For all of you people complaining about Painter...

[samcboiler]

Take a really good look at the Rivals Top 150 over the past few years. All the studs go to Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, Louisville, Mich State.... No news here. We all know this... We get one guy in the Top 20 (Swanigan) and I think he was #19 and we are suddenly a really, really good team. IMO, we should be undefeated and unstoppable with this well rounded team, better IMO than the Baby Boilers teams. Duke gets 3 of the Top 10-20 guys every single year and right now, they are not very good. What I'm trying to say is, Painter is a damn good coach, we just can't see it because we are so close to it and constantly look for the chinks in the armor. Can you imagine how good we'd be with the recruits that Kentucky and Duke get? We'd be a constant Top 5 team because Painter is much better than we all give him credit for. He isn't perfect, however a replacement to try and recruit better would / could be a real disaster. Now, I'm a lot like many on this board that fumes when we lose in the first / second round of the Tourney by 1-2 points at the last second, and we all love to take it out on Painter, me included. If this is rehashing old stuff, I apologize. I just had to get this off my chest. PS - Tell me how many of your hearts were pounding so hard in the last few seconds of the MD game? I haven't had this feeling in years and when I did, we always lost. Go Boilers, forever!!!!

 

[Boiler_HD]

Love the optimism. unfortunately it will be lost on most here.

 

[jadeezra]

This post is spot on ,

 

[nagemj02]

Recruiting expectations should be higher. Yes, they're a good team and he has good teams, but he could be a better recruiter and in-game coach. Just because he has good teams with mostly 3 or 4 star type of talent doesn't excuse him and his assistants for being unable to recruit better or coach better. If fans become satisfied with that, then don't expect the program to take the next step or have consistently better results in the postseason.

 

[Ben Shadeland]

Coach Painter isn't perfect, but no coach is. Overall, I'm very happy with him.

Now let's win some NCAA Tournament games.

 

[euchre13]

Recruiting expectations should be higher. Yes, they're a good team and he has good teams, but he could be a better recruiter and in-game coach. Just because he has good teams with mostly 3 or 4 star type of talent doesn't excuse him and his assistants for being unable to recruit better or coach better. If fans become satisfied with that, then don't expect the program to take the next step or have consistently better results in the postseason.

Why should he be able to recruit better? That's such a simple statement to make but why? Have previous coaches recruited better than he has? No. What leads you to believe that he hasn't reached the max of what is possible for him at Purdue? Simply wanting to get 5 stars doesn't mean it will happen. You think he should do better, please tell me why.

 

[tjreese]

Take a really good look at the Rivals Top 150 over the past few years. All the studs go to Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, Louisville, Mich State.... No news here. We all know this... We get one guy in the Top 20 (Swanigan) and I think he was #19 and we are suddenly a really, really good team. IMO, we should be undefeated and unstoppable with this well rounded team, better IMO than the Baby Boilers teams. Duke gets 3 of the Top 10-20 guys every single year and right now, they are not very good. What I'm trying to say is, Painter is a damn good coach, we just can't see it because we are so close to it and constantly look for the chinks in the armor. Can you imagine how good we'd be with the recruits that Kentucky and Duke get? We'd be a constant Top 5 team because Painter is much better than we all give him credit for. He isn't perfect, however a replacement to try and recruit better would / could be a real disaster. Now, I'm a lot like many on this board that fumes when we lose in the first / second round of the Tourney by 1-2 points at the last second, and we all love to take it out on Painter, me included. If this is rehashing old stuff, I apologize. I just had to get this off my chest. PS - Tell me how many of your hearts were pounding so hard in the last few seconds of the MD game? I haven't had this feeling in years and when I did, we always lost. Go Boilers, forever!!!!

Said pretty much this for a long time. Basketball coaches think Matt is pretty good. Imagine if he had Matta or Izzo talent? I said 30 years ago OSU was a great job to make a dent in the Big. If you get the talent and knock on the door enough..it finally opens. Recruiting talent is much more than just the coach. BTW...I just wanted Carsen to make the first...as I knew he would then make the second!

