So you want someone who got fired from their previous job for abusing players, staff and students ?
Jacobsen to announce friday
- Thread starter PaBoiler78
- Start date
Can't I be both disingenuous and obtuse?
I asked for an example of coaches who consistently beat higher ranked teams in the NCAAT. Our friend bonefish answered that all coaches who are successful in the tournament do so. Mike K. shows that's clearly not true.
My point is that, as far as I can see, upsetting higher seeds is a poor measure of how good of an NCAAT coach an individual is. If you know of a material number of coaches who drove their NCAAT success by consistently upsetting higher seeds I'll happily admit I'm wrong.
Can't I be both disingenuous and obtuse?
I asked for an example of coaches who consistently beat higher ranked teams in the NCAAT. Our friend bonefish answered that all coaches who are successful in the tournament do so. Mike K. shows that's clearly not true.
My point is that, as far as I can see, upsetting higher seeds is a poor measure of how good of a NCAAT coach an individual is. If you know of a material number of coaches who drove their NCAAT success by consistently upsetting higher seeds I'll happily admit I'm wrong.
I would say Mark Few, but that was mostly because Gonzaga was criminally underrated his first few tournaments. So to your point, outside of outlier circumstances like that (which are now harder to come by with changes in NCAAT selection/seeding) there likely aren't any examples.
Probably would have an example of a coach overachieving in the NCAAT his first year making it with a mid major, say as a 12 or 13 seed and winning 2 games.
Then if that same coach is a good one, will be at a P6 program and likely no longer be seeded low enough to "upset" all that many teams.
I'll allow it!Can't I be both disingenuous and obtuse?
I asked for an example of coaches who consistently beat higher ranked teams in the NCAAT. Our friend bonefish answered that all coaches who are successful in the tournament do so. Mike K. shows that's clearly not true.
My point is that, as far as I can see, upsetting higher seeds is a poor measure of how good of an NCAAT coach an individual is. If you know of a material number of coaches who drove their NCAAT success by consistently upsetting higher seeds I'll happily admit I'm wrong.
His point was you either have to be the higher seed (and still beat other high seeds), or beat a higher seed along the way.
The last 2 years we were highly seeded, and had other high seeds cleared out, and still didn't even stiff the FF. Instead we made boom boom in our pants.
This doesn't exactly read to me as "all great coaches must be measured by their upset wins"
Can't I be both disingenuous and obtuse?
I asked for an example of coaches who consistently beat higher ranked teams in the NCAAT. Our friend bonefish answered that all coaches who are successful in the tournament do so. Mike K. shows that's clearly not true.
My point is that, as far as I can see, upsetting higher seeds is a poor measure of how good of an NCAAT coach an individual is. If you know of a material number of coaches who drove their NCAAT success by consistently upsetting higher seeds I'll happily admit I'm wrong.
Deliberately?
Many won't like this, but it's probably Izzo, IMO. He's made the final four twice as a #5 seed, once as a #7 seed and a couple of times from the #2 seed. He started with top seeds. He's also gotten some help some years, and he's been upset with some really good teams, too.....still, pretty darn impressive. Now, he doesn't have the best Final Four record, as I think he's 3-7, losing six out of eight in the semi-final.
Painter is not going to get the monkey off his back until one of his teams does it - it's that simple. I really like the recruiting trend, but he has burned through a lot of capital too. Love what he stands for as far as the program, the University, straight shooting, and the game of basketball. It's a harsh judgment sometimes, but he more than most knows the world we live in and gets paid very well for what he does. He's very well thought of by his peers, which does mean something too.
JMHO
Thank you sir!
I don't think that's what his point was, but I agree that's what the argument should be and obviously agree that Purdue has missed on significant opportunities the last two seasons.
Good post. My wife will tell you I'm the king of being deliberately obtuse, but I try to save my disingenuousness for my friends here.Deliberately?
Many won't like this, but it's probably Izzo, IMO. He's made the final four twice as a #5 seed, once as a #7 seed and a couple of times from the #2 seed. He started with top seeds. He's also gotten some help some years, and he's been upset with some really good teams, too.....still, pretty darn impressive. Now, he doesn't have the best Final Four record, as I think he's 3-7, losing six out of eight in the semi-final.
Painter is not going to get the monkey off his back until one of his teams does it - it's that simple. I really like the recruiting trend, but he has burned through a lot of capital too.
JMHO
I was too lazy to look it up but Few and Izzo were the two that I thought of top of mind. As obnoxious as I think Izzo is when he's playing Purdue, he is a fantastic coach, legitimately an all time great.
You want someone who got fired from their last coaching job? Worked out well with the Akers hire.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but what the hell.....
What is the ROI on the contract that KU just gave to Self? 53 million over the next 5 years. They already sell out every game, so there is no more money to be made there. They already have a TV contract, so no new money there either.
The answer is there is no ROI in these big contracts for coaches at winning programs. It's simply a matter of wanting to keep winning and they are willing to pay for it.
