Haha okay, man. Not going to get into it on a message board. We're all Purdue fans here.
Be well. Let's hope Painter figures it out next year and doesn't lose to a 14 seed this time. Looking forward to your defense of CMP if that happens.
How Painter stays
- Thread starter dumpsterFyre
- Start date
Be well. Let's hope Painter figures it out next year and doesn't lose to a 14 seed this time. Looking forward to your defense of CMP if that happens.
Do you care about winning or who you lose to?
I don't know your motivation but too many sensitive people get their feelings hurt because they're embarrassed by who we lost to. So many fragile fans repeating the same thing, poor me, I've been wronged because my feelings are hurt.
I could not care less who we lose to, I only care about how far we go. My ego is not that fragile.
I mean, I hear you, but when you lose to three double-digit seeds (including a 16) in a row...a feat no other team in the history of the NCAA tourney has accomplished...I think it's worth putting a LITTLE stock into who you lose to. It's not necessarily an ego thing. It's a glaring smack in the face that something needs to be fixed.
Agreed. Some on this board have put a lot more than a LITTLE stock in who we have lost to.
Did we get extra credit for losing to high seeds like Duke or Virginia ?
I am being honest.
If someone is going to say Painter is a great recruiter, I can refute that in 2 ways.
1) expert recruiting rankings
or
2) Performance when it matters most: March.
Some will point to strong regular season performance but we seen that that doesn't translate to success in the tourney.
I guess you could argue that Painters players play slightly above their recruiting rankings, but that's tough to argue with the last 3 year early exit flops.
If Painter gets beat in the first or second round next year, he should resign.
I won't get into detail around the difference between being truthful and being intellectually honest, but I've attached a very simplistic article on it if you're interested.Link - Intellectual Honesty
While pointing solely to recruiting ratings is truthful, it's not intellectually honest because we know that in aggregate Painter recruits significantly outperform their recruiting rankings. To say that they only slightly outperform their rankings is ludicrous and in no way based in fact.
Neither is your assertion that the performance of Painter teams in March proves that he is a poor recruiter. While you and your ilk insist on pointing to who Purdue has lost two the last three seasons, the fact remains that Purdue has gone to three sweet sixteens and one elite eight the past six tournaments. That is not debatable.
As an aside, if I were to try to support the view that Painter is not a great recruiter I would point to all of the highly ranked players who had at least some interest in Purdue and ended up signing elsewhere. That number has decreased in recent years but there have been a bunch of them over the years.
Last edited:
It is an ego and and an embarrassment thing and if I'm being honest, I'll tell you that I feel it too. If it weren't we'd also be talking about the fact that Purdue has made three Sweet Sixteen's and an Elite Eight in the last six tournaments in addition to the three horrendous flop losses.
We'd also be talking about how the backcourts in those three losses being inadequate or immature is the common thread (yes, that's Painter's fault, he assembled the teams) and hoping that a more mature Smith and Loyer can solve that problem this year. If they can't we may win a few games in the NCAAT based on frontcourt talent but we're not going to sniff a FF.
The "experts"???? The guys that consistently miss-rank our team, knew nothing of Zack Edey, and didn't think much of Ivey or Edwards? Oh, that's right, those "experts". LOL.
Do the recruiting experts miss on some guys? Of course. Look at Morton, Newman, etc. But more often than not, they get it close to right.
There's a reason that statistically, the teams with the consistently higher ranked recruiting classes, have more tourney success. Again, it's not 100% all the time, but more often than not.
Last edited:
That's all pretty subjective.
What are the metrics you're using to prove that Painters recruits significantly outperform their recruiting rankings? You said it's based on fact; what facts?
I didn't say Painter was poor recruiter, I said he wasn't great, and closed to good/average.
You like to point to S16s like they're some great accomplishment. According to where Purdue was seeded in those years, they were EXPECTED to make it to the S16. They were not EXPECTED to lose to double digit seeds. That is not debatable.
That's called failure, underperforming, choking, whatever descriptor you want to use.
For the guys who get drafted it is pretty easy to quantify. The draft gives you 1-60 rankings (at least on potential) each year. It's not entirely accurate for big men, but it gives you a good idea. Jaden Ivey was around 80th in recruit rankings and went 5th in the draft. Carsen was 145 in recruiting rankings and was drafted 26th?
The reality is we are rarely in the top 25 recruiting rankings, but we are always in the top 25 in actual performance. That is a quantifiable number, and the result of development and the system. You can debate which is more impactful, but if both our system and our recruiting/development were as awful as you seem to think it is, we wouldn't be an automatic in the top 25.
Going into this past tourney, we were one of 2 teams that had put our team in the S16 or further in 4 of 5 tourneys. TWO teams. You put your team in the position to win it all enough and eventually you will win. Both of those two teams are in a position to win it all in more years than not. We caught some bad breaks (Haas elbow, Virginia miracle) and choked (Last 2 years), but we are close. Just need to not choke in the years we don't catch a bad break.......
It's really not that subjective and it's pretty simple. If you wanted to pull a couple of data points you could look at 1) number of five star recruits relative to number of all Americans and 2) recruiting rankings relative to regular season and NCAAT finishes.
I absolutely don't point to Sweet Sixteens as a 'great accomplishment', I point them out because it means that you finished somewhere between 9th and 16th nationally. Given that Purdue's recruiting classes are almost never rated that highly it demonstrates, once again, that Painter's recruits outperform their rankings.
I agree with you, btw, that Painter is not a great recruiter. He is, IMO, a great evaluator and developer of talent and seems to be improving in his close rate of his tier 1 prospects, but no one is going to accuse him of being one of the best recruiters in the country.
