How Painter stays

[bonefish1]

Is it unreasonable to ask for coaches who are both better and would be interested in the Purdue job if you want to replace Painter? One without the other doesn’t seem very useful.

Unless you've had a direct conversation with the coach or his agent, non of us know who and who wouldn't be interested. You can get someone interested if you're willing to write a big enough check.
But screaming "HE'D NEVER COME TO PURDUE!!" isn't an answer when a list is presented.

 

[bonefish1]

His list is delusional.

Might as well include Coach K and Dean Smith. Speaks to the disconnect between what Purdue actually is and what some fans want it to be. Just go root for Kansas or Duke in that case rather than spending your life being miserable that Purdue isn't what you want it to be.

Thank you for supporting my argument. Well done.

 

[Gemini95]

Thank you for supporting my argument. Well done.

That response from him really says it all. We're Purdue we can't expect more we're just supposed to stare at our shoes and be thankful for what we have. I mean Eric Musselman? The audacity Sir! You might as well be asking for James Naismith!!

 

[northside100]

Thank you for supporting my argument. Well done.

I fully support your right to flail against windmills.

 

[JRKinn]

I give bonefish props and respect! I said if you want to replace Painter, have the balls to go out and name a potential replacement. And he did! While many may disagree with his choices, at least unlike all the rest of you actually offered a name for discussion!

I honestly agree with him on Mussleman. If we were to move on from Painter he would be at the top of my list too. If I'm being honest with myself I would put some previously shady characters on there as well since the NCAA doesn't really have any rules anymore. Sampson and Alford come to mind. Both got bit multiple times prior to NIL/Transfer rules changes for stuff that wouldn't likely be enforced anymore, and both have great track records of winning both regular season and in the Tourney.

Personally I think most realistic candidates would be extremely risky compared to just riding with Painter, who has proven he can get us in the tourney every year and compete with the best teams in the country. But I can see why frustration with recent tourney exits might entice people to dream of greener pastures. Problem is the grass isn't usually greener on the other side......

 

[northside100]

Unless you've had a direct conversation with the coach or his agent, non of us know who and who wouldn't be interested. You can get someone interested if you're willing to write a big enough check.
But screaming "HE'D NEVER COME TO PURDUE!!" isn't an answer when a list is presented.

I understand what you're saying. Without screaming anything, here's what I'd say:

• In the current state Purdue is not, by any objective measure, a better job than the current position held by the coaches you mentioned. Agree that money can change anything.
• I find it hard to believe that the Purdue University and Athletic administration is going to start writing checks to be the 'top bidder'. I just don't see a world in which that happens. I could be wrong.

I'm probably too harsh in my responses to you at times as I do recognize and understand your position. I'm more optimistic in my evaluation of making a FF and winning a NC on the current path but recognize that the odds are against us. So long as you recognize that what you're calling for would require a fundamental change to how Purdue approaches athletics I can understand your position.

 

[northside100]

I honestly agree with him on Mussleman. If we were to move on from Painter he would be at the top of my list too. If I'm being honest with myself I would put some previously shady characters on there as well since the NCAA doesn't really have any rules anymore. Sampson and Alford come to mind. Both got bit multiple times prior to NIL/Transfer rules changes for stuff that wouldn't likely be enforced anymore, and both have great track records of winning both regular season and in the Tourney.

Personally I think most realistic candidates would be extremely risky compared to just riding with Painter, who has proven he can get us in the tourney every year and compete with the best teams in the country. But I can see why frustration with recent tourney exits might entice people to dream of greener pastures. Problem is the grass isn't usually greener on the other side......

There is no question that moving in another direction would entail a huge amount of risk. I guess it's our luxury as fans to not have to worry about that.

 

[bonefish1]

I understand what you're saying. Without screaming anything, here's what I'd say:

• In the current state Purdue is not, by any objective measure, a better job than the current position held by the coaches you mentioned. Agree that money can change anything.
• I find it hard to believe that the Purdue University and Athletic administration is going to start writing checks to be the 'top bidder'. I just don't see a world in which that happens. I could be wrong.

