I have to laugh

[DG10]

What leads you think this way? What evidence do you have to contradict my assertions? Maybe I might have a little more insight than you have on this issue, but I am curious what drives your thinking this way. I think it a fair question.

First and foremost, because as I had already stated, the "leadership" is as far removed from what is happening in the athletic department as could literally be possible...the only thing that was planned and orchestrated was that Burke would get to serve out his contract (egregious one at that)...on his own terms nonetheless...the planned transition was that a new AD would be hired at some point along the way to take over for him, and even then, some lame committee was put in place to aid in directing the process, and an unnecessary search firm involved as well.

Maybe I have more insight than you do on the issue...

The leadership has not been involved in any way in the operation of the athletic department, never mind spearheaded any action...nor were they in these instances.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Was he building a program then when he took over...and did that exact same thing...only to take it right back to where it was when he inherited it...with the potential for the exact same cycle to occur yet again? THAT is not building a program...

But what evidence do you have right now that is what is going to happen? You say 'potential' yet disregard the fact that half of the top 100 guys aren't even committed yet and there are still some very good recruits out there to fill out the roster. Would it be hard to watch this 17 class turn out less than we expected? Of course...but with the players in the program currently taking up next year's 4 of 5 starting spots for 2017-2018...it should come as no surprise. The #1 reason Purdue is missing these guys is probably because of playing time and the thought of having to sit an entire year as a reserve and hoping for 10-15 minutes. There are very few players in the country that are going to come in and take starters minutes from Haas, Vince Edwards, and what appears to be either PJ or Carsen. That is a reality...if CMP can land guys that are glue guys who can fill a specific role (a J. Taylor for example), then go get them. Having 4-5 guys who can come in and give quality 8-12 minutes a game is key to success in most programs and guys like that simply don't come in the top 75 most of the time to Purdue. Guys in the top 75 would rather come to a place like Purdue to start or play major minutes from the start...not sit the bench. Look back at our higher level recruits from the last 5-6 years and explain to me which ones didn't play heavy minutes from their first game on campus?

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

You are correct, but you would have to agree that a program is built by bringing in 2-3 top players every year, at least. We will almost certainly have 2 years in a row where we DO NOT do that.

Would you rather have a guy like Spike Albrecht come in and solidify a specific need this season with leadership and experience...or a true freshman pg? Now think back to the pretty difficult non-conference Purdue has this season in Vilanova, Louisville, Morehead State, Arizona State, Notre Dame, and Auburn/Texas Tech. Now, that's not the most difficult in the country but it is a definite step up from recent years.

Again, look at how set the starting 5 is this year and even next season. There is no guarantee that Biggie jumps next season at all...especially if he gets injured. Even if he jumps, Purdue is looking at having 4 of 5 starting positions solidified. Even then, you still could easily play Mathias at the 3 and slide Vince to the 4 and you have a lineup of all returning players. I think CMP needs to solidify the back up for Haas next season and that could easily be done with Tillman or a bevy of other players (including Taylor).

 

[DG10]

But what evidence do you have right now that is what is going to happen? You say 'potential' yet disregard the fact that half of the top 100 guys aren't even committed yet and there are still some very good recruits out there to fill out the roster. Would it be hard to watch this 17 class turn out less than we expected? Of course...but with the players in the program currently taking up next year's 4 of 5 starting spots for 2017-2018...it should come as no surprise. The #1 reason Purdue is missing these guys is probably because of playing time and the thought of having to sit an entire year as a reserve and hoping for 10-15 minutes. There are very few players in the country that are going to come in and take starters minutes from Haas, Vince Edwards, and what appears to be either PJ or Carsen. That is a reality...if CMP can land guys that are glue guys who can fill a specific role (a J. Taylor for example), then go get them. Having 4-5 guys who can come in and give quality 8-12 minutes a game is key to success in most programs and guys like that simply don't come in the top 75 most of the time to Purdue. Guys in the top 75 would rather come to a place like Purdue to start or play major minutes from the start...not sit the bench. Look back at our higher level recruits from the last 5-6 years and explain to me which ones didn't play heavy minutes from their first game on campus?

Whether half of the top 100 guys are committed yet or not is irrelevant, as Painter/Purdue is not involved with half of the top 100 guys, never mind the half that remains uncommitted.