 

[icewind7]

Yawn..... You should have posted this at the end of this season.

1) Who have we beaten so far this year? Any top 10 teams?
2) have we won regular season title or big 10 tournament yet?
2) What have we achieved during ncaa tournament?

Wait until the end of the season.... And, I am not looking for a perfect coach. A perfect coach will have to have a perfect record.

 

[PUQBMan.]

Yawn..... You should have posted this at the end of this season.

1) Who have we beaten so far this year? Any top 10 teams?
2) have we won regular season title or big 10 tournament yet?
2) What have we achieved during ncaa tournament?

Wait until the end of the season.... And, I am not looking for a perfect coach. A perfect coach will have to have a perfect record.

Wisconsin is ranked #5, and we beat them.

 

[nagemj02]

Why should he be able to recruit better? That's such a simple statement to make but why? Have previous coaches recruited better than he has? No. What leads you to believe that he hasn't reached the max of what is possible for him at Purdue? Simply wanting to get 5 stars doesn't mean it will happen. You think he should do better, please tell me why.

He's paid millions of dollars a year to coach the program, he's been the HC for 12 years so he should have enough connections with HS, AAU, and prep coaches by now that he should be able to get more high-level recruits. He coaches for a B1G program that is in the top 30 (if not top 20: haven't checked that closely) in an all-time wins. Once could argue that George King and Fred Schaus recruited at a higher level in less time than Painter has done.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: Why does it seem like you're satisfied with how he's doing (recruiting-wise)? Please tell me why.

 

[BoiledSteel]

Take a really good look at the Rivals Top 150 over the past few years. All the studs go to Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, Louisville, Mich State.... No news here. We all know this... We get one guy in the Top 20 (Swanigan) and I think he was #19 and we are suddenly a really, really good team. IMO, we should be undefeated and unstoppable with this well rounded team, better IMO than the Baby Boilers teams. Duke gets 3 of the Top 10-20 guys every single year and right now, they are not very good. What I'm trying to say is, Painter is a damn good coach, we just can't see it because we are so close to it and constantly look for the chinks in the armor. Can you imagine how good we'd be with the recruits that Kentucky and Duke get? We'd be a constant Top 5 team because Painter is much better than we all give him credit for. He isn't perfect, however a replacement to try and recruit better would / could be a real disaster. Now, I'm a lot like many on this board that fumes when we lose in the first / second round of the Tourney by 1-2 points at the last second, and we all love to take it out on Painter, me included. If this is rehashing old stuff, I apologize. I just had to get this off my chest. PS - Tell me how many of your hearts were pounding so hard in the last few seconds of the MD game? I haven't had this feeling in years and when I did, we always lost. Go Boilers, forever!!!!

Very good post. You can tell it was accurate because the haters took little time coming on here and moving the goalposts.

But great, great post. Don't let the anti-Painter crowd make you think otherwise.

 

[BoiledSteel]

He's paid millions of dollars a year to coach the program, he's been the HC for 12 years so he should have enough connections with HS, AAU, and prep coaches by now that he should be able to get more high-level recruits. He coaches for a B1G program that is in the top 30 (if not top 20: haven't checked that closely) in an all-time wins. Once could argue that George King and Fred Schaus recruited at a higher level in less time than Painter has done.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: Why does it seem like you're satisfied with how he's doing (recruiting-wise)? Please tell me why.

See your problem is you think everything is static among all coaches. Maybe Painter does have all those connections you talk about but ultimately it is up to the recruit to choose where he goes. Maybe those recruits don't like the campus for some reason or the town or the state or whatever and likes that somewhere else better. Painter can sell the school/program so much, well legally, but in the end the player and his family make the ultimate decision.

Now there are exceptions to the rule for a handful of schools, when they come knocking they get their choice. And Purdue and 95% of the other colleges out there are not those exceptions.