I'm probably too harsh in my responses to you at times as I do recognize and understand your position. I'm more optimistic in my evaluation of making a FF and winning a NC on the current path but recognize that the odds are against us. So long as you recognize that what you're calling for would require a fundamental change to how Purdue approaches athletics I can understand your position.

Didn't Brohm's contract prove that Purdue is willing to pay up? If I'm not mistaken, I believe his most recent contract was Top 15, maybe even better, nationally when it was signed.

So, I don't agree the argument that Purdue isn't willing to be a top bidder for the right person.

Just for fun, if Painter resigned tomorrow, who would be on your short list of replacements ?

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I heard Bob Huggins is available.

 

[northside100]

Didn't Brohm's contract prove that Purdue is willing to pay up? If I'm not mistaken, I believe his most recent contract was Top 15, maybe even better, nationally when it was signed.

So, I don't agree the argument that Purdue isn't willing to be a top bidder for the right person.

Just for fun, if Painter resigned tomorrow, who would be on your short list of replacements ?

I’ll answer your question as to who I would hire but the Brohm situation is not remotely the same as what you were proposing.

The equivalent scenario is if Brohm had already been at Louisville and we tried to lure him away. The guys on your list would not see Purdue as an upgrade, it is at the very best a lateral move and most would consider it to be at least half of a step down. The size of the check you are talking about would dwarf the check needed to keep Brohm in place when the alternative was at the time a complete shit show in Louisville .

 

[BoilerAndy]

I honestly agree with him on Mussleman. If we were to move on from Painter he would be at the top of my list too. If I'm being honest with myself I would put some previously shady characters on there as well since the NCAA doesn't really have any rules anymore. Sampson and Alford come to mind. Both got bit multiple times prior to NIL/Transfer rules changes for stuff that wouldn't likely be enforced anymore, and both have great track records of winning both regular season and in the Tourney.

Personally I think most realistic candidates would be extremely risky compared to just riding with Painter, who has proven he can get us in the tourney every year and compete with the best teams in the country. But I can see why frustration with recent tourney exits might entice people to dream of greener pastures. Problem is the grass isn't usually greener on the other side......

The NCAA doesn't have rules, but Purdue does, and they have integrity. It has to be legal AND the right thing to do. Some here have always promoted lying to recruits and bending the rules, and they get mad when they hear that Purdue won't do it. If throwing integrity out the window is what it takes to win, no thanks.

 

[SCBoiler1]

Next year's team is going to be good. No doubt. But like 2020/2021 next year will be an interesting challenge or Painter.

In 2020/2021 we had two all conference type big men and a lottery pick and we didn't even win the B10. That year he couldn't figure out how to get two of our best three players on the court at the same time. He also couldn't figure out who to start at the point. In hindsight he certainly didn't maximize the talent that year.

I see similarities this year. While Edey is clearly Purdue's best player and Smith should be a lock at the one, there are a lot of pieces at the 2, ,3 and 4. Contrary to what many on this board believe, Painter isn't going to play 11 guys (sorry Waddell). Fans tend to slot in 2 guys at each poistion when considering the rotation. That isn't right either. Go look at any college box score. Most teams play 7, 8 or 9 guys. If they play 9 that 9th guy get 5 to 10 minutes at the most (Trey last year). Which of the 8 or 9 guys Painter chooses to play, at what position, the number of minutes for each and the combination of whose on the court together will be a real challenge for Painter next year.

I can't wait to see how it plays out.

 

[bonefish1]

I’ll answer your question as to who I would hire but the Brohm situation is not remotely the same as what you were proposing.

The equivalent scenario is if Brohm had already been at Louisville and we tried to lure him away. The guys on your list would not see Purdue as an upgrade, it is at the very best a lateral move and most would consider it to be at least half of a step down. The size of the check you are talking about would dwarf the check needed to keep Brohm in place when the alternative was at the time a complete shit show in Louisville .

