Malik Williams commits to Louisville

[CRBoiler]

I agree he needs to move past the first round and more then likely the sweet 16 as well.
I on the other hand have no clue why people are so adamant about having him fired.
I also lived through the Keady tenure and realize things aren't always ass good or bad as they seem.

But this year we should be in the running to win the league. Be one of the teams favored to be in the B1G championship game and at least get to the sweet 16. If Haas can stay on the flier 20 minutes or more? We should be very good barring injury.

If you look at the big picture, we've done well the last decade. In one of the articles about the team getting ready for Spain, it was summarized: "Over the last 10 years, Purdue ranks fourth in the Big Ten in overall wins (229), Big Ten wins (110) and third in NCAA Tournament bids (8; behind Michigan State and Wisconsin)."

Yes, we need to do better in the tourney than the last two years, but the team's overall performance (other than the couple down years) has been in the upper tier of one of the best leagues in the country. Add the fact that recruiting players to Purdue is tough compared with other B1G schools that have performed worse than us, and a strong argument can be made that Coach Painter & staff have done well.

Seriously, who would do better among coaches the school could actually get to come to West Laf? I think people are failing to consider how bad the past decade could have been... look around at what has happened at some of the other schools in the league & the country. There are hundreds of teams in D1, and we've been fairly consistently in the top 10%, and often higher than that. Now... all that said... I DO want to see us have a chance at a FF & NC some day. And if it's going to happen any time soon, it'll be under Painter. Our chances are better if we support the coach and the team.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Someday the coach we pay millions of dollars to will get it all figured out. Unfortunately, if he does not reload with a HUGE amount of talent this year, our team is once again in the toilet. Since he took last year off, he cannot take developmental/ two-year-to play-type players. There is now a gap in our classes that a four year squad like ours cannot afford. We probably lose our entire front court after this season.

And the "fit" argument is total BS. Many of the non-fit player were rebounds after we misssed on the upper-tier guys. And GW was a "fit" guy.

You are right, those circumstances would be a problem. There just isn't any reason to panic and go down the negative path until we know who we get. Everyone in the region but UL missed on Malik Williams.

 

[BoiledSteel]

If you look at the big picture, we've done well the last decade. In one of the articles about the team getting ready for Spain, it was summarized: "Over the last 10 years, Purdue ranks fourth in the Big Ten in overall wins (229), Big Ten wins (110) and third in NCAA Tournament bids (8; behind Michigan State and Wisconsin)."

Yes, we need to do better in the tourney than the last two years, but the team's overall performance (other than the couple down years) has been in the upper tier of one of the best leagues in the country. Add the fact that recruiting players to Purdue is tough compared with other B1G schools that have performed worse than us, and a strong argument can be made that Coach Painter & staff have done well.

Seriously, who would do better among coaches the school could actually get to come to West Laf? I think people are failing to consider how bad the past decade could have been... look around at what has happened at some of the other schools in the league & the country. There are hundreds of teams in D1, and we've been fairly consistently in the top 10%, and often higher than that. Now... all that said... I DO want to see us have a chance at a FF & NC some day. And if it's going to happen any time soon, it'll be under Painter. Our chances are better if we support the coach and the team.

That is a great post and I hope makes people think things through before making knee-jerk posts about firing a coach that is actually doing very well here. There is far too much cherry picking of details and very little big picture going on with some of the posters calling for CMP to be canned.

The tourney runs are coming, I firmly believe that.

 

[NashvilleBoiler]

That is a great post and I hope makes people think things through before making knee-jerk posts about firing a coach that is actually doing very well here. There is far too much cherry picking of details and very little big picture going on with some of the posters calling for CMP to be canned.

The tourney runs are coming, I firmly believe that.

The cherry picking is from both sides. Missing on another in a line of "critical" recruits is something the coach has been doing for more than a decade. He's only not missed a couple times. So this is certainly not knee-jerk. It's a simple understanding of your terrain. Will he completely change the tide of his recruiting tenure this year? Maybe. But history does not show it. And if you look at our depth, he's/Purdue Basketball is in for another dark period if he doesn't. Can't be "settle for" guys this year. He gambled and bet the farm with the program by not recruiting last year. If he misses on the big boys now, then the coach you all so adamantly defend will show why he's just not ready to be a big time coach.