You make it sound like you think Purdue should just walk in and be able to get who they want whenever they want. Newsflash, it doesn't work that way and it never will no matter the coach for the reasons I outlined above.

And let's not fool ourselves, Painter is recruiting at a very good level because he is getting the players that we need to fill holes. Just because he doesn't get some player you want, doesn't mean it's a bad player. Just go look at Carsen Edwards as an example as he will be something special before it is over. CE right there pretty much proves Painter can recruit at a high level because he got a high impact player. So that tells me that Painter has a much better eye and the knowledge of the team to know what type of player to get far more than any armchair coach posting on a internet forum.

 

[FLAG HUNTER]

lol , its not everyone bitching about Painter, and if they do say something about Painter it sounds like a few can't wait to make something out of it, and bitch about someone supposedly bitching about how bad a coach Painter is. Majority of fans think Painter is a good coach but will make comments about him, so chill out.

 

[euchre13]

Yawn..... You should have posted this at the end of this season.

1) Who have we beaten so far this year? Any top 10 teams?
2) have we won regular season title or big 10 tournament yet?
2) What have we achieved during ncaa tournament?

Wait until the end of the season.... And, I am not looking for a perfect coach. A perfect coach will have to have a perfect record.

1) Wisconsin
2) TBD
2) Undefeated

He's paid millions of dollars a year to coach the program, he's been the HC for 12 years so he should have enough connections with HS, AAU, and prep coaches by now that he should be able to get more high-level recruits. He coaches for a B1G program that is in the top 30 (if not top 20: haven't checked that closely) in an all-time wins. Once could argue that George King and Fred Schaus recruited at a higher level in less time than Painter has done.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: Why does it seem like you're satisfied with how he's doing (recruiting-wise)? Please tell me why.

Every coach is paid an insane amount of money to coach and if Painter leaves, the new coach will be paid a bunch of money too, so that argument is moot. Maybe my question to you wasn't clear since you're giving general reasons why you think higher level recruits should come to Purdue. I'll use an analogy for you. I'm a great dude, but I'm still just me. No matter how hard I try I'm not going to be able to date a super model. One may fall in my lap one day because she digs bald dudes, but I'm not out seeking them, because they generally wouldn't be interested in dudes like me. It's the same concept. Purdue doesn't draw super models, and never has.

Purdue is a top 30, or 20, program because we've been fortunate over the past 30 years to have coaches that do a great job of winning with what they have. They develop players but more importantly they develop teams. We're top 30, or 20, because of them, not in spite of them. Kids go where they go because they go where they go. There is this delusional affinity with Purdue that we seem to have where we assume that everyone wants to go here. It's as if you guys think the players would have come here if the coach had just done better recruiting. Has any recruit ever said that? I realize it's almost silly to think a kid would say "I'd go to Purdue but Painter _____". But that is as silly to me as people that just jump to their own conclusion that Painter is the reason for them not coming to Purdue when each and every recruit is different.

You're going to argue about coaches from the 70's? Ok, what star recruits did those coaches get if you can argue they did better, like you claimed one could argue.

I'm "satisfied" with Painter's recruiting because I realize that he's not recruiting to a blue blood. I don't put Purdue in the same class as KU, KY, Duke, NC or even Indiana, because we're not. To expect kids to just come to Purdue because I think they should would be my burden, not Painter's. Nothing about Purdue is a destination school. Their history is "good". Their facilities are average compared to the top programs in the country. There is nothing about Purdue that makes kids fall over themselves to go, unless their offers or Northern Iowa and Depaul.

I have news for people too. This isn't dominos. One piece falling won't suddenly open the flood gates to great recruits. Swanigan coming to Purdue hasn't improved the recruiting. Winning likely won't change it either. Butler went to back to back championship games. Do they draw 5 star recruits (I'm really asking, I don't know but don't recall a single one). The fans have expectations that are based on their fantasies, not on the reality of what they're watching.

 

[TC4THREE]

Let me ask you a couple of questions: Why does it seem like you're satisfied with how he's doing (recruiting-wise)? Please tell me why.

