I’ll take my crow medium-rare.

[bonefish1]

I think sports writers get enamored with kids that drive the ball to the hoop and make layups. Why else would Nojel be so highly ranked? While it turned out his defense was what kept him on the court at Purdue, I can pretty much assume that the people who rank these kids don’t look at their defensive play or passing when ranking. They just look at the flashy plays that involve making baskets.

Rankings value size and athleticism. Those are the most measurable characteristics. Most of the time, not always, but most of the time, the rankings pan out. Obviously there are exceptions going both ways, but if you're landing 2-3 stars hoping them end up producing like 4-5 stars, that's probably a poor recruiting strategy.

 

[purdueplayer]

Dont question. Had they been higher profile they may not have signed with us!

I think Colvin and Smith didn’t play as much or in the big AAU tournaments? I think Ivey played in some bigger ones though. Plus Smith got hurt. If you look at the kids Painter was in on/offered early and went elsewhere, I don’t know how you don’t say he is one of the best talent evaluators or talent projectors in the country. Maybe not the best recruiter, but he seems to be in on a lot of top players before anyone else or before they blow up. Ivey, Chet Holmgren for example. There are more so I know I’m missing some.

 

[NashvilleBoiler]

I think sports writers get enamored with kids that drive the ball to the hoop and make layups. Why else would Nojel be so highly ranked? While it turned out his defense was what kept him on the court at Purdue, I can pretty much assume that the people who rank these kids don’t look at their defensive play or passing when ranking. They just look at the flashy plays that involve making baskets.

I think sports writers get enamored with kids that drive the ball to the hoop and make layups. Why else would Nojel be so highly ranked? While it turned out his defense was what kept him on the court at Purdue, I can pretty much assume that the people who rank these kids don’t look at their defensive play or passing when ranking. They just look at the flashy plays that involve making baskets.

Nojel couldn’t hit layups 🙂

 

[mathboy]

Rankings value size and athleticism. Those are the most measurable characteristics. Most of the time, not always, but most of the time, the rankings pan out. Obviously there are exceptions going both ways, but if you're landing 2-3 stars hoping them end up producing like 4-5 stars, that's probably a poor recruiting strategy.

Think about poor Arizona. 3 kids that were 5-star recruits and they flame out in the sweet sixteen. Makes you wonder.

I think you will find that ratings are often a follow whoever is hot deal. Some writer says, "Wow, Clint Fastball is absolutely incredible!", and all of a sudden Clint shows up on everybody's rating sheets, even thought most of these "experts" have never seen him play. It is a joke. You cannot directly connect 5-star recruits to NC's. Yes, there is a slight correlation, but you might find more correlation to the color of the uniform.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Think about poor Arizona. 3 kids that were 5-star recruits and they flame out in the sweet sixteen. Makes you wonder.

I think you will find that ratings are often a follow whoever is hot deal. Some writer says, "Wow, Clint Fastball is absolutely incredible!", and all of a sudden Clint shows up on everybody's rating sheets, even thought most of these "experts" have never seen him play. It is a joke. You cannot directly connect 5-star recruits to NC's. Yes, there is a slight correlation, but you might find more correlation to the color of the uniform.

Well ace, do ya think you can hit this one?

 

[BoilerInChiTown]

Think about poor Arizona. 3 kids that were 5-star recruits and they flame out in the sweet sixteen. Makes you wonder.

I think you will find that ratings are often a follow whoever is hot deal. Some writer says, "Wow, Clint Fastball is absolutely incredible!", and all of a sudden Clint shows up on everybody's rating sheets, even thought most of these "experts" have never seen him play. It is a joke. You cannot directly connect 5-star recruits to NC's. Yes, there is a slight correlation, but you might find more correlation to the color of the uniform.

Yet another poor take from an uninformed IU fan.
Yes there are some coaches that can't do much and ended up wasting the talents they get.
A good coach should able to take that talent and make a run to the final 4 and beyond.
Talent wins...I just wish CMP could get more these talented players and finally breakthrough...

 

[mathboy]

Yet another poor take from an uninformed IU fan.
Yes there are some coaches that can't do much and ended up wasting the talents they get.
A good coach should able to take that talent and make a run to the final 4 and beyond.
Talent wins...I just wish CMP could get more these talented players and finally breakthrough...

Over time, over a large sample, talent does win. However, it is no guarantee of making the FF. The NCAA tourney, with the one-&-done games is subject to more than enough random happenings that every year you see teams like St. Peter’s beating hugely talented teams like UK and Purdue. All you can do is to keep bringing in the best kids you can, and get to the tourney as often as you can.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

he was tired towards the end of the first half as well. Yes, he put a LOT of offensive pressure on the D with his push, but the great things was...he saw what was there and didn't force anything.