 

[BoiledSteel]

The cherry picking is from both sides. Missing on another in a line of "critical" recruits is something the coach has been doing for more than a decade. He's only not missed a couple times. So this is certainly not knee-jerk. It's a simple understanding of your terrain. Will he completely change the tide of his recruiting tenure this year? Maybe. But history does not show it. And if you look at our depth, he's/Purdue Basketball is in for another dark period if he doesn't. Can't be "settle for" guys this year. He gambled and bet the farm with the program by not recruiting last year. If he misses on the big boys now, then the coach you all so adamantly defend will show why he's just not ready to be a big time coach.

Okay. But there is much more evidence to show that he is ready to be a B1G coach than there isn't when you look at the entire body of work.

And I also wonder, how do you know he didn't do any recruiting? Are you a coach on the staff or is it just your perception of things? I'm curious because so many statements are made on here and presented as some sort of fact yet there is no supporting evidence to say otherwise. Maybe Painter didn't go after anyone and maybe he did, if you aren't part of the staff there is no way to say for sure one way or the other.

 

[NashvilleBoiler]

Okay. But there is much more evidence to show that he is ready to be a B1G coach than there isn't when you look at the entire body of work.

And I also wonder, how do you know he didn't do any recruiting? Are you a coach on the staff or is it just your perception of things? I'm curious because so many statements are made on here and presented as some sort of fact yet there is no supporting evidence to say otherwise. Maybe Painter didn't go after anyone and maybe he did, if you aren't part of the staff there is no way to say for sure one way or the other.

Fair enough. So he's either a poor recruiter (1 3 star recruit) or it was his plan to only recruit 1 3 star recruit...which, in my opinion, is a poor plan. Since we're a team that relies on/touts development of 4 year players and only have depth at the shooting guard position.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

The cherry picking is from both sides. Missing on another in a line of "critical" recruits is something the coach has been doing for more than a decade. He's only not missed a couple times. So this is certainly not knee-jerk. It's a simple understanding of your terrain. Will he completely change the tide of his recruiting tenure this year? Maybe. But history does not show it. And if you look at our depth, he's/Purdue Basketball is in for another dark period if he doesn't. Can't be "settle for" guys this year. He gambled and bet the farm with the program by not recruiting last year. If he misses on the big boys now, then the coach you all so adamantly defend will show why he's just not ready to be a big time coach.

I'm guilty of some cherry picking. I admit it. I intentionally try to be positive in life, particularly regarding circumstances that I can't control. I try to be grounded and not a Polyanna, but I prefer to appreciate the positive than to dwell on the negative.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Fair enough. So he's either a poor recruiter (1 3 star recruit) or it was his plan to only recruit 1 3 star recruit...which, in my opinion, is a poor plan. Since we're a team that relies on/touts development of 4 year players and only have depth at the shooting guard position.

Or he didn't get the guys he wanted and didn't want to "settle". He doesn't want to go after good players that don't fit Purdue. That didn't work very well before. I don't think for a minute that a one player class was the plan.
It's common knowledge Painter is not going to tell recruits what they necessarily want to hear. He shoots straight and doesn't shmooze very well. Those attributes make him an average recruiter in today's AAU environment.

IMO his best attribute is his ability to recognize talent earlier than most. Our best bet is he gets those 3 and 4 stars early that are trending up, have some success with them and get past the sweet 16. Deep runs in the tournament would do wonders for the program and cancel out some of the negatives we have.

 

[BoiledSteel]

Fair enough. So he's either a poor recruiter (1 3 star recruit) or it was his plan to only recruit 1 3 star recruit...which, in my opinion, is a poor plan. Since we're a team that relies on/touts development of 4 year players and only have depth at the shooting guard position.

Which is grossly inaccurate. Painter gets what he needs for the team to be successful and for the most part it has worked when you look at his entire tenure. Has he been great? No, but he's been above average with the potential to have a great tourney run.

 

[bonefish1]

If you look at the big picture, we've done well the last decade. In one of the articles about the team getting ready for Spain, it was summarized: "Over the last 10 years, Purdue ranks fourth in the Big Ten in overall wins (229), Big Ten wins (110) and third in NCAA Tournament bids (8; behind Michigan State and Wisconsin)."