Recruiting isn't solely based on the coach. I know that will be lost on you but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

[DG10]

Recruiting isn't solely based on the coach. I know that will be lost on you but it doesn't make it any less true.

Yet, recruiting is largely based on the coach.

 

[euchre13]

Yet, recruiting is largely based on the coach.

What coach has recruited at a higher level at Purdue than Painter has? I'll apologize in advance but I'll need more than just naming names here.

 

[DG10]

1) Wisconsin
2) TBD
2) Undefeated



Every coach is paid an insane amount of money to coach and if Painter leaves, the new coach will be paid a bunch of money too, so that argument is moot. Maybe my question to you wasn't clear since you're giving general reasons why you think higher level recruits should come to Purdue. I'll use an analogy for you. I'm a great dude, but I'm still just me. No matter how hard I try I'm not going to be able to date a super model. One may fall in my lap one day because she digs bald dudes, but I'm not out seeking them, because they generally wouldn't be interested in dudes like me. It's the same concept. Purdue doesn't draw super models, and never has.

Purdue is a top 30, or 20, program because we've been fortunate over the past 30 years to have coaches that do a great job of winning with what they have. They develop players but more importantly they develop teams. We're top 30, or 20, because of them, not in spite of them. Kids go where they go because they go where they go. There is this delusional affinity with Purdue that we seem to have where we assume that everyone wants to go here. It's as if you guys think the players would have come here if the coach had just done better recruiting. Has any recruit ever said that? I realize it's almost silly to think a kid would say "I'd go to Purdue but Painter _____". But that is as silly to me as people that just jump to their own conclusion that Painter is the reason for them not coming to Purdue when each and every recruit is different.

You're going to argue about coaches from the 70's? Ok, what star recruits did those coaches get if you can argue they did better, like you claimed one could argue.

I'm "satisfied" with Painter's recruiting because I realize that he's not recruiting to a blue blood. I don't put Purdue in the same class as KU, KY, Duke, NC or even Indiana, because we're not. To expect kids to just come to Purdue because I think they should would be my burden, not Painter's. Nothing about Purdue is a destination school. Their history is "good". Their facilities are average compared to the top programs in the country. There is nothing about Purdue that makes kids fall over themselves to go, unless their offers or Northern Iowa and Depaul.

I have news for people too. This isn't dominos. One piece falling won't suddenly open the flood gates to great recruits. Swanigan coming to Purdue hasn't improved the recruiting. Winning likely won't change it either. Butler went to back to back championship games. Do they draw 5 star recruits (I'm really asking, I don't know but don't recall a single one). The fans have expectations that are based on their fantasies, not on the reality of what they're watching.

With respect to your point on Butler, it would be crazy to suggest that their success in the NCAA tournament did not improve or impact their recruiting significantly.

Just today, there was an update on their present state of recruiting...
"With an open weekend, Holtmann was in Bloomington on Friday to see Bloomington North’s Musa Jallow (ranked 75th by Rivals.com) and at O’Fallon, Ill., on Saturday to see Torrence Watson of St. Louis (93rd), Tim Finke of Champaign, Ill. (77th) and Ayo Dosunmu of Chicago (22nd).

Finke, whose brother Michael plays for Illinois, is the most recent prospect to be offered a Butler scholarship. Also holding offers are Dosunmu, Jallow, Tindley’s Eric Hunter (78th), Watson, McCutcheon’s Robert Phinisee (134th) and Jordan Lathon (148th) of Grandview, Mo.

Dwayne Cohill, a 6-4 guard from Cleveland (66th), has a Feb. 19 visit planned to Butler.

One Butler signee, 6-7 wing Christian David, is averaging 12 points, five rebounds and seven assists for Vermont Academy. He is ranked 93rd in the 2017 class by Rivals."

Seems as if Butler not only has benefited from their national success, but that they are taking full advantage of it as well (and, quite frankly, it would have been even more visible had Stevens not left)...something Purdue/Painter failed to do when it had the opportunity following the Baby Boilers class.

