I feel like IU's approach in their coaching searches is just......off. My freshman year at Purdue was 2003. Born in 1985, so I was a whole two years old when IU put up their last banner. IU and Purdue basketball both weren't in an ideal place at the time, Purdue was in the tail end of the Keady years and Landry and Teague both missed his last season with injuries.
Even back then, the argument that IU was no longer a blue blood program was still a thing. It had been almost 20 years at the point with the only notable run being 2002 that Mike Davis lead with Bob Knight's players. I would hear the argument that Kansas was an unquestioned blue blood who hadn't won since 1988 (who have since gone on to win two titles since), so IU clearly was.
They had a few good years under Sampson (with White and Eric Gordon, especially) , and then the rails fell off with his recruiting violations. At that point, almost every notable player left the program and they even lost to IUPUI the following year. At that time, when bantering amongst IU fans, I suggested Scott Drew. Son of Valpo's head coach, who had turned a Baylor Program around that was in shambles after a player MURDERED another player. They all laughed at me, because they needed a proven head coach and not Scott Drew. The same Scott Drew that won a NATIONAL TITLE at Baylor and has kept them a solid program. Instead? They go with Tom Crean, who had a miracle Final Four run with Dwayne Wade. Crean did not even attempt to recruit kids in Indiana. They were frankly, horrid for 3 years. That changed when the last Zeller kid emerged with 5 stars next to his name, and Crean eventually signed Jordan Hulls who Painter had been recruiting hard even when he was a lowly "2 star" kid. And that was the pinnacle of success under Crean achieving a #1 Ranking and a sweet 16. They realistically have never had a national profile since, under Miller or now Woodson.
It's now been 22 years since the last Final Four, and 37 years since a title. One of those titles occurred when the field of teams was actually 64. In 1981 it was 48, in 1976 it was 32, 1953 was 24 and in 1940 it was 8 teams. EIGHT team. They played Springfield college in the first round. The 1940 team didn't even qualify for the NCAA tournament but Purdue turned down the invitation since the NIT was at the time, the premier tournament. It is a completely different thing now with the 6 game gauntlet with A LOT more parity in the sport. The landscape of college basketball has changed and IU has not kept up.
Sure, you can point to Purdue's lack of titles and overall tournament success and say "top tier recruits won't go there" but we're rapidly approaching a time where most basketball recruits PARENT's won't be alive for IU's last title. The sense of entitlement is so insane. They need to get a coach that will recruit 3-4 year guys, build a program and then use the "banners" to occasionally land one of their 5 star studs that will put the team over the top and in the title conversation for a year. Someone who will use the transfer portal to fill gaps instead of counting on a 5 star freshman being a stud instantly. And when he's not, he doesn't get better his sophomore year because he's in the NBA. Develop some sustained success and have tournament appearances and sweet 16s be acceptable for awhile. Let recruits see them as a tournament mainstay with a past history of success. Let them feel like they can bring the appeal of IU back to IU. But that take's patience, and collectively their fanbase has none since maybe the first few years of Crean.
I think that's why Purdue is more appealing to Indiana kids than IU is right now and for the foreseeable future. Every coach since Knight has at most built one good to great team and the second they have a bad season, they are done. Because it's IU and IU has expectations. But it's not a desirable location for coaches either. Their last 3 coaches have been from Marquette, Dayton, and a former player who never was a head coach. They aren't exactly getting interest from title winning coaches, or from perennial powerhouses. If you're a recruit right now in the state of Indiana, would it be more appealing to play for a solid- sometimes great team for 3-4 years or to be on an often subpar team that last won a title years and years before you were born? Are you really more likely to win a title at IU than Purdue at this point? The past doesn't directly affect the future. You're more likely to win one at San Diego State at this point.
Until they completely change their philosophy, they will continue to be a team that flashes a good team now and then (maybe even a great team), if they get a good class where most of them are hits. But more often than not are a middling Big Ten team. They would be better and the rivalry would mean more if they would accept that.
Painter gets a lot of crap, he has a lot to prove, and really needs to get over the hump. But would anyone really want to trade places with IU since he's taken over? Sure expectations should be higher than that but basically being assured top half of the B10 every year, a tournament bid, regular runs to the Sweet 16 are leagues better than the "blue blood" program in the south for the last few decades.