Unless I missed something, he did not come out at all in the first half and the kid pressuring him was an athlete. I was very impressed that he was able to play with that intensity without a break. It was one of the more impressive freshman debut’s that I have seen at Purdue.

 

[lovelyblonde]

Unless I missed something, he did not come out at all in the first half and the kid pressuring him was an athlete. I was very impressed that he was able to play with that intensity without a break. It was one of the more impressive freshman debut’s that I have seen at Purdue.

Breath of fresh air for us Purdue fans for sure.

 

[tjreese]

Unless I missed something, he did not come out at all in the first half and the kid pressuring him was an athlete. I was very impressed that he was able to play with that intensity without a break. It was one of the more impressive freshman debut’s that I have seen at Purdue.

One of the impressive things he does that I haven't seen mentioned is the distance he is able to pass with his off hand. Few players have that kind of strength/skill to pass with either single hand with some velocity and accuracy. It gets the ball a bit quicker to the receiver, but few can do it that well...

 

[bonefish1]

Think about poor Arizona. 3 kids that were 5-star recruits and they flame out in the sweet sixteen. Makes you wonder.

I think you will find that ratings are often a follow whoever is hot deal. Some writer says, "Wow, Clint Fastball is absolutely incredible!", and all of a sudden Clint shows up on everybody's rating sheets, even thought most of these "experts" have never seen him play. It is a joke. You cannot directly connect 5-star recruits to NC's. Yes, there is a slight correlation, but you might find more correlation to the color of the uniform.

There's absolutely a strong correlation between recruiting stars and tourney success. Most FF teams are going to have higher rated players on average than teams that say, lost in the S16.

 

[bonefish1]

Over time, over a large sample, talent does win. However, it is no guarantee of making the FF. The NCAA tourney, with the one-&-done games is subject to more than enough random happenings that every year you see teams like St. Peter’s beating hugely talented teams like UK and Purdue. All you can do is to keep bringing in the best kids you can, and get to the tourney as often as you can.

Of course there's no guarantees, but having more highly talented players significantly increases your chances of advancing.
I know some people here think the tourney is random luck, but it's not. There's a reason why some teams/programs consistently make FFs or deep tourney runs and others don't.
Sure, sometimes there's some luck involved, both good and bad, but overall, the teams that consistently put the most talent on the floor are the ones that consistently advance.

 

[M51]

I was wrong about Smith. He’s solid. Going to be the best PG we’ve had in a while.
Let me have it fellas…

One game against less than stellar competition. Think he was credited with a steal on a deflection more than one time. Don’t know how that gets scored. Trouble finishing at the rim a couple times. Prob should wait until the crow is well done.

 

[bonefish1]

One game against less than stellar competition. Think he was credited with a steal on a deflection more than one time. Don’t know how that gets scored. Trouble finishing at the rim a couple times. Prob should wait until the crow is well done.

I agree that we'll find out what we have over the next few weeks, but for his first college game, he was better than I was expecting. And while Milwaukee isn't a blue chip, it's not a complete collection of stiffs. I think they're supposed to compete in their league.
But again, we'll find out more against Marquette, FSU, whoever we play in Portland, etc.

 

[johnboiler123]

One game against less than stellar competition. Think he was credited with a steal on a deflection more than one time. Don’t know how that gets scored. Trouble finishing at the rim a couple times. Prob should wait until the crow is well done.

This is where I'm at. Going to need to see more than one ok game against Milwaukee. Who is supposed to be one of the worst teams in div 1. Honestly I was much more impressed with loyer.

 

[SIBoiler2]

I was wrong about Smith. He’s solid. Going to be the best PG we’ve had in a while.
Let me have it fellas…

But .... but ... but ..... major offers ....
☆s .... too short. At least you're man enough to come back and take your meds. Good on you Lenny.

 

[bonefish1]

But .... but ... but ..... major offers ....
☆s .... too short. At least you're man enough to come back and take your meds. Good on you Lenny.

Trust me, it doesn't hurt my pride one bit to have a player prove me wrong. It's only one game, but I liked what I saw. Hopefully he can continue when the competition, coaching and scouting improves.
(and if Painter offers another undersized, unrecruited, kid, I'll say the same thing).

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

One game against less than stellar competition. Think he was credited with a steal on a deflection more than one time. Don’t know how that gets scored. Trouble finishing at the rim a couple times. Prob should wait until the crow is well done.

If a player deflects a pass or dribble and controls the deflection away from an opponent or toward a teammate and it leads to the change in possession.......then the player who caused the deflection is generally credited with the steal.

 

[FirstDownB]

We might need to pump the brakes a little on the Smith hype

 

[ImRonBurgandy?]