 

[SKYDOG]

Yet, recruiting is largely based on the coach.

I agree! How many stud players were going to Kentucky before Calapari arrived?

 

[DG10]

What coach has recruited at a higher level at Purdue than Painter has? I'll apologize in advance but I'll need more than just naming names here.

There is only one coach to compare him to...never mind that should not be the measuring stick anyway (that said, the only other coach did recruit at a higher level).

 

[euchre13]

With respect to your point on Butler, it would be crazy to suggest that their success in the NCAA tournament did not improve or impact their recruiting significantly.

Just today, there was an update on their present state of recruiting...
"With an open weekend, Holtmann was in Bloomington on Friday to see Bloomington North’s Musa Jallow (ranked 75th by Rivals.com) and at O’Fallon, Ill., on Saturday to see Torrence Watson of St. Louis (93rd), Tim Finke of Champaign, Ill. (77th) and Ayo Dosunmu of Chicago (22nd).

Finke, whose brother Michael plays for Illinois, is the most recent prospect to be offered a Butler scholarship. Also holding offers are Dosunmu, Jallow, Tindley’s Eric Hunter (78th), Watson, McCutcheon’s Robert Phinisee (134th) and Jordan Lathon (148th) of Grandview, Mo.

Dwayne Cohill, a 6-4 guard from Cleveland (66th), has a Feb. 19 visit planned to Butler.

One Butler signee, 6-7 wing Christian David, is averaging 12 points, five rebounds and seven assists for Vermont Academy. He is ranked 93rd in the 2017 class by Rivals."

Seems as if Butler not only has benefited from their national success, but that they are taking full advantage of it as well (and, quite frankly, it would have been even more visible had Stevens not left)...something Purdue/Painter failed to do when it had the opportunity following the Baby Boilers class.

Yeah, two championship games and they're pulling in similarly ranked players to Purdue and we haven't made two championship games. Ok? I'd say we're doing as expected

 

[euchre13]

There is only one coach to compare him to...never mind that should not be the measuring stick anyway (that said, the only other coach did recruit at a higher level).

Keady? Dude, people complained about Keady's recruiting far more than they complain about Painter's. Nobody will ever be happy, ever.

What about Purdue makes you think kids should be coming to Purdue? You're alluding to Painter being the reason they are not but I'm not seeing why they should be.

 

[DG10]

Keady? Dude, people complained about Keady's recruiting far more than they complain about Painter's. Nobody will ever be happy, ever.

What about Purdue makes you think kids should be coming to Purdue? You're alluding to Painter being the reason they are not but I'm not seeing why they should be.

Only because he was there longer...but, he had more success than Painter has to date, and he was ALWAYS a factor in state (until the end of his time at Purdue, when Purdue was not having the success that it had previously and he did not have the staff quality that he had previously).

If Purdue had national success (and it should have had some national success), and if it had a guy on staff that was able to appeal to elite recruits (and it absolutely does not), kids would want to play there.

 

[euchre13]

I agree! How many stud players were going to Kentucky before Calapari arrived?

............ Right. Calipari brings in kids. Calipari isn't the coach at Purdue. Calipari would never be the coach at Purdue. Purdue wouldn't hire Calipari as coach at Purdue. Purdue doesn't care about winning. The President of the University said so himself. "We don't care if we win. If we do, great, but that's not the end game". You think Calipari would recruit here like he does there with Purdue's non-assistance to the endeavor. You guys just don't want to see the reality that Purdue University isn't a basketball school, it's a university. Nobody will ever be able to consistently recruit at a high level while the administration prefers a program that doesn't cause problems over winning. That doesn't ebb and flow by what WE want to happen. You hate Mitch Daniels, not Matt Painter.

 

[euchre13]

Only because he was there longer...but, he had more success than Painter has to date, and he was ALWAYS a factor in state.