It is impossible to build a program, never mind sustain one, without adding players that can make a difference (be it initially or after a year or two) on an annual basis, and Painter has failed to do that...and is poised to have it happen yet again, at a time when he simply cannot afford it...there is a terrible class imbalance already, and it will only get worse if he continues to fail to miss as he has, never mind the fact that he targeted this class years ago and saved scholarships for it, and he has nothing to show for that.

Playing time is a convenient excuse, but if were valid, then guys would not continuously be going to the best programs in the country, never mind places like Butler...IU does not have an issue adding impact guys each and every year for that matter.

It is not as if anyone is expecting Painter to land stellar guys on an annual basis...but it is reasonable to expect him to be a factor within the state (especially in a year where the talent level is as good as it arguably ever has been, and he was a virtual total non-factor) and fair to expect to be able to add 2-3 guys each year that will contribute immediately or within a year or two of being in the program...and that has not happened with any consistency at all.

 

[Dryfly88]

The leadership could not care less what happens within the athletic department...they have made that abundantly clear, and done so over and over for that matter...as long as it is self-sufficient (and it is, solely because of the BTN), they could not care less about what happens within it (outside of poor representation by athletes and/or coaches).

Thus, I have acknowledged that they did indeed sign off on or approve the extension...but, by no means was the extension their idea or suggestion...and while they approved it (for whatever reason, even if it is as simple as they don't care), the fact that it happened as the final act by the lame duck and departing AD opposed to the new AD not only merits questioning, but it reeks of a parting gift.

Again, whether an extension was warranted or not is an entirely different matter...but, there was no need for the extension at the time that it was done, nor for it to be done by Burke...it was initiated by Burke...it totally ties the hands of his successor...and it was simply signed off on/approved because it was nothing more than rubber stamping standard operating procedure...name a time that the leadership has not approved an action by Burke (or any AD), which is further affirmation of that.

It absolutely was a conspiracy...the guy should not have been involved in any personnel decisions knowing that he was departing, and he was involved in multiple such decisions...at his own initiation.

You are right...I can't stand Burke...I have not liked Burke for years...one of the darkest days in Purdue athletics was the day that he elected to stay after having announced that he was leaving, only to have things fall through at Inland...he is smug, has an enormous ego, is completely out of touch with the fanbase and sees things only as he wants others to see them (despite the fact that they don't). The guy would have been fired at any other institution where there was any accountability outside of the single expectation to be financially self-sufficient, and he was only able to achieve that single expectation because of the BTN contract.

If you truly believe everything you say then I can see why you are so negative on this board. It can't be fun feeling so down on your school.

 

[DG10]

Would you rather have a guy like Spike Albrecht come in and solidify a specific need this season with leadership and experience...or a true freshman pg? Now think back to the pretty difficult non-conference Purdue has this season in Vilanova, Louisville, Morehead State, Arizona State, Notre Dame, and Auburn/Texas Tech. Now, that's not the most difficult in the country but it is a definite step up from recent years.

Again, look at how set the starting 5 is this year and even next season. There is no guarantee that Biggie jumps next season at all...especially if he gets injured. Even if he jumps, Purdue is looking at having 4 of 5 starting positions solidified. Even then, you still could easily play Mathias at the 3 and slide Vince to the 4 and you have a lineup of all returning players. I think CMP needs to solidify the back up for Haas next season and that could easily be done with Tillman or a bevy of other players (including Taylor).

Spike was never a consideration though when this year's class was being put together...Edwards was supposed to be a true freshman PG for that matter to solidify the known and specific need that existed...it was only a fortunate circumstance that developed that Albrecht even was available, and the fact that because he had not used the scholarship previously (in that he was saving it for the '17 class) that it was able to happen...there is no way that anyone could suggest that it happened by design, which is precisely a big part of the problem...he is constantly operating on the fly because of failing to address known needs or land targeted recruits.

I do not disagree with the notion that selling playing time for this year was going to be difficult, and it could be to an extent even a year from now...that said, PG has been an issue for several years now, and a glaring one at that...and it STILL has not been addressed...and there is no way that it should have been a difficult sell to a top flight guy that he could not only get minutes early or upon arrival, but that he would be surrounded by talented guys that could/would make his job far easier and make him look good from the outset...yet it did not happen.