We might need to pump the brakes a little on the Smith hype

I think he's got to look for his shot more. It appears he has the quickness to get by his man.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

I think he's got to look for his shot more. It appears he has the quickness to get by his man.

Tend to agree.....only 2-4 yesterday and did make Purdue's other three-point FG. Find the balance, and he'll be ok. Got off to a rocky start with a couple of poor passes for turnovers. Still, two games in, I like the potential I see from a Smith-led team. Different kind of roller coaster from last season IMO.

 

[tjreese]

Tend to agree.....only 2-4 yesterday and did make Purdue's other three-point FG. Find the balance, and he'll be ok. Got off to a rocky start with a couple of poor passes for turnovers. Still, two games in, I like the potential I see from a Smith-led team. Different kind of roller coaster from last season IMO.

The biggest difference that we knew would be ,is that this team plays all 40 minutes

 

[northside100]

Rankings value size and athleticism. Those are the most measurable characteristics. Most of the time, not always, but most of the time, the rankings pan out. Obviously there are exceptions going both ways, but if you're landing 2-3 stars hoping them end up producing like 4-5 stars, that's probably a poor recruiting strategy.

Completely disagree that 'most of the time, the rankings pan out'. If that were true, the majority of five star players would become all Americans and NBA draft picks, which is not the case. I do agree that in aggregate the rankings are statistically meaningful in that the likelihood of picking a random five star player and having that player become an all conference or AA is much higher than if you were to pick a random three star player.

The problem with your statement and your view of recruiting in general is that it doesn't allow for asymmetric information, i.e. it assumes that no one has a better source of information than the recruiting rankings. While that's generally true for us as fans, Matt Painter has shown that his 'Plan A' players consistently perform at a high level, regardless of ranking. I agree that having Matt target and land more highly ranked players is a positive development, but assuming that a random four of five star player is going to be better than a guy that MP tabs a Plan A option is misguided.

 

[bonefish1]

Completely disagree that 'most of the time, the rankings pan out'. If that were true, the majority of five star players would become all Americans and NBA draft picks, which is not the case. I do agree that in aggregate the rankings are statistically meaningful in that the likelihood of picking a random five star player and having that player become an all conference or AA is much higher than if you were to pick a random three star player.

The problem with your statement and your view of recruiting in general is that it doesn't allow for asymmetric information, i.e. it assumes that no one has a better source of information than the recruiting rankings. While that's generally true for us as fans, Matt Painter has shown that his 'Plan A' players consistently perform at a high level, regardless of ranking. I agree that having Matt target and land more highly ranked players is a positive development, but assuming that a random four of five star player is going to be better than a guy that MP tabs a Plan A option is misguided.

Unfortunately, Painter hasn't proven the ability to recruit enough talent to get to a FF. I know, I know, we were a fluke play away (are you referring to the 3 pt foul on Edwards or the last second shot in the UVA game?......)
So, depending on how you measure success, it's debatable on how well MPs recruiting plans have panned out.

 

[northside100]

Unfortunately, Painter hasn't proven the ability to recruit enough talent to get to a FF. I know, I know, we were a fluke play away (are you referring to the 3 pt foul on Edwards or the last second shot in the UVA game?......)
So, depending on how you measure success, it's debatable on how well MPs recruiting plans have panned out.

Disagree again.

Actually agree 100% that MP's recruiting has not been good enough to get to a FF or NC and only care about getting close but being derailed by injuries or a missed ft when people say stupid shit like 'we should replace Painter if he doesn't get us to a FF.'

That in no way means that MP doesn't do a better job than the national recruiting ratings in identifying talent, or more pointedly, talent that works well in his system. The primary issue is that he hasn't landed enough of those 'Plan A' players (although he's improved in that area in the last few years). I don't know if that' a 'recruiting plan' issue as much as it is a recruiting skill issue and and reflection of the realities of Purdue's attractiveness relative to national powers (although that too may be improving).

 

[bonefish1]

Disagree again.

Actually agree 100% that MP's recruiting has not been good enough to get to a FF or NC and only care about getting close but being derailed by injuries or a missed ft when people say stupid shit like 'we should replace Painter if he doesn't get us to a FF.'

That in no way means that MP doesn't do a better job than the national recruiting ratings in identifying talent, or more pointedly, talent that works well in his system. The primary issue is that he hasn't landed enough of those 'Plan A' players (although he's improved in that area in the last few years). I don't know if that' a 'recruiting plan' issue as much as it is a recruiting skill issue and and reflection of the realities of Purdue's attractiveness relative to national powers (although that too may be improving).