If Purdue had national success (and it should have had some national success), and if it had a guy on staff that was able to appeal to elite recruits (and it absolutely does not), kids would want to play there.

Right, he was there longer. He also had a longer leash because Purdue had been to the FF right before he became head coach.

Your last sentence is the problem. You left out "in my opinion which isn't supported by any facts whatsoever, it's just want I think should be the case".

 

[DG10]

............ Right. Calipari brings in kids. Calipari isn't the coach at Purdue. Calipari would never be the coach at Purdue. Purdue wouldn't hire Calipari as coach at Purdue. Purdue doesn't care about winning. The President of the University said so himself. "We don't care if we win. If we do, great, but that's not the end game". You think Calipari would recruit here like he does there with Purdue's non-assistance to the endeavor. You guys just don't want to see the reality that Purdue University isn't a basketball school, it's a university. Nobody will ever be able to consistently recruit at a high level while the administration prefers a program that doesn't cause problems over winning. That doesn't ebb and flow by what WE want to happen. You hate Mitch Daniels, not Matt Painter.

Am I supposed to believe that Purdue is the only school in the conference though that has that issue? Come on, it is not something unique to Purdue. Maybe more pronounced than at some other places, but, it is not something unique to Painter or Purdue.

If Butler can have the sustained success that it has had through four coaches now, you are going to have a difficult time convincing me (and probably anyone else) that it is not reasonable to expect for Purdue (with FAR more to offer) is not only not capable of doing the same, but that it should not be expected.

 

[euchre13]

Am I supposed to believe that Purdue is the only school in the conference though that has that issue? Come on, it is not something unique to Purdue. Maybe more pronounced than at some other places, but, it is not something unique to Painter or Purdue.

If Butler can have the sustained success that it has had through four coaches now, you are going to have a difficult time convincing me (and probably anyone else) that it is not reasonable to expect for Purdue (with FAR more to offer) is not only not capable of doing the same, but that it should not be expected.

My point was about the administration not caring if the basketball team wins and you said the rest of the big10 is the same? You think it's that way at OSU, MSU, IU? I think that is ridiculous but assume you can show me where the administration is on record at those schools saying winning isn't their goal for their athletic departments and we can talk more. Until then you're delusional on that point.

"far more to offer".....tell me more about that one? You're suggesting that Purdue is a better landing sport than Butler, as a general statement. Tell me how this one works.

 

[DG10]

Your last sentence is the problem. You left out "in my opinion which isn't supported by any facts whatsoever, it's just want I think should be the case"

Except for that little FACT that it is the case at other schools around the country that have had national success and have a guy (or guys) on staff that elite kids gravitate to.

 

[euchre13]

Except for that little FACT that it is the case at other schools around the country that have had national success and have a guy (or guys) on staff that elite kids gravitate to.

Apples to apples. Give comparisons and I'll show you why they're different. You keep talking in generalities and avoid the specific topics.

I get it, you want something, and you want it now. Good luck in your search.

 

[DG10]

My point was about the administration not caring if the basketball team wins and you said the rest of the big10 is the same? You think it's that way at OSU, MSU, IU? I think that is ridiculous but assume you can show me where the administration is on record at those schools saying winning isn't their goal for their athletic departments and we can talk more. Until then you're delusional on that point.

"far more to offer".....tell me more about that one? You're suggesting that Purdue is a better landing sport than Butler, as a general statement. Tell me how this one works.

What difference does it make if the administration cares or not as to Painter's ability to recruit elite talent?

A lack of support certainly I can see...a lack of commitment certainly...but I don't recall ever reading a statement from the President of Gonzaga proclaiming "We are a University for which basketball success is the basis of what our institution is formed on...we are fully committed to remaining a national basketball power above all else."

Did I miss Wisconsin hiring Bo Ryan and, at the same time, completely changing the way in which they committed to and supported the basketball program there from what had been the case before they hired him? I missed the announcement that basketball was now important there when they hired Ryan (rather than the fact that Ryan was just a hell of a coach that won in light of that rather than anything different that was done for him or his program).