Same goes for someone at the "4" or PF position a year from now...with the same result.

Not only would it be a difficult task to only be able to recruit a starting five every four years, but it is not a very good plan or approach, and I am hard pressed to think of any other program, never mind top program, where that approach is taken.b

 

[DG10]

If you truly believe everything you say then I can see why you are so negative on this board. It can't be fun feeling so down on your school.

I never said that it was fun, nor suggested it...and I absolutely truly believe anything that I have said.

 

[JohnHoosierr]

If you have no idea then why did you say Burke? If you did even a quick Google search you would know that the Board of Trustees has to approve any of the coaches contracts. The President (AD's boss) obviously agrees. So bottom line, the leadership of the University is in favor of keeping CMP long term. You may not agree with that decision (I have some reservations myself) but to try and make it sound like the outgoing AD pulled a fast one on everybody is ridiculous.

https://purdue.rivals.com/news/matt-painter-s-contract-extension-now-official

You're missing the point. I understand that other people have to ok these decisions, but i don't believe the extension would have happened unless burke initially approached the higher ups about it.

 

[BoilerBiker]

But what evidence do you have right now that is what is going to happen? You say 'potential' yet disregard the fact that half of the top 100 guys aren't even committed yet and there are still some very good recruits out there to fill out the roster. Would it be hard to watch this 17 class turn out less than we expected? Of course...but with the players in the program currently taking up next year's 4 of 5 starting spots for 2017-2018...it should come as no surprise. The #1 reason Purdue is missing these guys is probably because of playing time and the thought of having to sit an entire year as a reserve and hoping for 10-15 minutes. There are very few players in the country that are going to come in and take starters minutes from Haas, Vince Edwards, and what appears to be either PJ or Carsen. That is a reality...if CMP can land guys that are glue guys who can fill a specific role (a J. Taylor for example), then go get them. Having 4-5 guys who can come in and give quality 8-12 minutes a game is key to success in most programs and guys like that simply don't come in the top 75 most of the time to Purdue. Guys in the top 75 would rather come to a place like Purdue to start or play major minutes from the start...not sit the bench. Look back at our higher level recruits from the last 5-6 years and explain to me which ones didn't play heavy minutes from their first game on campus?

Haas
I think he is a good example. Painter had succeeded with this position and transition

Top 75 recruit, and Freshmen year he only played half the minutes ajh did. But that's OK he kept increasing minutes and production, challenged the starter, etc. Starter goes pro, now he gets the bulk of the work as the upperclassmen.

Haas competed for p.t. from day one but ajh still beat him out. That competition just made both excel that much more. That's how we work our way toward being a top program of our own.

That's how we can still sell recruits on p.t. (despite not 20+mpg) and sell them on exposure to the development & competition that prepares them for the pros.

And in turn, it automatically fosters a 4 year contributor which helps with leadership, continuity, class balance, etc etc

We achieve that more across the board, then we can worry more about 5 stars like CS leaving a year or two early, and disrupting the cycle.
I just don't think we can continue to hope only selling p.t. and land a guy every 4 year gap.

 

[mathboy]

First and foremost, because as I had already stated, the "leadership" is as far removed from what is happening in the athletic department as could literally be possible...the only thing that was planned and orchestrated was that Burke would get to serve out his contract (egregious one at that)...on his own terms nonetheless...the planned transition was that a new AD would be hired at some point along the way to take over for him, and even then, some lame committee was put in place to aid in directing the process, and an unnecessary search firm involved as well.

Maybe I have more insight than you do on the issue...

The leadership has not been involved in any way in the operation of the athletic department, never mind spearheaded any action...nor were they in these instances.

Again, you restate your "opinions" but fail to provide any evidence of your position. Mitch Daniels is very, very involved in the athletic programs. Your comments are somewhat accurate for the previous president, Cordova, but fall well short of describing Daniel's involvement. Furthermore, the BOD has been deeply involved in the selection and transition of the new AD. Let's stop your flailing at this point. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Look, I get your frustrations about our NCAAT success, or lack of.... I just don't think you are focusing attention on the right problem. Burke is not the bad-guy here. He has made many mistakes, but these contract extensions are not. Burke did not act capriciously, nor did he do any of these extensions in a vacuum. Let's move on.