So, is the measure of performance regular season or the tournament? Because if you're using the regular season, then yeh, Purdue has performed fairly well. If you consider tourney success (like most do nationally) to be the measure of a program, then Painter has failed, and done so in historic fashion.
Maybe Purdue wins it all this year. Trust me, I wish to hell they do and I'll be there for the ride, but if they bow out again in the first weekend, then that solidifies Painters place.
If I'm not mistaken, Purdue currently has 1 player on an NBA roster. Check that though.
I'm also willing to guess that during Painter's 18 yrs at Purdue, he's never had more than 3 players in the NBA simultaneously.
Your logic is either incredibly faulty or you want it both ways. Painter typically doesn't have top 20 recruiting classes but in four of the past six years he's finished between 9th and 16th nationally three times and between 5th and 8th once based solely on NCAAT results.
How is that 'failing' or in anyway underperforming relative to his recruiting results. The answer is it's not. You're not making any sense. If you want to say that he needs to recruit better that's fine. If you want to say his NCAAT results don't match his regular season results that's fine. Saying that his NCAAT results aren't better than his recruiting rankings is just false.
Last edited:
Again, your logic makes zero sense. The question was player performance relative to recruiting ranking. How many all americans and draft picks has Painter had relative to the number of five star players he has signed. This isn't hard unless you make it so by purposely ignoring facts and trying to distort the information. This is what I mean by intellectual dishonestly.
Would have if Hummel had better knees. The you would have had 1 year with landry moore Hummel Johnson and if landry played one more year would have had a second year same first three and swap Hammons for johnson. Not gonna bother to look at the recent years with swanigan (or Carsen edwards) and moore + the two waycontracts with Dakota mathias and vincent edwards getting some spurts on nba floors. But they might have overlapped as well. And even then, so what? Then we just move the goal post and say painters never had more than 4 of his guys in the nba at the same time 🤷🏽♂️
the message being,Painter has developed some really nice college players but very little NBA level talent.
Getting that elite talent is probably the difference in lack of tournament success
Getting that elite talent is probably the difference in lack of tournament success
What, if anything, do you have to show this is true? A link? A study? Bill Walton acid trip?
I find this not relevant as many college players have great college careers or seasons but do not fit the current NBA. I have no time to support this, but I think it would be easy.
Apparently you aren't able to see the OTHER option.
The wait won't be long.
To answer one question above, we are actually getting recruits coming here. We’ve signed several Mr Basketballs. We’re doing a lot better recruiting than the vast majority of other big 10 schools! We are just not getting very many projected one and dones or McDonald’s all Americans.
If you really want to know why they are not coming to Purdue the answer is very simple. Painter is not interested and not offering them. Take a look at the country’s best players. You will find very few with an offer from Purdue. I guess you could ask the question why isn’t Painter extending an offer to the top 10 available athletes. I don’t know the answer to that.
I do know painter has made offers to several projected one and dones and we made their top 5. So he is not totally avoiding them. He recruited Holgrem and the guard who went to IU and was drafted by Boston. He is recruiting Flory.
I’ve said it before. If you want to fire a guy, you need to be bold and suggest a replacement! At the moment I can’t think of anybody who would do a better job. It certainly won’t be Huggins
If you really want to know why they are not coming to Purdue the answer is very simple. Painter is not interested and not offering them. Take a look at the country’s best players. You will find very few with an offer from Purdue. I guess you could ask the question why isn’t Painter extending an offer to the top 10 available athletes. I don’t know the answer to that.
I do know painter has made offers to several projected one and dones and we made their top 5. So he is not totally avoiding them. He recruited Holgrem and the guard who went to IU and was drafted by Boston. He is recruiting Flory.
I’ve said it before. If you want to fire a guy, you need to be bold and suggest a replacement! At the moment I can’t think of anybody who would do a better job. It certainly won’t be Huggins
Expect no, zero, nada changes from MP:
Purdue basketball’s Matt Painter discusses upcoming season
The Boilermakers began summer practices last week.
www.jconline.com
4 Sweet 16's in 6 years with one of those Elite 8, how many other schools doing better? Truth hurts.
Why would you change , when having success?. Frosh get older , we get better.Expect no, zero, nada changes from MP:
Purdue basketball’s Matt Painter discusses upcoming season
The Boilermakers began summer practices last week.www.jconline.com
4 Sweet 16's out of 6 Years, how many schools having more success?
I'm sure there's data that would show some sort of statistical correlation over time between NBA talent and deep tourney/Final four/NC success. Again, you have to take aggregate data over time, not a single team in a single year (Purdue in 2022....)
I'm not talking about great college player. There's a bunch of those. But is there a difference between a great college player and an NBA level talent (and over time, which makes deeper tourney runs?).
It's also supporting cast: If you have a first rounder surrounded by a bunch of guys who are 2 star recruits, that will impact tourney success as well.
Every....single...time....the "Well, who would you replace him with Smart guy?" question comes up and people provide a list of replacements, the reply is always "HE'D NEVER COME TO PURDUE!"
So, usually, the one asking for replacements doesn't like the answers.
Or, you could look it as 1-4 in S16 games in 6 years followed up by a 1 losing to a 16 seed.
And there in lies the problem...... You probably said the same about Keady.
But seriously they should be better. The key is what the new guys bring in atheleticism, ability to get their own shots, and get to the rim when shooting is off. Hopefully Loyer builds some stamina and muscle to make it through the season strong. Zach being able to his a 10- 12 footer at a good % face to the basket from time to time would help.
