How one recruits is about character in my book...In fact thought that was one of the major issues in this recruiting discussion... About f not, my bad.
Hunter interview
- Thread starter Mandeville LA
- Start date
How one recruits is about character in my book...In fact thought that was one of the major issues in this recruiting discussion... About f not, my bad.
If recruiting is about character, and Tom Crean has terrible character, how did he get so much talent while he was at IU?
You are the one that said Crean had horrible character.... I said he was a laughingstock. Coach Painter continues to improve...Think most can agree Crean at IU, not so much. Thus he got fired!
I took laughing stock to be a shot at his character. Crean at IU was not a good fit.
I think everyone on this board knows the answer to this question.
iirc tyler zeller basically alluded to Not wanting the pressure of being The Guy, especially right away
a contributing factor why he went with unc unfortunately
I don't really know anything about the Tyler Zeller recruitment. Was he considering Purdue?
Bottom line for me...Purdue basketball under Matt Painter has not emabarrasef me or Purdue. Are thet perfect? No. Have they sold out like UNC, UL, UK and Az, etc? No. Am I proud to be a Purdue fan...yes. Are they damn competitive? Yes. A banner is worth zero without integrity. I am thrilled Matt is our coach.
It was the cool shoes! ....................... Sorry, I couldn't resist that, true or not.
BoilerBiker is correct. The recruiting gurus said that he was Purdue's to lose. We lost. He later said that he didn't want to be "the man" as a freshman at Purdue. Maybe the experience his brother had with incoming expectations at ND made him nervous. But he certainly underestimated the talent he would have had around him at Purdue.
I'm probably one of the posters my friends on here are saying suggested that Painter 'lie' to recruits.
That's a serious misinterpretation of what was actually said.
What was suggested by me and some others, is that there's a lot grey area in recruiting and it's not black n white. No one on here has advocated that Painter 'lie' or do anything 'illegal' in representing Purdue basketball.
But, the fact is, when recruiting a player like Biggie (5 star, program changer), sometimes you have to say what you have to say when you have to say it.
It's no surprise that Painter 'promised' Biggie that he would play the 4 and not the 5. And while there were times Biggie did actually play the 5, in order for him to reach his personal goals, (NBA power forward), he had to play the 4 the majority of the time on the floor at Purdue. This is exactly why he decommitted from MSU.
I think you're taking things a little too literal. 5* recruits have the best chance to make the NBA. Their decisions on where to go to college can literally make a difference in millions of $. For many, as Biggie said, it's a business decision. A 5* player with 1 n done or 2 n done is going to be treated differently than a 2* player who might contribute as a Jr.
There were a couple of posters that suggested we should be like the guy that sells you a car "only driven to church on Sunday by a little old lady" while failing to tell you it spent 7 days under 8 ft of water in Houston after church was over.
So I guess I'm missing some point here. If the discussion is centered around what Painter needs to change then exactly what is he supposed to change? You just pointed out what you think Painter said to a Biggie. What would you suggest Painter say to Biggie or other high level Biggie like recruits? Sounds like given the Biggie recruitment described above Painter needs to be more like Painter. What makes anyone think he isn't making that pitch...over and over and over. #confused
I think your being nonsensical if you think Painter approaches a 5* and a 2* the same way. What gives you the idea he does?
This is absolutely not true. Some were saying that as long as it isn't illegal, it's OK to do it. They went so far as to say that unethical is OK, as long as it's legal.
I would also like to hear what your definition of "lie" is. If the intent is to deceive, then it's a lie.
The point was, people were saying Painter doesn't promise recruits anything other than the opportunity to compete for playing time, but in fact, in the Biggie situation, I would argue that Painter not only 'promised' Biggie the opportunity to play PF instead of C, but he also 'promised' him a starting role from day 1 knowing Biggie was a likely 1 or 2 year player at most.
Now, I don't think Painter literally said "Caleb, I PROMISE blah blah blah", but I think you know what I mean.
No, I don't think he approaches them the same way. Just like I don't approach a $500,000 sales opportunity the same as I approach a $50,000 opportunity.
You always seem to know what was said in these private conversations. You don't know what Painter promised, if anything. Swanigan knew he was going to start as a freshman, no matter what school he chose. No one had to promise him anything. And all he had to do is look at the rosters of the schools he was considering to decide where he had the greatest opportunity to play PF. It was a no-brainer. There was no need for a grand conspiracy to trick him.
Just as a random comment, most salespeople know that it takess just as much time to close a $50k as it does a $500k deal. So, prioritize one's time and accept the risk that comes with it.