Yes, we need to do better in the tourney than the last two years, but the team's overall performance (other than the couple down years) has been in the upper tier of one of the best leagues in the country. Add the fact that recruiting players to Purdue is tough compared with other B1G schools that have performed worse than us, and a strong argument can be made that Coach Painter & staff have done well.

Seriously, who would do better among coaches the school could actually get to come to West Laf? I think people are failing to consider how bad the past decade could have been... look around at what has happened at some of the other schools in the league & the country. There are hundreds of teams in D1, and we've been fairly consistently in the top 10%, and often higher than that. Now... all that said... I DO want to see us have a chance at a FF & NC some day. And if it's going to happen any time soon, it'll be under Painter. Our chances are better if we support the coach and the team.

And there it is......my favorite topic: Why is it harder to recruit to Purdue than anywhere else and What coach better than Painter would be willing to come to Purdue?
Sorry, but these weak excuses are just bull$hit.
Don't make me list the long line of excuses the apologists like to use as to why it's 'tougher' to recruit to Purdue.
Also, how do you know a top coach wouldn't come to Purdue? We've had 2 coaches in 36 years with essentially no coaching search (Painter was hand picked). How do you know we couldn't do better? Have you personally spoken to some coaches agents and been told that they have no interest?
It amazes me how many people are willing to accept mediocrity or don't believe that Purdue can be better than a 'good program'.
It all depends on how a head coach sells the program and school or how an AD and board sells the opportunity to a potential coach. It's got nothing to do with the fact that Purdue isn't located near a beach and the weather sucks in January.

 

[bonefish1]

Or he didn't get the guys he wanted and didn't want to "settle". He doesn't want to go after good players that don't fit Purdue. That didn't work very well before. I don't think for a minute that a one player class was the plan.
It's common knowledge Painter is not going to tell recruits what they necessarily want to hear. He shoots straight and doesn't shmooze very well. Those attributes make him an average recruiter in today's AAU environment.

IMO his best attribute is his ability to recognize talent earlier than most. Our best bet is he gets those 3 and 4 stars early that are trending up, have some success with them and get past the sweet 16. Deep runs in the tournament would do wonders for the program and cancel out some of the negatives we have.

You're absolutely right. A Final Four run would do wonders for the team, program and Painters reputation. But, if it doesn't happen this year, do you really believe it's going to happen next year or the year after? If we were signing a Top 10 class, I'd say "sure, maybe. At least he's getting the recruits needed". But the way things are going now, we'll be lucky to have a Top 25 recruiting class. In 2 years, if MP hasn't made a FF, that'll be 15 years as the HC without a FF.
When do you pull the trigger and make a change?

 

[bonefish1]

Which is grossly inaccurate. Painter gets what he needs for the team to be successful and for the most part it has worked when you look at his entire tenure. Has he been great? No, but he's been above average with the potential to have a great tourney run.

Depends on your definition of ''successful". As we've seen, some people on here are happy with above average while some expect more. Some are just happy to make the tourney while others expect tourney success.

 

[BuilderBob6]

You're absolutely right. A Final Four run would do wonders for the team, program and Painters reputation. But, if it doesn't happen this year, do you really believe it's going to happen next year or the year after? If we were signing a Top 10 class, I'd say "sure, maybe. At least he's getting the recruits needed". But the way things are going now, we'll be lucky to have a Top 25 recruiting class. In 2 years, if MP hasn't made a FF, that'll be 15 years as the HC without a FF.
When do you pull the trigger and make a change?

I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying. Painter is not going to sign a top ten class. Top 25 is possible but we're going to have to make a run with the likes of Vince and Carsen imo........we're not going to do it with five stars cause we aren't going to get them. That's probably the reality of Matt Painter recruiting at this point. We need big dance success to get the great recruits but we can't get the recruits without the success.

I was a freshman the last time we went to the FF, I want to get back there as bad as anyone. Keady went much longer than Matt without a FF. We all want a higher standard for the program than that. But for me, when I weigh the options and probabilities, we have a better chance for success with Matt than going after someone else at this point. I'm not confident enough in the athletic department to make a good hire if we were to make a change.......the new AD may alter that perception.

Btw, coaches with Matt's record rarely get fired imo, regardless of tournament success. I think most ADs feel if the coach has regular season success, the tournament wins will come.