Again, how do you know who would/wouldn't be interested in Purdue? Unless you've had the guy and his agent over for dinner and discussed this specifically, you're just basing this on your own bias. (in other words, you have no idea).

And frankly, as fans, why do we give 2 $hits about what a coach is paid, especially if you have to pay up?
In most states, the highest paid state employee is the state public university's FB or BB coach. So it's pretty common practice to pay these guys a lot of $.

Does it impact you as a fan whether Purdue paid Painter $2.5M/year but then went after another coach and paid him $4M/year? That's a 60% increase, but in the grand scheme of things, it's all relative.

 

[bonefish1]

The NCAA doesn't have rules, but Purdue does, and they have integrity. It has to be legal AND the right thing to do. Some here have always promoted lying to recruits and bending the rules, and they get mad when they hear that Purdue won't do it. If throwing integrity out the window is what it takes to win, no thanks.

I can see your "Holier than thou" glow coming through the screen on my PC......

 

[bonefish1]

Next year's team is going to be good. No doubt. But like 2020/2021 next year will be an interesting challenge or Painter.

In 2020/2021 we had two all conference type big men and a lottery pick and we didn't even win the B10. That year he couldn't figure out how to get two of our best three players on the court at the same time. He also couldn't figure out who to start at the point. In hindsight he certainly didn't maximize the talent that year.

I see similarities this year. While Edey is clearly Purdue's best player and Smith should be a lock at the one, there are a lot of pieces at the 2, ,3 and 4. Contrary to what many on this board believe, Painter isn't going to play 11 guys (sorry Waddell). Fans tend to slot in 2 guys at each poistion when considering the rotation. That isn't right either. Go look at any college box score. Most teams play 7, 8 or 9 guys. If they play 9 that 9th guy get 5 to 10 minutes at the most (Trey last year). Which of the 8 or 9 guys Painter chooses to play, at what position, the number of minutes for each and the combination of whose on the court together will be a real challenge for Painter next year.

I can't wait to see how it plays out.

I agree.
I think we'll see early on whether Painter is going to reward seniority and the 'safe' bet at the 3/4 or whether he's going to play talent and let players learn, develop, and grow early in the year in the hopes that these guys are veterans for tourney time.

 

[northside100]

Next year's team is going to be good. No doubt. But like 2020/2021 next year will be an interesting challenge or Painter.

In 2020/2021 we had two all conference type big men and a lottery pick and we didn't even win the B10. That year he couldn't figure out how to get two of our best three players on the court at the same time. He also couldn't figure out who to start at the point. In hindsight he certainly didn't maximize the talent that year.

I see similarities this year. While Edey is clearly Purdue's best player and Smith should be a lock at the one, there are a lot of pieces at the 2, ,3 and 4. Contrary to what many on this board believe, Painter isn't going to play 11 guys (sorry Waddell). Fans tend to slot in 2 guys at each poistion when considering the rotation. That isn't right either. Go look at any college box score. Most teams play 7, 8 or 9 guys. If they play 9 that 9th guy get 5 to 10 minutes at the most (Trey last year). Which of the 8 or 9 guys Painter chooses to play, at what position, the number of minutes for each and the combination of whose on the court together will be a real challenge for Painter next year.

I can't wait to see how it plays out.

Agree that finding the right mix of players and allocating minutes will be an important challenge. Zach is going to play his minutes as will Jones, Smith and Loyer. Watching how minutes and rotation play out between Trey, Mason and Caleb and Heide, Colvin and potentially Waddell (probably not but he's going to get a chance to complete) will be fascinating.

I agree that the 2021 team had challenges but I'm not sure that I see a lot of parallels. That team was very talented but had deep roster and experience / maturity flaws that I don't see with this team. Tre and Zach were both centers that couldn't play together. If that's on Painter it's a roster composition issue not a 'couldn't' find a way to play them together issue', as much as many fans wanted to see that.