I can come up with a lot more examples of where a school had success, immediate, and/or sustained, due to who the Head Coach was, regardless of what the administration's stance was on whether winning was important or not.

 

[DG10]

Apples to apples. Give comparisons and I'll show you why they're different. You keep talking in generalities and avoid the specific topics.

I get it, you want something, and you want it now. Good luck in your search.

No...I have wanted something for 37 years now and I am still waiting for it, and it is entirely unrelated to the fact that the present President of the University does not care about the success of the athletic programs that I (and many others) am/are still waiting.

 

[TC4THREE]

What difference does it make if the administration cares or not as to Painter's ability to recruit elite talent?

A lack of support certainly I can see...a lack of commitment certainly...but I don't recall ever reading a statement from the President of Gonzaga proclaiming "We are a University for which basketball success is the basis of what our institution is formed on...we are fully committed to remaining a national basketball power above all else."

Did I miss Wisconsin hiring Bo Ryan and, at the same time, completely changing the way in which they committed to and supported the basketball program there from what had been the case before they hired him? I missed the announcement that basketball was now important there when they hired Ryan (rather than the fact that Ryan was just a hell of a coach that won in light of that rather than anything different that was done for him or his program).

I can come up with a lot more examples of where a school had success, immediate, and/or sustained, due to who the Head Coach was, regardless of what the administration's stance was on whether winning was important or not.

Wisconsin was hardly a recruiting juggernaut under Bo Ryan and it took him a long time for him to break through to a Final Four there.

 

[euchre13]

What difference does it make if the administration cares or not as to Painter's ability to recruit elite talent?

A lack of support certainly I can see...a lack of commitment certainly...but I don't recall ever reading a statement from the President of Gonzaga proclaiming "We are a University for which basketball success is the basis of what our institution is formed on...we are fully committed to remaining a national basketball power above all else."

Did I miss Wisconsin hiring Bo Ryan and, at the same time, completely changing the way in which they committed to and supported the basketball program there from what had been the case before they hired him? I missed the announcement that basketball was now important there when they hired Ryan (rather than the fact that Ryan was just a hell of a coach that won in light of that rather than anything different that was done for him or his program).

I can come up with a lot more examples of where a school had success, immediate, and/or sustained, due to who the Head Coach was, regardless of what the administration's stance was on whether winning was important or not.

You narrowed our conversation down to the conference above and you cite Gonzaga?

ESPN recruiting rankings go back to 2007. Wisconsin has had 1 5 star recruit in that time. Sam Decker from Sheboygan Wisconsin. Is Wisconsin doing better than Painter is recruiting, again this conversation is about recruiting.

Do you have any examples that show your point?

 

[jadeezra]

Only because he was there longer...but, he had more success than Painter has to date, and he was ALWAYS a factor in state (until the end of his time at Purdue, when Purdue was not having the success that it had previously and he did not have the staff quality that he had previously).

If Purdue had national success (and it should have had some national success), and if it had a guy on staff that was able to appeal to elite recruits (and it absolutely does not), kids would want to play there.

In state recruiting is much much different now. That's unfortunate and it's never going back ... But it is what it is

 

[DG10]

You narrowed our conversation down to the conference above and you cite Gonzaga?

ESPN recruiting rankings go back to 2007. Wisconsin has had 1 5 star recruit in that time. Sam Decker from Sheboygan Wisconsin. Is Wisconsin doing better than Painter is recruiting, again this conversation is about recruiting.

Do you have any examples that show your point?

Did Washington State change direction when Tony Bennett replaced his Dad? What about UVA when they brought him on...did they suddenly change course as a University?

I don't recall every elite recruit in the country lining up to go to UK with the guys that preceded Calipari.

So Illinois was only committed to basketball success when Bill Self was there, but not after?

Baylor, on the heels of a massive scandal and the virtual death penalty, has managed to succeed because of a massive resource and institutional commitment to basketball?