 

[BoiledSteel]

Depends on your definition of ''successful". As we've seen, some people on here are happy with above average while some expect more. Some are just happy to make the tourney while others expect tourney success.

I based my comments on the numbers the program as produced under Painter. I forget where, but someone posted our percentages for things and most if not all were in the upper echelon of the B1G. Which tells you that the foundation for a deep tourney run is there and I think is coming sooner rather than later.

People get caught up in what recruits we miss on way too much here. We seemingly get what we need more times than not and it has turned in to above average results as a whole.

 

[Statey]

Also, how do you know a top coach wouldn't come to Purdue? We've had 2 coaches in 36 years with essentially no coaching search (Painter was hand picked). How do you know we couldn't do better?

I don't always agree with your posts, but you bring up a really good question that I don't think many (myself included) have thought about. There seems to be "conventional wisdom" of sorts regarding Purdue having some disadvantages, both in attracting recruits and coaches. That's a really good point about 3 and a half decades of no open-market candidacies for a head coach. Now, this doesn't mean any other people would have performed better than Painter, but certainly a very valid argument that fans have really no idea what to expect from a national search given that college hoops is a completely different beast than it was even 10 years ago, much less 3.5 times that. With the kind of money flowing into the B10 from the TV money, any B10 gig (save for Rutgers) could be really attractive with the right level of incentives and support from the AD.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I don't always agree with your posts, but you bring up a really good question that I don't think many (myself included) have thought about. There seems to be "conventional wisdom" of sorts regarding Purdue having some disadvantages, both in attracting recruits and coaches. That's a really good point about 3 and a half decades of no open-market candidacies for a head coach. Now, this doesn't mean any other people would have performed better than Painter, but certainly a very valid argument that fans have really no idea what to expect from a national search given that college hoops is a completely different beast than it was even 10 years ago, much less 3.5 times that. With the kind of money flowing into the B10 from the TV money, any B10 gig (save for Rutgers) could be really attractive with the right level of incentives and support from the AD.

Fair point, but I think that you could compare to every other program in the Big Ten, except Michigan State, all of which have had a number of open market searches. Since Bo Ryan, the open market successes that I can think of are Self (who Illinois couldn't keep), Matta, and Beilein. I don't know if it is a coincidence that OSU and Michigan are two of the richest athletic departments in the country. I suppose you could include someone like Fran McCafferey or Crean as well, depending on the definition of suffessful. The listing the hires that had significantly less success than Painter has had would require more work than I am willing to put in right now.

 

[TC4THREE]

I don't always agree with your posts, but you bring up a really good question that I don't think many (myself included) have thought about. There seems to be "conventional wisdom" of sorts regarding Purdue having some disadvantages, both in attracting recruits and coaches. That's a really good point about 3 and a half decades of no open-market candidacies for a head coach. Now, this doesn't mean any other people would have performed better than Painter, but certainly a very valid argument that fans have really no idea what to expect from a national search given that college hoops is a completely different beast than it was even 10 years ago, much less 3.5 times that. With the kind of money flowing into the B10 from the TV money, any B10 gig (save for Rutgers) could be really attractive with the right level of incentives and support from the AD.

Disagree. It isn't hard to look around and see what coaches would be interested in the Purdue job at a salary comparable to what we're paying right now. If you doubled the salary (which is already something like a top 25 salary right now I think) or something like that then sure that might open some more doors but we're not going to do that and, truthfully, I don't really think we should. At the current salary, what coaches are going to leave their current position to come to Purdue and of those are any likely to be better than Painter? Don't think that list has many, if any, names on it.

Could there be some less proven people who MAYBE could be better? Sure. But you don't scrap the program for a lottery ticket.

It's really not hard to figure out.

 

[Statey]

Disagree. It isn't hard to look around and see what coaches would be interested in the Purdue job at a salary comparable to what we're paying right now. If you doubled the salary (which is already something like a top 25 salary right now I think) or something like that then sure that might open some more doors but we're not going to do that and, truthfully, I don't really think we should. At the current salary, what coaches are going to leave their current position to come to Purdue and of those are any likely to be better than Painter? Don't think that list has many, if any, names on it.

Could there be some less proven people who MAYBE could be better? Sure. But you don't scrap the program for a lottery ticket.

It's really not hard to figure out.

