Must Read: Gregg Doyel article on Painter/Purdue Program

[bonefish1]

I usually like Doyel but he seems to bought into what many Purdue fans have which is "this is the best we can do".

I like Painter as well, but he's been here 11 years and all he's got to show for it is a few sweet 16s and 2 major late game meltdowns in round 1.
He's got Keady tourney coaching disease.

 

[Dryfly88]

I think this article was written before all the upsets Friday. Was UWV and MSU imperfectly constructed. Did their coaches make mistakes? Izzo said "in my wildest dreams I didn't think they'd hit some of the shots they hit". You could say the same about our game. Honestly the 3 threes they hit at the need of regulation were pretty tough shots. And in all the games so far with the same situation I have not seen one coach foul with a three point lead. This second guessing is just like in baseball, why didn't the manager pull the starter or why didn't he leave him in. It's pointless. The issue here is it's the NCAA tourney and it's competitive. Sometimes shots just go in , like the halfcourt shot for Northern Iowa and and sometimes they don't. I think one big issue for us is we played with mostly freshman and sophs, a relatively young team yet.

CMP admitted in the article that he should have fouled on the last possession. He said he made a mistake.

 

[dal9]

isu clownstomping ualr

 

[DG10]

I think the below article is a great read and a great perspective from an outsider. Let me know what you all think.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sport...nter-made-mistakes-but-stop-bashing/81972156/

It is just that...the perspective of an outsider, and one not at all familiar with the program. Painter inherited a mess...had the program relevant nationally...made it a mess again...brought it back to at least being recognized nationally, then choked in epic fashion...adding a PG a year too late is not going to solve that latter issue.

If anything was accurate in the article, it was the point made about what it is that Purdue/Painter really needs...the problem is that they have proven unable to get it and there is no reason to believe that suddenly or magically is going to change unfortunately.

 

[DG10]

isu clownstomping ualr

Does ISU have a legitimate DI PG? I am guessing so...certainly seemed so at least.

Did ISU decide to play small and give UALR a chance that it would not have had otherwise? I am guessing not.

 

[Mobes]

I read it and he is right. If you want Painter gone I GET it. But this bashing is just hurting the Program when the team for the next 2 years will be good. But needs more talent at playmaker.

BTW here is something I posted in comments at star comparing Painter and Keady after 11 years at Purdue: Painters NCAA record after 11 years coaching Purdue is: 8-8. (excluding 1 loss with N Illinois). With 1 Big 10 tournament 09 win & 2 sweet 16's. 2 losses in 1st rd

Keady NCAA record after 11 years at Purdue: 8 out of 11 years in NCAA. 3 Big 10 championships. 1 outright. 5-8 in NCAA tourney with 1 sweet 16. 3 losses in 1st rd.

GEE and Gene Keady has Purdue's court named after him. Compared to Keady Painters resume is BETTER at least in the tournament.

Big Dog Glenn Robinson saved Gene's butt because Keady missed the tournament in 92 and then Glenn came along for 93.

Matt isn't close compared to Gene.

 

[BoilerBiker]

.

 

[BoilerBiker]

Think what you want, but we're not paying "top tier" money. Painter's not in the top 20 highest paid.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/mens-basketball/coach/

Can't find a quick comprehensive list, but painter ranked 18th of last year's tourney coaches, with one of the higher max bonus amounts.
At least Beilein has surpassed him now but Ryan and Ford above him are gone also.

I believe each coach ranked above painter in the big ten has reached the final four.

 

[mathboy]

One perspective to keep in mind. When Keady came to Purdue, he had been a head coach for several years. I think Matt was only HC at NI just one year before coming to Purdue. We need to recognize the learning curve he is experiencing when considering his performance.

Secondly, Matt had to work under a tightly constrained recruiting budget for several years that drug his team's talent level down to the bottom. We are just now recovering from that Cordova-disaster. When ever I read someone blindly average his early success, the down years, and then the most recent 18 months I cringe at the errors in judgement that can lead to.

I understand the criticism of Painter, and I think much of it is just. What I don't agree with are the posters who seem to believe that his performance as a coach is a constant, never improving. That just is not the case. He and his assistants will continue to improve. Will that improvement rate match everyone's expectations? Probably not everyone's, but I think I am willing to let this bet ride.