Two of the three best players on the team in JI and Tre didn't want to play defense consistently and certainly didn't want to play Painter;s style of disciplined team defense. For as talented as Jaden was and as dominant as he could be at times, he wasn't consistent and had games that could have sealed a conference championship or NCAAT advancement that left you scratching your head. Sasha had a hand injury the second half of the season and wasn't at his best, Hunter moped for the first half of the season because he wasn't starting and then didn't show up in big games when he did start. IT was fine as a role player but wasn't a go to guy.

 

[pubill]

It has been pointed out that educated people tend to able to see through the lies and make the smarter choices!

I know, I do.

 

[northside100]

Again, how do you know who would/wouldn't be interested in Purdue? Unless you've had the guy and his agent over for dinner and discussed this specifically, you're just basing this on your own bias. (in other words, you have no idea).

And frankly, as fans, why do we give 2 $hits about what a coach is paid, especially if you have to pay up?
In most states, the highest paid state employee is the state public university's FB or BB coach. So it's pretty common practice to pay these guys a lot of $.

Does it impact you as a fan whether Purdue paid Painter $2.5M/year but then went after another coach and paid him $4M/year? That's a 60% increase, but in the grand scheme of things, it's all relative.

You're once again using logical fallacies. The fact that we don't have proof that a coach is not interested in Purdue is in no way indicative of the fact that they would be interested. Sure, make the calls, I'm all for it, but you could make the same argument you're using with the same guys if you were hiring for Indiana State. It just doesn't make sense. The more relevant question would be, other than money, what would make Purdue more appealing than their current job? I don't have a good answer for that.

I have no objection to Purdue paying as much as they want for a coach. It is, IMO, naïve to think that 1) their current schools aren't as well or better positioned than Purdue to match any offer from Purdue and 2) that Purdue would make an offer so over the top that their current schools wouldn't match.

 

[Gemini95]

You're once again using logical fallacies. The fact that we don't have proof that a coach is not interested in Purdue is in no way indicative of the fact that they would be interested. Sure, make the calls, I'm all for it, but you could make the same argument you're using with the same guys if you were hiring for Indiana State. It just doesn't make sense. The more relevant question would be, other than money, what would make Purdue more appealing than their current job? I don't have a good answer for that.

I have no objection to Purdue paying as much as they want for a coach. It is, IMO, naïve to think that 1) their current schools aren't as well or better positioned than Purdue to match any offer from Purdue and 2) that Purdue would make an offer so over the top that their current schools wouldn't match.

Not sure you realize it, but you have a very low opinion of Purdue basketball. Not saying you don't love it and want it to be great. You just don't think much of it.

 

[Schmedly_Whiplash]

I honestly agree with him on Mussleman. If we were to move on from Painter he would be at the top of my list too. If I'm being honest with myself I would put some previously shady characters on there as well since the NCAA doesn't really have any rules anymore. Sampson and Alford come to mind. Both got bit multiple times prior to NIL/Transfer rules changes for stuff that wouldn't likely be enforced anymore, and both have great track records of winning both regular season and in the Tourney.

Personally I think most realistic candidates would be extremely risky compared to just riding with Painter, who has proven he can get us in the tourney every year and compete with the best teams in the country. But I can see why frustration with recent tourney exits might entice people to dream of greener pastures. Problem is the grass isn't usually greener on the other side......

You'd consider Alford? WTF are you smoking? Hoosier fan much>?

 

[bonefish1]

You're once again using logical fallacies. The fact that we don't have proof that a coach is not interested in Purdue is in no way indicative of the fact that they would be interested. Sure, make the calls, I'm all for it, but you could make the same argument you're using with the same guys if you were hiring for Indiana State. It just doesn't make sense. The more relevant question would be, other than money, what would make Purdue more appealing than their current job? I don't have a good answer for that.