And there in lies the grey area. Illegal is illegal. Those rules are pretty well defined.
I'm not sure what Painter would lie about when talking to a recruit?
But, he could say to a 5* recruit "Look, you're good enough to come here and start from Day 1, and not only do I expect that to happen, but I'll be disappointed if it doesn't. There's a reason you're rated a 5* with NBA potential and I can help get you to that next level. However, you can be damn sure that Joe Bob, our current starting (position here), while not a physically talented and not going to the NBA, isn't going to stand there and let you take his position. He's going to bust his ass and fight you tooth and nail to make sure you don't take that starting role from him."
So, is that a promise? Is that a lie? Is that telling a recruit what he wants to hear or is that telling the truth?
Just to clarify, in your mind, do you think Painter gave Biggie the "If you work hard, you can compete for playing time pitch?" You mentioned he didn't have to tell him he would be a starter.
I don’t see that as being in the gray area at all. It’s probably reasonably close to what Painter to Swanigan.
Then we are essentially in agreement- Painters pitch is ethical, tailored to fit the situation and can succeed. And as long as that pitch is seen as ethical I have no issue. I prefer that we get players without baggage in general. A player who is swayed by false promises may have that kind of baggage.
Like everyone else on this board, I don't know what words he used. I expect that Painter told him pretty much the same thing that we have learned he told Eastern -- the spot was his if he earned it. Swanigan knows his abilities and is not lacking in confidence. He looked at the roster and knew where he fit. With his drive and work ethic, in his own mind he knew coming in that he would quickly earn his spot.
(I know we are just speculating) This approach is why I lean that he should alter the approach for the elite guys. There is no harm telling 5* they will come in and start right away. There is a 99% chance they do come in and start. Even if the player knows they are good enough to start, I'm sure they enjoy hearing it come from the coach. I know promising a starting spot is done frequently among other coaches.
Many of his recruits were of low character...maybe that's the connection.
He had a rough two years with Perea, Williams, and Devin Davis, but every program has those guys. Even at Purdue we have had low character guys in the recent past.
On the flip side, if you tell an elite recruit that he will start right away, you could have three negative outcomes:
- The elite recruit might feel he has "arrived" and won't work as hard as he might if he has to fight for the gig
- By telling the elite recruit he is the starter, you are by default telling someone in the program already that they will not. That could adversely impact culture and/or that person's effort level
- The elite recruit ends up not being good enough to beat out the incumbent and when he doesn't start, he does his best Ronnie Johnson impression.
I'm a troll because I look at things objectively? Have we had character issues in the recent past? Yes, every program has. That's part of basketball culture.
While I agree there is a chance this happens, what happens if you don't guarantee a starting spot?
The recruit might commit to a different school, because he was promised a starting spot there. Realistically there is a very small chance an elite recruit comes to Purdue and does not start.
Not starting one of these elite recruits would also have a negative impact on the future recruiting of the elite recruits.
I get that most of you only want players to come here that are willing to buy into the "bust your ass and you will play" attitude, which is fine. However, for a team to be a championship contender, they need elite recruits. I'm more concerned about the possibility of winning championships. Both views are fair in their own way.
According to several in the know he used that recruiting technique with an elite 5* in Biggie. Again I ask the question - exactly what should Matt change? Maybe he should omit the bust your ass part? Regardless imo the real diff for some of these guys and especially the n done crowd is Purdue has no record of NCAA success...period. Chicken meet egg.
Last edited:
He guaranteed Biggie a starting spot? To use your words; "Show me the transcripts".
Well hell its all speculation anyway. I'm not the one saying Painter needs to change his technique. You are- based on speculation.
We have heard many recruits, or their parents say that painter gave them "the pitch". To my knowledge, there is nothing suggesting Painter has ever guaranteed an elite recruit a starting spot. He very well could be telling all these elite recruits that they will start, and we haven't heard it because they committed elsewhere.
We do know for a fact that something isn't working with Purdue recruiting elite recruits. We need to change something to make it work more.
This thread has grown stale. I believe we need to find a way to land more elite recruits, and you (not just you) believe we are fine in our current pattern. I recognize your opinion and believe it is fair.
Have a good day.
You must have misread me - I think you can always improve. I happen to think our issue is not Painter technique in recruiting. I think our issue is NCAA success...period. You can lay that on Painter. We win we recruit better. A few other things could help as well- hire relatives, slip cash in, provide hookers, etc. I prefer the former.
Agreed, winning would drive better recruiting success. As far as your second comment, I believe it is very possible to get elite recruits without doing those illegal activities.
Similar threads