 

[Dryfly88]

You're missing the point. I understand that other people have to ok these decisions, but i don't believe the extension would have happened unless burke initially approached the higher ups about it.

No, that is the point I was making. Your acknowledgment that the extension wasn't something Burke did on his own as he was walking out the door was what I was looking for. That was my only problem with your position. You and others have blamed Burke for the extension and I'm saying it was the whole administration. Like the extension, don't like it, doesn't matter to me. Just recognize that the PU leadership wanted it to happen.

You and many others don't like the extension and I think that is a very fair position to have. However, that position is not shared by the administration of our school. Not one person, the whole administration. That is the point I was making.

 

[DG10]

No, that is the point I was making. Your acknowledgment that the extension wasn't something Burke did on his own as he was walking out the door was what I was looking for. That was my only problem with your position. You and others have blamed Burke for the extension and I'm saying it was the whole administration. Like the extension, don't like it, doesn't matter to me. Just recognize that the PU leadership wanted it to happen.

You and many others don't like the extension and I think that is a very fair position to have. However, that position is not shared by the administration of our school. Not one person, the whole administration. That is the point I was making.

Your failing to acknowledge that this was not something initiated by anyone in the administration is the counterpoint being made...along with the fact that it not only did not need to be done by the departing AD, but that it should not have been done by the departing AD...if nothing more, so as not to appear as capricious and as some sort of parting gift on his way out.

Finally...your continuing to allude to it as something that the PU leadership "wanted" is simply not accurate...they absolutely signed off on it, as again, it is simply business as usual from their standpoint, but there is no way that anybody reached out to Morgan and suggested that he offer the extensions that he did before he left.

Again, the administration could not care less what happens outside of poor representation by coaches or athletes...otherwise, they are not involved...they are so withdrawn, they could not be.

 

[Dryfly88]

[QUOTE="DG10, post: 1164914, member: 1296"]I never said that it was fun, nor suggested it...and I absolutely truly believe anything that I have said.[/QUOTE]
I feel sorry for you. I mean that sincerely. I get so much enjoyment from my school I can't imagine being so negative about it. Especially about the basketball program.

 

[Dryfly88]

Your failing to acknowledge that this was not something initiated by anyone in the administration is the counterpoint being made...along with the fact that it not only did not need to be done by the departing AD, but that it should not have been done by the departing AD...if nothing more, so as not to appear as capricious and as some sort of parting gift on his way out.

Finally...your continuing to allude to it as something that the PU leadership "wanted" is simply not accurate...they absolutely signed off on it, as again, it is simply business as usual from their standpoint, but there is no way that anybody reached out to Morgan and suggested that he offer the extensions that he did before he left.

Again, the administration could not care less what happens outside of poor representation by coaches or athletes...otherwise, they are not involved...they are so withdrawn, they could not be.

I have to ask DG, are you employed by PU or have any connection to the BOT? You are speaking from a position of "knowing" these things and I am interested where you get that knowledge from? I don't mean that as a smart ass remark, I really want to know where you get this information.

The reason I ask is that in my experience in management a person leaving the company doesn't have a great deal of leverage. They don't typically dictate anything and especially not multi-million dollar contracts that obligate the company for years to come.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

No, that is the point I was making. Your acknowledgment that the extension wasn't something Burke did on his own as he was walking out the door was what I was looking for. That was my only problem with your position. You and others have blamed Burke for the extension and I'm saying it was the whole administration. Like the extension, don't like it, doesn't matter to me. Just recognize that the PU leadership wanted it to happen.

You and many others don't like the extension and I think that is a very fair position to have. However, that position is not shared by the administration of our school. Not one person, the whole administration. That is the point I was making.

I agree with all this.

My question would be: what harm would there have been in waiting ONE MONTH and letting MBob weigh in on Painter and Versyp's performance?

 

[Dryfly88]

I agree with all this.

My question would be: what harm would there have been in waiting ONE MONTH and letting MBob weigh in on Painter and Versyp's performance?

Completely agree. I see no reason why it couldn't have waited. I don't agree with the extension, IMHO it was premature.