I'm not as convinced as you. Obviously, you are pretty steadfast in your support of Painter and aren't interested in considering alternative views, so I'm not going to try to change your opinion. But you peaked my interest with the salary comment, so I pulled up the USA today list of top paid coaches in the NCAA. This is probably a touch out of date, but is a least updated through the date Hoiberg left for the Bulls.

Here are 10 names that are below Painter's pay scale (not necessarily the immediate 10): Turgeon, Boeheim, Stallings, Bennett, Altman, Roy Williams (surprisingly), Cuonzo Martin, Few, Ben Jacobsen, Archie Miller. This isn't to suggest that any of these people would want the job or that Purdue would want them (certainly Roy Williams attractiveness has gone way down lately). But I also don't think it's reasonable to look at that list and be completely dismissive of the notion that any one of them would consider the position if offered. And your position assumes NO change in Purdue's pay scale for the next coach, which I think is unlikely. Generally speaking, if you don't like the results you're getting - to the point of firing a guy for it - colleges generally pay a little more for the next guy.

 

[mathboy]

Much has been made of getting a top-10 class. I'd like to see one also, but I think the impact of such a class is far less than some of our posters would expect.

First, there was an article, probably in the last 60 days, about top-10 players/1&dones, and how little they actually contributed to the overall success of the program of the school they chose. I can't find it right now, so you will need to go looking, if you care that much. IIRC, the kids did well individually, but did not blend into the team as well as they might have. The schools signing the top-10 players did not do well in the NCAA's. Of course, there are the Dukes and UK's, but it was often the role players on those teams that made the difference. It was the guys who had high skills and stayed multiple years that really drove the success of the team.

Second, let's do some simple mathematical analysis. "Top-10 class" says there are 10 a year, but only 4 slots in the FF, so 60% of the top ten classes get you nothing. "Nothing" in this case is defined as a FF run. You could get 4 top ten classes in a row, and still the odds would say you are unlikely to make an FF run. Why? Kids from top-10 classes go early to the NBA, so their impact on the school's program is fleeting.

All I am saying here is that we need to apply some of our Purdue analytical education to this issue, and refrain from the emotional reactions that I see on this board. Let's be rational, and let's stop making weird straw-man arguments about what might happen 3 years in the future, and using that straw-man to demean Painter and the team.

 

[mathboy]

Fair enough. So he's either a poor recruiter (1 3 star recruit) or it was his plan to only recruit 1 3 star recruit...which, in my opinion, is a poor plan. Since we're a team that relies on/touts development of 4 year players and only have depth at the shooting guard position.

I think if Biggie had gone to the NBA, you would have seen at least one more player in this year's class.

 

[bonefish1]

I based my comments on the numbers the program as produced under Painter. I forget where, but someone posted our percentages for things and most if not all were in the upper echelon of the B1G. Which tells you that the foundation for a deep tourney run is there and I think is coming sooner rather than later.

People get caught up in what recruits we miss on way too much here. We seemingly get what we need more times than not and it has turned in to above average results as a whole.

Again, "we get what we need".... Need for what? Enough to make the tourney? Well, if that's the goal, then I agree, Painter is the right guy.
After all, Keady won a ton of Big10 games, won Big 10 titles, but only made 2 Elite Eights in 20 years of coaching. And that coming from what most would consider a 'good to above average' basketball program.

 

[TC4THREE]

I'm not as convinced as you. Obviously, you are pretty steadfast in your support of Painter and aren't interested in considering alternative views, so I'm not going to try to change your opinion. But you peaked my interest with the salary comment, so I pulled up the USA today list of top paid coaches in the NCAA. This is probably a touch out of date, but is a least updated through the date Hoiberg left for the Bulls.

Here are 10 names that are below Painter's pay scale (not necessarily the immediate 10): Turgeon, Boeheim, Stallings, Bennett, Altman, Roy Williams (surprisingly), Cuonzo Martin, Few, Ben Jacobsen, Archie Miller. This isn't to suggest that any of these people would want the job or that Purdue would want them (certainly Roy Williams attractiveness has gone way down lately). But I also don't think it's reasonable to look at that list and be completely dismissive of the notion that any one of them would consider the position if offered. And your position assumes NO change in Purdue's pay scale for the next coach, which I think is unlikely. Generally speaking, if you don't like the results you're getting - to the point of firing a guy for it - colleges generally pay a little more for the next guy.