For losing programs (which we aren't) they can get some ROI on half empty arenas being filled up, but short of that it's just about wanting a winning program. Would PU ever pay 53 million to get championships? I really doubt it.
That’s a completely different scenario than what we’re discussing. They are paying to maintain the status quo. And Self was already making a similar amount per year.
Bonefish wants to pay a $16 million buyout and then hire someone at DOUBLE what CMP is currently getting - all for someone who MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT be better at Purdue than Painter.
So, there are no success stories of coaches who got fired from one school but ended up being really successful at another?
That's not the point. The point was that before Knight went there, I'm sure that 99.9% of the TT fanbase would scream their heads off at the idea of Knight wanting to coach at TT and TT being able to lure him there. Just like some of the posters hear get all worked up anytime a potential Painter replacement is mentioned.
I want to pay someone double? Hmmm...OK, if you say so.
But just curious, why do you care what a coach gets paid? Does it come out of your pocket?
Do you believe a school has to pay up if it wants to hire a proven coach?
If Coach K wanted to come our of retirement and said he'd come to Purdue for $10M, would you want that?
Very few as a percentage, especially when you cross cheaters like Sampson and Pearl off the list, who will never be hired by Purdue.
Agree on Pearl. Not a fit for B10.
In the NIL era though, your point on cheaters, not as much as an issue as was in the past.
Sampson would be successful wherever. Actually think he is an extremely good coach. He works anywhere. And he is not leaving Houston. Too many advantages there. Texas is great recruiting base. Don't think he is slimy as Pearl.
Gonzaga has also benefited from two other things. They don't get beat up in conference play like the Big Ten, Big XII, or SEC, and they can spread out some of the bigger games they play. Also, with the way the NCAA Tournament is structured and the lesser amount of teams in the Western U.S., they usually get a pretty good geographical route - quite often placed in their home region. You could say it's a reward for a good seed I suppose.
That's not to take away from what Few and the program have accomplished - they've had some really good/top-notch players. Mark Few has done very well - deserves a lot of credit. Just think the structure helps them more than it hinders them.
JMHO
- should be a really good game next Monday in Honolulu.
Chin, check out this guy Painter, will you.....there's GOT to be a reason they keep coming up short.....Kono, back him up.....I want to know every detail, 24/7, alright?
People need to stop saying Purdue is not an attractive place. Look at places like Kansas for example. It's not even close to an attractive place. They built and amazing program there. That's why people go there. Not because the city or area is attractive. Win championships and recruits and coaches will want to come.
It has a little bit with some recruits. Some want to be down I Florida or California for the weather and stuff. But for the most part it doesn't matter. Winning is and developing players is why recruits go where they do. Well and money now with the NIL.
I like Mussleman, Drew, Cronin. As for how much? That depends on how much they want.
100% correct.
The apologists will make excuses for Purdue's lack of high level recruiting...too cold, no nightlife, not enough girls, too tough of academics, not near a beach, etc. etc etc.
None of that matters or at least, those are pretty far down on the criteria list of top recruits.
Lots of very good programs have those same issues: MSU, KU, UConn, Cuse,
You specifically asked what the ROI would be for hiring someone else. I'm telling you that there isn't always any ROI. You simply do it to win championships or at least get yourself to the FF with a shot to win it all. You're acting like there is some figure on the schools spreadsheet that you can point to and say "that's why we hired this guy". In many cases there isn't a direct ROI. It's about winning championships.
I’m just pointing out that your Self analogy is apples to oranges. And if you don’t think ROI is a factor here, then we can politely agree to disagree and move on.
Schools in warmer climates do generally recruit better in football and basketball.
All of those schools have cheated and/or recruited a bunch of scumbag thugs to get where they are.
Then you are missing the point others have tried to make with you. Your example demonstrates that the guy that you think should come to Purdue would likely have the same impact RMK had at TT.
Sadly, cheaters will always try to find a way to gain an unfair advantage by violating rules/laws. Rules are still in place, and dishonest people are still working to get around them. We are already hearing about schools trying to poach other school's players with NIL money.
They do. Usc, UCLA. I mean they also have had great success. So it's hard to say which one it is. But the climate is a big factor to some recruits.
Yeah I've never understood the "Purdue isn't an attractive place" argument. Lots of the most successful schools out there are not attractive places. At the end of the day it comes down to winning. If a school can show success then recruits will come. Regardless of where the school is unless they want to be close to home. Painter is getting some great recruiting because of his regular season success. If he also had March success we would be getting the top recruits. If it ends up being a March bust again. I'm not sure how to take it. I would really want another coach but we could also see a bug decline. So hopefully we don't even have to worry about that anymore after this year.
I don’t see any evidence that a big decline in recruiting is around the corner. Even after the FDU loss, Painter just signed a great class.
The March success will come. Painter is too good a coach, just as Tony Bennett was too good a coach after the last time a #1 seed lost in the first round.
I really hope so. Painter not having success in March is very frustrating. Hummel injury I think cost us a title that year.