I have no objection to Purdue paying as much as they want for a coach. It is, IMO, naïve to think that 1) their current schools aren't as well or better positioned than Purdue to match any offer from Purdue and 2) that Purdue would make an offer so over the top that their current schools wouldn't match.

There's a lot that would make Purdue an appealing job:
It's got arguably one of the best home court environments in college basketball.
It's proven to be able to get high rankings and high seeds.
Plays in a Top1-3 conf.
Access to recruiting hotbeds.
Support of the athletic administration
Facilities.

 

[Schmedly_Whiplash]

Next year's team is going to be good. No doubt. But like 2020/2021 next year will be an interesting challenge or Painter.

In 2020/2021 we had two all conference type big men and a lottery pick and we didn't even win the B10. That year he couldn't figure out how to get two of our best three players on the court at the same time. He also couldn't figure out who to start at the point. In hindsight he certainly didn't maximize the talent that year.

I see similarities this year. While Edey is clearly Purdue's best player and Smith should be a lock at the one, there are a lot of pieces at the 2, ,3 and 4. Contrary to what many on this board believe, Painter isn't going to play 11 guys (sorry Waddell). Fans tend to slot in 2 guys at each poistion when considering the rotation. That isn't right either. Go look at any college box score. Most teams play 7, 8 or 9 guys. If they play 9 that 9th guy get 5 to 10 minutes at the most (Trey last year). Which of the 8 or 9 guys Painter chooses to play, at what position, the number of minutes for each and the combination of whose on the court together will be a real challenge for Painter next year.

I can't wait to see how it plays out.

Clueless would be kind.

 

[northside100]

Not sure you realize it, but you have a very low opinion of Purdue basketball. Not saying you don't love it and want it to be great. You just don't think much of it.

It depends upon how you define 'low' opinion. I realize that I have a view of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the program that differs from many fans.

Based on internal and external resources I'd consider the 'natural state' of Purdue basketball to be in the second quartile of Big Ten jobs and a solid top 15 to top 25 program nationally. I'd view Purdue to be a borderline top ten program (not team) right now but see much of that as driven by MP and do not equate currently being a top ten program to Purdue being a top ten job.

When I look at Smart, Drew, Cronnin and Musselman, three of those jobs (Baylor, Arkansas and UCLA) will throw resources towards the program and have an appetite for playing in grey areas in ways that Purdue traditionally has not. Smart at Marquette would be, IMO, the closest to being 'in play' but he has some natural ties to Wisconsin and is likely not eager to move again after having a rough experience at Texas.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Didn't Brohm's contract prove that Purdue is willing to pay up? If I'm not mistaken, I believe his most recent contract was Top 15, maybe even better, nationally when it was signed.

So, I don't agree the argument that Purdue isn't willing to be a top bidder for the right person.

Just for fun, if Painter resigned tomorrow, who would be on your short list of replacements ?

That’s a completely apples to oranges comparison.

When Brohm got that contract extension, there wasn’t a $16 million buyout on top of it, like there would be now.

Brohm is a football coach. You may not know this, but Purdue Football had a huge revenue opportunity in 2017-18, ie thousands of empty seats and parking spaces, concessions and merchandise not being sold, etc.

Purdue basketball does not have a huge revenue opportunity. There is no ROI on paying CMP $16 million to go away, and then spend $10 million a year on a new coach on top of that.

 

[northside100]

There's a lot that would make Purdue an appealing job:
It's got arguably one of the best home court environments in college basketball.
It's proven to be able to get high rankings and high seeds.
Plays in a Top1-3 conf.
Access to recruiting hotbeds.
Support of the athletic administration
Facilities.

Agree on home court advantage
Playing in the Big Ten is a double edged sword
Support from the university administration is more important than support from the AD and Purdue is maybe top 25 in that regard. It's certainly not just throwing resources at the program the way that other programs do.
Facilities are fine but I don't think there's anything there that sets Purdue apart from other top 25 programs

Purdue is a fine job. It is by no stretch considered to be a top tier job.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

It depends upon how you define 'low' opinion. I realize that I have a view of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the program that differs from many fans.

