of the last 41 years there has been a McDonald's AA or 5* player on every championship team.
I believe most would agree that the best formula for winning in college basketball is to get really good 4 year players (we do that), and add in one or two top 25 players to the team. This is the Villanova/Virginia strategy.
Now if we could just Stop missing on the highly rated guys maybe we will get to a final 4. Unfortunately painter will not lie to those guys So I don't ever see Purdue getting them. I'm to the point tell them whatever they wanna hear The other coaches lie And it works for them
Ugh, I am saddened to read that...Now if we could just Stop missing on the highly rated guys maybe we will get to a final 4. Unfortunately painter will not lie to those guys So I don't ever see Purdue getting them. I'm to the point tell them whatever they wanna hear The other coaches lie And it works for them