Wrong. I've ALREADY considered alternative views and found good reasons to reject them.

Your list only further convinces me that there are few out there, and maybe none, that you would look at and say that they MAY take the job AND there's NO DOUBT they'd be an upgrade.

Turgeon, Bennett, Altman, Williams, Few, and Boeheim aren't coming to Purdue all for various reasons.

Stallings, Cuonzo, Jacobsen, and Miller might possibly come but I find any of the four to be far from a home run hire in terms of being able to eclipse what Painter has accomplished. I also think any of these 4, or any coach really, might re-think coming to Purdue on the heels of Purdue letting Painter go (assuming he continues to win 20-25 games and make the NCAA tournament). They could just as easily go somewhere they'd receive appreciation for making the NCAA tournament rather than have a segment of whiny fans clamoring for the latest and greatest mid major coach if they go 5+ years without making a Final Four.

 

[bonefish1]

Disagree. It isn't hard to look around and see what coaches would be interested in the Purdue job at a salary comparable to what we're paying right now. If you doubled the salary (which is already something like a top 25 salary right now I think) or something like that then sure that might open some more doors but we're not going to do that and, truthfully, I don't really think we should. At the current salary, what coaches are going to leave their current position to come to Purdue and of those are any likely to be better than Painter? Don't think that list has many, if any, names on it.

Could there be some less proven people who MAYBE could be better? Sure. But you don't scrap the program for a lottery ticket.

It's really not hard to figure out.

So, again, how many coaches and/or their agents have you spoken to in order to gauge their interest in coaching at Purdue? None. zilch. zero. So, how can you say who would or wouldn't be interested? You can't, even though you want to profess to know what people think.
Some coaches might look at Purdue and see nothing but great opportunity sitting smack dab in the middle of the hottest recruiting bed in the country. A new AD might come in and on his first day at work say "We're going to Final Fours and Rose Bowls and that is our organizational commitment from this day forward and we will commit the resources necessary for us to do so."
This is big boy athletics and in order to play, you gotta pay. I can virtually guarantee you that the next head coach at PU will make more than Painter. That's just the way it works. And if you're going to be competing with other top programs for head coaches, well, you're going to have to pay top dollar.
I have no problem with that.
No, there are no guarantees, but the best coaches make the most money for a reason.

 

[bonefish1]

Wrong. I've ALREADY considered alternative views and found good reasons to reject them.

Your list only further convinces me that there are few out there, and maybe none, that you would look at and say that they MAY take the job AND there's NO DOUBT they'd be an upgrade.

Turgeon, Bennett, Altman, Williams, Few, and Boeheim aren't coming to Purdue all for various reasons.

Stallings, Cuonzo, Jacobsen, and Miller might possibly come but I find any of the four to be far from a home run hire in terms of being able to eclipse what Painter has accomplished. I also think any of these 4, or any coach really, might re-think coming to Purdue on the heels of Purdue letting Painter go (assuming he continues to win 20-25 games and make the NCAA tournament). They could just as easily go somewhere they'd receive appreciation for making the NCAA tournament rather than have a segment of whiny fans clamoring for the latest and greatest mid major coach if they go 5+ years without making a Final Four.

Can you list some of the quotes you had with the coaches listed above who told you they wouldn't come to Purdue. I'm just curious to hear some of their reasons because obviously, you spoke with them directly and that's what they told you.

 

[mathboy]

Can you list some of the quotes you had with the coaches listed above who told you they wouldn't come to Purdue. I'm just curious to hear some of their reasons because obviously, you spoke with them directly and that's what they told you.

Well, Turgeon, Bennett, Altman, Williams, Few, and Boeheim are coaches that I would have some question about bringing in. Maybe Boeheim, yes, that would be an upgrade because he can recruit and he has won an NC. His recruiting methods leave some slime behind, but I'd be okay with him.

Cuonzo Martin, Few, Ben Jacobsen, Archie Miller - well, Miller would be about an even trade with Painter. The others, not so much. Martin seems to be able to recruit, but his record is not much different, perhaps worse, than Painter, in a lesser league.