Based on internal and external resources I'd consider the 'natural state' of Purdue basketball to be in the second quartile of Big Ten jobs and a solid top 15 to top 25 program nationally. I'd view Purdue to be a borderline top ten program (not team) right now but see much of that as driven by MP and do not equate currently being a top ten program to Purdue being a top ten job.

When I look at Smart, Drew, Cronnin and Musselman, three of those jobs (Baylor, Arkansas and UCLA) will throw resources towards the program and have an appetite for playing in grey areas in ways that Purdue traditionally has not. Smart at Marquette would be, IMO, the closest to being 'in play' but he has some natural ties to Wisconsin and is likely not eager to move again after having a rough experience at Texas.

Only a fool would think we can outbid Wally World peeps for Musselman.

 

[Gemini95]

It depends upon how you define 'low' opinion.

Not high. On par with Indiana State.

 

[northside100]

Not high. On par with Indiana State.

Yeah, I'm not going to play that game. I answered your question, if you can't follow what a logical fallacy is or don't want to read my answer that a-ok with me.

 

[Dryfly88]

Agree on home court advantage
Playing in the Big Ten is a double edged sword
Support from the university administration is more important than support from the AD and Purdue is maybe top 25 in that regard. It's certainly not just throwing resources at the program the way that other programs do.
Facilities are fine but I don't think there's anything there that sets Purdue apart from other top 25 programs

Purdue is a fine job. It is by no stretch considered to be a top tier job.

I'll wade into this pool.....

IMO, it's not considered a top tier job because we haven't done well in March. Our "brand" is of a school that plays hard, has good guys and wins lots of regular season games. The national narrative is that we are bad in March. This isn't completely true but because of our high profile losses to highly seeded teams that is how it is perceived. Win a NC or get to a couple FF's and that will change and it will be looked at differently. Not having big March success is not only a drag on CMP, its a drag on the program as a whole and how it is viewed nationally as a desired place to coach.

I don't think that is necessarily fair to CMP or the school. But I do think that is how we are looked at. I guarantee we will all be sick of the national broadcast games showing our March failures this coming season. It is a narrative that follows us until we can break it.

 

[titaniumbolt]

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.

This team reminds me of the 20/21 team that lost to N. Texas and then made it to the S16 the next year (but lost to St. Pete's). It's essentially the same team that woefully underperformed in March, but we're expecting that to be a fluke and for them to turn it around next March.

We have some stellar pieces mixed in with some serious weaknesses, primarily the guards, and we're really hoping for the frosh to not play like frosh (never wise). We'll see if history repeats itself - I'm curious what people think the floor/ceiling is for this team come closer to fall. But right now I see the ceiling being a final four and the floor being a 2nd round exit.

 

[PurdueDave]

There's a lot that would make Purdue an appealing job:
It's got arguably one of the best home court environments in college basketball.
It's proven to be able to get high rankings and high seeds.
Plays in a Top1-3 conf.
Access to recruiting hotbeds.
Support of the athletic administration
Facilities.

So most would argue that IU has all that plus a lot more....Right? So why can't they get any coach they want?

I don't have the answer, but I just don't see how Purdue is going to get a big time hire when the scum down south can't even do it.

 

[Gemini95]

Yeah, I'm not going to play that game. I answered your question, if you can't follow what a logical fallacy is or don't want to read my answer that a-ok with me.

I did not ask you a question or use a logical fallacy. I simply commented on your opinion of. Purdue basketball using your own words.

 

[Wolegib]

In looking at a replacement, one must first identify what it is about Painter you don’t like and want to improve on. Is it his recruiting? His X’s and O’s? Development of players? Refusal to play zone defense? Bad play calling down the stretch? Style of play? Use of experienced players over inexperienced but more talented players? Refusal to recruit one and dones? His honesty and integrity? Lack of a point guard who can be a floor general on the floor? Love of big men?