Where I differ from some others is thinking that Burke was responsible for this. He was a part of a group that was responsible.

 

[RFSNES]

Then you clearly don't understand the intricacies of building a program. You do realize Purdue is just 3 or 4 years removed from some of the poorest results they have had in the last 30 years, right? Don't you see the clear improvement that has carried over from there to where the program is now? Wouldn't that be classified as building a program?

If we have built a program, why does our recruiting look like a bad "Stock Market" over the past 2 years...To me a program continues to build and maintain..not just here today and gone tomorrow...a program draws recruits who want to play here....this is not happening, are we targeting the wrong recruits ??????

 

[JohnHoosierr]

No, that is the point I was making. Your acknowledgment that the extension wasn't something Burke did on his own as he was walking out the door was what I was looking for. That was my only problem with your position. You and others have blamed Burke for the extension and I'm saying it was the whole administration. Like the extension, don't like it, doesn't matter to me. Just recognize that the PU leadership wanted it to happen.

You and many others don't like the extension and I think that is a very fair position to have. However, that position is not shared by the administration of our school. Not one person, the whole administration. That is the point I was making.

You still don't get it.

 

[Dryfly88]

You still don't get it.

You made a flippant remark about Burke extending Painter and I pointed out it was wrong to blame Burke alone for this. You somehow think Burke (forced, tricked, strong-armed, begged, coerced) the administration into this and that is just ridiculous.

To think that Burke just came up with this on his own and sat down with Painter's rep and worked out a deal without the blessing of the administration ahead of time is crazy.

So yes, I get it. We just don't agree. You want to blame Burke, I blame the whole administration.

 

[rustcr]

What johnhoosierr said was he believes that Burke initiated the process. Seems likely to me. That's the AD's job.

 

[mathboy]

Your failing to acknowledge that this was not something initiated by anyone in the administration is the counterpoint being made...along with the fact that it not only did not need to be done by the departing AD, but that it should not have been done by the departing AD...if nothing more, so as not to appear as capricious and as some sort of parting gift on his way out.

Finally...your continuing to allude to it as something that the PU leadership "wanted" is simply not accurate...they absolutely signed off on it, as again, it is simply business as usual from their standpoint, but there is no way that anybody reached out to Morgan and suggested that he offer the extensions that he did before he left.

Again, the administration could not care less what happens outside of poor representation by coaches or athletes...otherwise, they are not involved...they are so withdrawn, they could not be.

Of course I am not acknowledging your assertion. It is in error, besides being stated in a very convoluted manner in the above post.

Again you make a statement about how this contract extension "appears to you", without one bit of evidence to support your claim that this was not a well planned and well executed transition plan by the Purdue administration and the athletic department. How many times are you going to make your statement without providing one thread of substantiation? Why does it not seem more logical that this was a planned series of contract extensions that were discussed and planned by the admiration before Burke took any action? (just as I has stated).

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Of course I am not acknowledging your assertion. It is in error, besides being stated in a very convoluted manner in the above post.

Again you make a statement about how this contract extension "appears to you", without one bit of evidence to support your claim that this was not a well planned and well executed transition plan by the Purdue administration and the athletic department. How many times are you going to make your statement without providing one thread of substantiation? Why does it not seem more logical that this was a planned series of contract extensions that were discussed and planned by the admiration before Burke took any action? (just as I has stated).

You don't think it's odd that both contracts were finalized a month before a new AD took over? I would think someone would have raised their hand and said, "should we let our incoming AD weigh in on this before we hand out millions of dollars in new contracts? Just because it was planned doesn't make it a good plan.

 

[mathboy]

I am

You don't think it's odd that both contracts were finalized a month before a new AD took over? I would think someone would have raised their hand and said, "should we let our incoming AD weigh in on this before we hand out millions of dollars in new contracts? Just because it was planned doesn't make it a good plan.

I am really not trying to be contentious, but, no I don't think it was odd. I think it was exactly what Purdue should have done to ensure continuity during the change in AD's.

We can certainly argue about the "goodness" of the plan, but it was a plan, and it was a plan that included the engagement and approval of the Purdue administration. It was not a capricious act by Burke, sprung on an uncaring BOT and president.