While I agree with Bonefish that the hunt for a coach to replace Keady seemed a given, I suspect that was not the case. It was not public and not well known, many alternatives were looked at. However, Painter had the qualities and the recommendation of the right people to fit the job. The replacement hunt for Lee Rose, who was Keady, was very extensive.

Me thinks this whole Painter replacement discussion is a strange case of "the grass is always greener" psychology, and not worth much more space on this board.

 

[TC4THREE]

So, again, how many coaches and/or their agents have you spoken to in order to gauge their interest in coaching at Purdue? None. zilch. zero. So, how can you say who would or wouldn't be interested? You can't, even though you want to profess to know what people think.

You know what, I don't have to know because I don't want a change anyway. You fools that think you'll have top coaches making lateral career moves for similar salaries are the people that damn well better know what coaches are willing to come here before you fire a very good coach to go chase someone else. You know what happens when you get rid of someone without a solid plan already in mind? Darrell Hazell happens.

So you tell me what coaches you know will be interested in an open Purdue position or is your plan to just create the opening to find out?

 

[TC4THREE]

Can you list some of the quotes you had with the coaches listed above who told you they wouldn't come to Purdue. I'm just curious to hear some of their reasons because obviously, you spoke with them directly and that's what they told you.

As soon as you can give me quotes from these coaches indicating they'd be interested.

 

[JohnHoosierr]

As soon as you can give me quotes from these coaches indicating they'd be interested.

So basically you have no idea yet continue to spout your opinion as fact. And for the record I don't think painter should be fired right now.

 

[bonefish1]

You know what, I don't have to know because I don't want a change anyway. You fools that think you'll have top coaches making lateral career moves for similar salaries are the people that damn well better know what coaches are willing to come here before you fire a very good coach to go chase someone else. You know what happens when you get rid of someone without a solid plan already in mind? Darrell Hazell happens.

So you tell me what coaches you know will be interested in an open Purdue position or is your plan to just create the opening to find out?

First, if you could read, I said the next coach would be paid more than Painter. That's just economics and being in the game of hiring a big time coach.
Second, I don't claim t know who would or wouldn't come to Purdue and I never said anything about a lateral move. What I've always said, and will continue to say, is if you put a big enough number on the check, you'd be amazed at who might be interested in coaching at Purdue or anywhere else.

I imagine the next AD might have a conversation similar to this regarding someone like Archie Miller:
AD: "Hi, (Archie Miller's agent), I know Archie is probably happy at Dayton, but I think there might be an opportunity for him to get Purdue to the next level of consistently competing for Final Four and national championships. As the new AD, I'm committing the necessary resources to make this happen and I'm interested in Archie. Just for conversations sake, what's his current contract status and what's the number you'd need to see to at least sit down and talk?"

 

[Statey]

Your list only further convinces me that there are few out there, and maybe none, that you would look at and say that they MAY take the job AND there's NO DOUBT they'd be an upgrade.

I think this quote sums up a lot of people's position here. You're looking for the guarantee that doesn't exist. Any time there is a coaching change there is a risk that it doesn't work out.

 

[TC4THREE]

So basically you have no idea yet continue to spout your opinion as fact. And for the record I don't think painter should be fired right now.

I believe it. Good enough for me. You can choose to believe that Purdue can go land Billy Donovan or Bill Self if you wish.

 

[bonefish1]

I believe it. Good enough for me. You can choose to believe that Purdue can go land Billy Donovan or Bill Self if you wish.

Just curious, what do you do for a living? It's highly unlikely it's anything that would involve a sales quota because there's absolutely no way you could ever achieve more that what's expected of you.

 

[TC4THREE]

First, if you could read, I said the next coach would be paid more than Painter. That's just economics and being in the game of hiring a big time coach.
Second, I don't claim t know who would or wouldn't come to Purdue and I never said anything about a lateral move. What I've always said, and will continue to say, is if you put a big enough number on the check, you'd be amazed at who might be interested in coaching at Purdue or anywhere else.

You're right. For the right price you can probably even get someone like Billy Donovan (looks like he currently makes about 6 million a year) to West Lafayette. What makes you think Purdue is going to write that type of check though? Sounds like you're living in some dream world.

If you're willing to spend more on Archie Miller, I just don't know what to say. Good coach and one that might consider Purdue (as I stated earlier) but I certainly don't feel any better about him getting Purdue to a Final Four than Painter.