For some of those things, hiring the right assistant coach could be the answer rather than replacing Painter.

In the recruiting world a lot of recruiting is accomplished by assistant coaches. Painter is a lot more involved in recruiting than most head coaches are. Lust supposedly spent a lot of time at Lulaumanary Academy but never was able to lure their best players to come to Purdue. Zo was not a great coach, but was an awesome recruiter. shrewsberry was also a great recruiter.

Purdue has had some awesome assistants developing big men! Perhaps what they need is an assistant known for developing guards! Iowa football has a long reputation for its assistant coaches developing offensive linemen. Maybe if Purdue had a different assistant working with its guards, we would do a better job at beating a press. Nothing against our current assistant, but if he couldn’t beat the press as a player, one would suspect he wouldn’t be that great at teaching players on how to beat the press as a coach.

I say this because when I look at the great coaches, they all seemed to also have awesome assistants. Wasn’t Denny Crum an assistant coach at UCLA? Didn’t Kansas, Duke and North Carolina all have awesome assistant coaches?

Rather than replacing Painter, maybe you are looking at the wrong person that needs replacing and the wrong areas of our basketball program that need improvement!

Painter is stubborn about a lot of things. He does have a good eye for talent! Zo could be the guy to recruit those players and close the deal and secure those elite players. And a different assistant could train our guards! Rather than hiring former players, maybe Purdue needs to evaluate their weaknesses and identify assistants from outside of Purdue that are skilled at improving them. Maybe rather than paying Painter or a new head coach more money, we could spend some more money and steal some assistants from Duke or UCLA or Kansas!

Take a page from Purdue football! I’m not sure Walters is a great head coach. But he sure does appear to have assembled a great staff of assistants!

Just a thought.

 

[northside100]

I'll wade into this pool.....

IMO, it's not considered a top tier job because we haven't done well in March. Our "brand" is of a school that plays hard, has good guys and wins lots of regular season games. The national narrative is that we are bad in March. This isn't completely true but because of our high profile losses to highly seeded teams that is how it is perceived. Win a NC or get to a couple FF's and that will change and it will be looked at differently. Not having big March success is not only a drag on CMP, its a drag on the program as a whole and how it is viewed nationally as a desired place to coach.

I don't think that is necessarily fair to CMP or the school. But I do think that is how we are looked at. I guarantee we will all be sick of the national broadcast games showing our March failures this coming season. It is a narrative that follows us until we can break it.

I think you make some excellent points and I'm not sure which factors are causal versus correlated for things like university level support and media and public perception.

I do agree that FF or NC success in the NCAAT, particularly if it occurs multiple times, would shift the national perception. You could point to cases like like Villanova or UVA where that's happened and I'm not sure that the perception of the job has shifted as much as the perception of the coach.

 

[bonefish1]

I'll wade into this pool.....

IMO, it's not considered a top tier job because we haven't done well in March. Our "brand" is of a school that plays hard, has good guys and wins lots of regular season games. The national narrative is that we are bad in March. This isn't completely true but because of our high profile losses to highly seeded teams that is how it is perceived. Win a NC or get to a couple FF's and that will change and it will be looked at differently. Not having big March success is not only a drag on CMP, its a drag on the program as a whole and how it is viewed nationally as a desired place to coach.

I don't think that is necessarily fair to CMP or the school. But I do think that is how we are looked at. I guarantee we will all be sick of the national broadcast games showing our March failures this coming season. It is a narrative that follows us until we can break it.

200% correct! If Painter could break through with a NC or 2-3 FF appearances in short order, Purdue goes to being a Top 10 job, easily.
Purdue needs to change the culture of "Doing more with less" because that's a backhanded compliment and not appealing to top talent.

 

[bonefish1]

So most would argue that IU has all that plus a lot more....Right? So why can't they get any coach they want?