Recruiting is 100% on the head coach, it's got nothing to do with location, weather, co-eds, etc.
And in terms of recruiting skill issue....that's the name of the game. You're either get a majority of your plan A players because you're a great recruiter or you end up with your plan B, C and D because you're an average recruiter.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Recruiting is 100% on the head coach, it's got nothing to do with location, weather, co-eds, etc.
And in terms of recruiting skill issue....that's the name of the game. You're either get a majority of your plan A players because you're a great recruiter or you end up with your plan B, C and D because you're an average recruiter.

Given the assets within his control, Painter is an excellent recruiter. He has a really good knack for spending time on players who will be an asset to the program, and not wasting time on players that he perceives to be beyond his reach.

In two years, Woodson has also been a fantastic recruiter. All four of his freshman this year look like they will be at a minimum strong rotation players. And he did even a better job at recruiting the key players already on the roster to stick around.

A great situation for the two most prominent basketball programs in the state of Indiana. Could be back to the 1980s and 1990s situation where Indiana and Purdue are consistently two of the four or five teams fighting for the Big Ten title every year.

 

[bonefish1]

Given the assets within his control, Painter is an excellent recruiter. He has a really good knack for spending time on players, who will be an asset to the program, and not wasting time on players, that he proceeds to be beyond his reach.

In two years, Woodson has also been a fantastic recruiter. All four of his freshman this year look like they will be at a minimum strong rotation players. And he did even a better job at recruiting the key players already on the roster to stick around.

A great situation for the two most prominent basketball programs in the state of Indiana. Could be back to the 1980s and 1990s situation where Indiana and Purdue are consistently two of the four or five teams fighting for the Big Ten title every year.

What makes Painter an excellent recruiter? Look where his recruiting rankings usually end up.
His teams pretty much top out in Sweet 16 appearances. That's for 1 of 2 reasons: He either doesn't have good enough talent (recruiting) or he's not a good tourney coach.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

What makes Painter an excellent recruiter? Look where his recruiting rankings usually end up.
His teams pretty much top out in Sweet 16 appearances. That's for 1 of 2 reasons: He either doesn't have good enough talent (recruiting) or he's not a good tourney coach.

In my opinion? He doesn’t often have the ability to pull in five-star or high four-star players, but he finds more diamonds in the rough than would be expected.

 

[northside100]

Recruiting is 100% on the head coach, it's got nothing to do with location, weather, co-eds, etc.
And in terms of recruiting skill issue....that's the name of the game. You're either get a majority of your plan A players because you're a great recruiter or you end up with your plan B, C and D because you're an average recruiter.

What a joke. Unless you're one of the top recruiters in the country, the type of guy that Purdue would never hire, the same schools land the top classes every year.

 

[northside100]

What makes Painter an excellent recruiter? Look where his recruiting rankings usually end up.
His teams pretty much top out in Sweet 16 appearances. That's for 1 of 2 reasons: He either doesn't have good enough talent (recruiting) or he's not a good tourney coach.

Literally no one considers Purdue to be a top ten program and most don't consider it a top fifteen program. Painter's on court performance has exceeded any realistic expectations.

 

[NashvilleBoiler]

Literally no one considers Purdue to be a top ten program and most don't consider it a top fifteen program. Painter's on court performance has exceeded any realistic expectations.

Is that because we haven’t been to a FF in 40+ years? 😉

 

[northside100]

Is that because we haven’t been to a FF in 40+ years? 😉

Gets pretty circular doesn’t it? Painter is making progress but it’s pretty hard to hire the next Coach K.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Recruiting is 100% on the head coach, it's got nothing to do with location, weather, co-eds, etc.
And in terms of recruiting skill issue....that's the name of the game. You're either get a majority of your plan A players because you're a great recruiter or you end up with your plan B, C and D because you're an average recruiter.

Recruiting is mostly about who can/will buy the best players.

 

[Wolegib]

I am reminded of all the star players zo recruited at cal and mizzou! Where is zo and those players now?

 

[NashvilleBoiler]

I am reminded of all the star players zo recruited at cal and mizzou! Where is zo and those players now?

Let’s get that band back together and go to the FF!

 

[Thadoc1]

Let’s get that band back together and go to the FF!

Don't think we have any assistant coaching spots available on our staff for 5 star players and their parents that zo was able to do....

 

[NashvilleBoiler]

Don't think we have any assistant coaching spots available on our staff for 5 star players and their parents that zo was able to do....

Did any of the Baby Boilers’ parents join the staff?

 

[bonefish1]

In my opinion? He doesn’t often have the ability to pull in five-star or high four-star players, but he finds more diamonds in the rough than would be expected.

"Ability"? Please elaborate.

 

[bonefish1]

What a joke. Unless you're one of the top recruiters in the country, the type of guy that Purdue would never hire, the same schools land the top classes every year.

Not true.
You might have 5 teams consistently landing loaded classes and those are the bluest blue bloods. The other 15 of the top 20 come and go.