 

[TC4THREE]

Just curious, what do you do for a living? It's highly unlikely it's anything that would involve a sales quota because there's absolutely no way you could ever achieve more that what's expected of you.

LOL. You know absolutely nothing about me. This was comical to read though because, even as vague as it is, it sounds so foolish.

 

[TC4THREE]

Just curious, what do you do for a living? It's highly unlikely it's anything that would involve a sales quota because there's absolutely no way you could ever achieve more that what's expected of you.

Similarly, I might surmise that you could never run anything successfully because you don't make logical assumptions or decisions. However, that may just be what you're like on a Purdue sports forum. Maybe you are good at your job.

 

[TC4THREE]

I think this quote sums up a lot of people's position here. You're looking for the guarantee that doesn't exist. Any time there is a coaching change there is a risk that it doesn't work out.

I'd be looking for at least a strong likelihood of better with very little chance it can backfire. Like I said, I'm not interested in the lottery-ticket-bonefish approach.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

You know what, I don't have to know because I don't want a change anyway. You fools that think you'll have top coaches making lateral career moves for similar salaries are the people that damn well better know what coaches are willing to come here before you fire a very good coach to go chase someone else. You know what happens when you get rid of someone without a solid plan already in mind? Darrell Hazell happens.

So you tell me what coaches you know will be interested in an open Purdue position or is your plan to just create the opening to find out?

The Hope situation was different than the Painter situation for two reasons. First, Hope was far less successful than Painter is. Secondly, football revenues were nowhere near what they needed to be under Hope and declining rapidly. In basketball, there isn't a lot of upside financially from where Purdue is right now.

Speaking of Hazell, before Purdue hired Hazell, Butch Jones reportedly turned down a Purdue offer and Northern Iowa's coach took another offer while being considered by Purdue, reportedly. It's hard to say what level of coach Purdue would be able to land after firing Painter, especially assuming that football is where available budget increases would be directed.

 

[TC4THREE]

The Hope situation was different than the Painter situation for two reasons. First, Hope was far less successful than Painter is. Secondly, football revenues were nowhere near what they needed to be under Hope and declining rapidly. In basketball, there isn't a lot of upside financially from where Purdue is right now.

Speaking of Hazell, before Purdue hired Hazell, Butch Jones reportedly turned down a Purdue offer and Northern Iowa's coach took another offer while being considered by Purdue, reportedly. It's hard to say what level of coach Purdue would be able to land after firing Painter, especially assuming that football is where available budget increases would be directed.

Agree Hope was producing mediocre results. Still it would've been better to wait out another year of Hope than it was to sign up for 4-5 years of Hazell.

I think you mean the Northern Illinois coach who I think ended up at NC State.

So I think we can be reasonably certain Hazell was no better than 3rd on the original list and we ended up with him because Burke didn't realize that he couldn't land an acceptable candidate or he didn't realize that Hazell wasn't one. Either way, screwed for several years and I would be surprised if we're not in a worse football revenue situation heading into next year than we were with Hope's final year.

 

[bonefish1]

I'd be looking for at least a strong likelihood of better with very little chance it can backfire. Like I said, I'm not interested in the lottery-ticket-bonefish approach.

There are no guarantees and there are no "very little chance it can backfire". You have to be willing to accept the risk.
You could get John Wooden to coach Purdue and that's still not a guarantee of success. But, in the same sense, you look at a school like UNC for basketball or ND for football and you'll see that even though they are the most prestigious programs in their sports, they sometimes even make bad coaching hires (Brad Dougherty and Charlie Weis). It'll be interesting to see what happens with Duke once Coach K, because if any program has a reason to be bitching about hard to recruit to, it'll be Duke (shit facilities, tough academics, competing with UNC, etc).

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Agree Hope was producing mediocre results. Still it would've been better to wait out another year of Hope than it was to sign up for 4-5 years of Hazell.

I think you mean the Northern Illinois coach who I think ended up at NC State.

So I think we can be reasonably certain Hazell was no better than 3rd on the original list and we ended up with him because Burke didn't realize that he couldn't land an acceptable candidate or he didn't realize that Hazell wasn't one. Either way, screwed for several years and I would be surprised if we're not in a worse football revenue situation heading into next year than we were with Hope's final year.

Yes. Northern Illinois is what I meant. Thanks.