I don't have the answer, but I just don't see how Purdue is going to get a big time hire when the scum down south can't even do it.

MSU could make the same argument when it comes to UM.

I have a feeling some of it has to do with the ineptitude of the iu athletics administration as well as the ghost of Bobby Knight still hanging over the program.

 

[SCBoiler1]

I agree.
I think we'll see early on whether Painter is going to reward seniority and the 'safe' bet at the 3/4 or whether he's going to play talent and let players learn, develop, and grow early in the year in the hopes that these guys are veterans for tourney time.

I agree here. It seems like Painter's instinct is to play who gives us the best chance to win today (November/December) instead of playing the group that has the highest ceiling. I get the whole "reward guys" who are practicing well but that doesn't always translate into the combination of guys that gives us the best chance of winning in March.

 

[SCBoiler1]

Agree that finding the right mix of players and allocating minutes will be an important challenge. Zach is going to play his minutes as will Jones, Smith and Loyer. Watching how minutes and rotation play out between Trey, Mason and Caleb and Heide, Colvin and potentially Waddell (probably not but he's going to get a chance to complete) will be fascinating.

I agree that the 2021 team had challenges but I'm not sure that I see a lot of parallels. That team was very talented but had deep roster and experience / maturity flaws that I don't see with this team. Tre and Zach were both centers that couldn't play together. If that's on Painter it's a roster composition issue not a 'couldn't' find a way to play them together issue', as much as many fans wanted to see that.

Two of the three best players on the team in JI and Tre didn't want to play defense consistently and certainly didn't want to play Painter;s style of disciplined team defense. For as talented as Jaden was and as dominant as he could be at times, he wasn't consistent and had games that could have sealed a conference championship or NCAAT advancement that left you scratching your head. Sasha had a hand injury the second half of the season and wasn't at his best, Hunter moped for the first half of the season because he wasn't starting and then didn't show up in big games when he did start. IT was fine as a role player but wasn't a go to guy.

Somewhat Agree. I'm not sold on the idea that Loyer has locked down the 2, He might. If he shoots 40% three he's a lock but if he continues to struggle from 3 (I don't think he will) the two is wide open because he doesn't bring a lot of intangibles to the table.

I'm also one that believes 3 out of our best 5 guys play the same position. Trey should be a Jr and you can see he as talent but if he can't get on the floor more than 10 minutes a game it doesn't help Purdue all that much. If you think about it at any given time your going to have Furst and Trey on the bench while Morton is out there doing his thing. Not ideal.

 

[northside100]

I agree here. It seems like Painter's instinct is to play who gives us the best chance to win today (November/December) instead of playing the group that has the highest ceiling. I get the whole "reward guys" who are practicing well but that doesn't always translate into the combination of guys that gives us the best chance of winning in March.

Agree with this, have said the same. MP has given some uber talented guys (Carsen, Biggie, Jaden) bandwidth to play through mistakes but would like to see more of that with more players with the willingness to maybe trade a few wins early in the year to be better prepared for March.

 

[northside100]

Somewhat Agree. I'm not sold on the idea that Loyer has locked down the 2, He might. If he shoots 40% three he's a lock but if he continues to struggle from 3 (I don't think he will) the two is wide open because he doesn't bring a lot of intangibles to the table.

I'm also one that believes 3 out of our best 5 guys play the same position. Trey should be a Jr and you can see he as talent but if he can't get on the floor more than 10 minutes a game it doesn't help Purdue all that much. If you think about it at any given time your going to have Furst and Trey on the bench while Morton is out there doing his thing. Not ideal.

Agree on both counts. I also expect Loyer to be better this year but if he's not, there's nothing to say that some of his minutes can't go to Jones or even Heide or Colvin.

My hope is that if Morton isn't hitting from three at a much higher rate than last year that you have a much more effective Heide or Colvin in his place in the three position, which lessens the sting of only being able to play Gillis, Furst and Trey one at a time except when Zach is getting a break.