Would Sean Miller not be able to recruit suddenly if he were to be the Head Coach at Purdue because Mitch Daniels did not care if he won or not?

West Virginia sold its soul to become a basketball power in the last 10 years?

A coach has far more to do with a success of his basketball program than any other factor, and, a coach has far more to do with his success (or lack thereof) when it comes to recruiting than any other factor as well.

 

[DG10]

In state recruiting is much much different now. That's unfortunate and it's never going back ... But it is what it is

So with that being the case, and therefore impacting in-state recruiting, shouldn't there be the exact same effect on the ability to have greater success then otherwise...more opportunities for it?

 

[M51]

What coach has recruited at a higher level at Purdue than Painter has? I'll apologize in advance but I'll need more than just naming names here.

Ever hear of Herm Gilliam, Billy Keller and Rick Mount? Joe Barry Carroll or Keith Edmundson? Wayne Walls and Walter Jordan? There are a few teams from the late 60's, into the 70's that had some very talented players. Probably more talented than quite a few of Painters teams.

 

[euchre13]

Ever hear of Herm Gilliam, Billy Keller and Rick Mount? Joe Barry Carroll or Keith Edmundson? Wayne Walls and Walter Jordan? There are a few teams from the late 60's, into the 70's that had some very talented players. Probably more talented than quite a few of Painters teams.

Can you link me to their national rankings. I didn't put a question mark because it's rhetorical. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I love that you love those guys. But people qualify recruiting by one thing and one thing alone, stars. If it ain't 5 stars then Painter is a failure. Having first team all americans, getting players drafted, things like that don't matter. Just stars. Not need. Not potential. Stars. I love our incoming class next year, but it is just more "proof" to the delusionals that Painter can't recruit at an "elite" level. Painter is a failure and 5 stars are success to them. Purdue should be a destination school to them, which it will never be.

 

[euchre13]

Institution 2015 Total Revenue
from Athletics[55] 2015 Total Expenses
on Athletics[55] 2015 Surplus/(Deficit) 2012 Average Spending
per student-athlete[56]
Ohio State University $167,166,065 $154,033,208 $13,152,857 $158,901
University of Michigan $152,477,026 $151,144,964 $1,332,062 $133,488
Pennsylvania State University $125,720,619 $122,271,407 $3,448,883 Not reported
University of Wisconsin–Madison $123,895,543 $118,691,112 $5,204,431 $116,487
University of Minnesota $111,162,265 $111,162,265 $0 $102,980
Michigan State University $108,687,274 $108,283,151 $404,123 $120,356
University of Iowa $105,969,545 $109,214,651 ($3,245,106) $154,592
University of Nebraska–Lincoln $102,157,399 $98,023,037 $4,134,362 $128,182
University of Maryland, College Park $92,686,128 $92,558,535 $127,593 $113,706
Indiana University Bloomington $88,362,421 $88,330,530 $31,891 $110,102
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign $85,998,659 $87,163,188 ($1,164,529) $154,719
Purdue University $75,637,694 $74,420,334 $1,217,360 $135,301
Rutgers University–New Brunswick $70,558,935 $70,558,935 $0 $104,638
Northwestern University Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported

 

[M51]

Can you link me to their national rankings. I didn't put a question mark because it's rhetorical. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I love that you love those guys. But people qualify recruiting by one thing and one thing alone, stars. If it ain't 5 stars then Painter is a failure. Having first team all americans, getting players drafted, things like that don't matter. Just stars. Not need. Not potential. Stars. I love our incoming class next year, but it is just more "proof" to the delusionals that Painter can't recruit at an "elite" level. Painter is a failure and 5 stars are success to them. Purdue should be a destination school to them, which it will never be.

I just did. There is also John Garrett. I listed more talent in a 10-12 year period than Painter has had in 10-12 years. There is also Bruce Parkinson, Jerry Sichting, Bob Ford. Today, all would be listed as 4 or 5 stars. Two Indiana Mr. Basketball on same team. "Star" rating did not exist in the 60's and 70's.