I think there are plenty of examples of FF coaches who se teams struggled in the NCAA's early in their careers. Their eventual success came out of many failures.

 

[Inspector100]

One perspective to keep in mind. When Keady came to Purdue, he had been a head coach for several years. I think Matt was only HC at NI just one year before coming to Purdue. We need to recognize the learning curve he is experiencing when considering his performance.

Secondly, Matt had to work under a tightly constrained recruiting budget for several years that drug his team's talent level down to the bottom. We are just now recovering from that Cordova-disaster. When ever I read someone blindly average his early success, the down years, and then the most recent 18 months I cringe at the errors in judgement that can lead to.

I understand the criticism of Painter, and I think much of it is just. What I don't agree with are the posters who seem to believe that his performance as a coach is a constant, never improving. That just is not the case. He and his assistants will continue to improve. Will that improvement rate match everyone's expectations? Probably not everyone's, but I think I am willing to let this bet ride.

I think there are plenty of examples of FF coaches who se teams struggled in the NCAA's early in their careers. Their eventual success came out of many failures.

CMP was head coach at SIU in Carbondale, IL. He had a great season, only losing a game or two. Sorry, but I didn't look up the record, but they won the conference.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

BoilerFagi is some bald fat asshole who never made a layup in his life. But hey, he's tough as nails here.

 

[boilerpt]

Wasn't Painter's baby boiler class during the span when "budgetary constraints" made it completely impossible for him to sign any talent? Budget excuse, check. Needing time to learn about late game situations excuse (12 years into being a high major coach), check. Adjusting to rule changes excuse, check. There will always be something to point to. We have got to be the most coach-friendly university there is. Give us a glimmer of hope of success and you're tenured.

 

[Chauncey1986]

It's a thing of beauty to watch some of these point guards in the tournament dribble the ball up the court through the press like they are invisible. Some of those teams have 2 that are able to do that.

 

[mathboy]

Wasn't Painter's baby boiler class during the span when "budgetary constraints" made it completely impossible for him to sign any talent? Budget excuse, check. Needing time to learn about late game situations excuse (12 years into being a high major coach), check. Adjusting to rule changes excuse, check. There will always be something to point to. We have got to be the most coach-friendly university there is. Give us a glimmer of hope of success and you're tenured.

I don't think it was during the period when his recruiting was most constrained, but please understand, I am not working with any hard evidence other than a few comments here and there by administrative types. The exact dates of the budget "dark ages" are not clear.

 

[DG10]

One perspective to keep in mind. When Keady came to Purdue, he had been a head coach for several years. I think Matt was only HC at NI just one year before coming to Purdue. We need to recognize the learning curve he is experiencing when considering his performance.

Secondly, Matt had to work under a tightly constrained recruiting budget for several years that drug his team's talent level down to the bottom. We are just now recovering from that Cordova-disaster. When ever I read someone blindly average his early success, the down years, and then the most recent 18 months I cringe at the errors in judgement that can lead to.

I understand the criticism of Painter, and I think much of it is just. What I don't agree with are the posters who seem to believe that his performance as a coach is a constant, never improving. That just is not the case. He and his assistants will continue to improve. Will that improvement rate match everyone's expectations? Probably not everyone's, but I think I am willing to let this bet ride.

I think there are plenty of examples of FF coaches who se teams struggled in the NCAA's early in their careers. Their eventual success came out of many failures.

Those are simply more excuses, and not even very good ones at that.

The budget Matt was working under was not what impacted recruiting...he offered guys early in an effort to secure commitments early so that he could move on the next class as early as possible, and it unfortunately backfired.

His lack of HC experience might have been something that could be considered early on, but not 12/13 years in as a HC...never mind 11 now at Purdue.

Bottom line...he has struggled with recruiting...he does not have a tremendous staff (which contributes to the recruiting struggles)...he has an offensive style that does not appeal to kids or allow them to showcase their skills (which further contributes to the recruiting struggles), and he simply has failed when/where it matters most as a HC, and done so consistently unfortunately.

Short of some miracle or perfect storm circumstances that allowed for the class of Hummel, Johnson, Martin and Moore in the first place, it is not going to happen for Painter and his present staff...he is constantly chasing something with respect to recruiting, and continuously failing to get it, whatever "it" might be each year, and, more importantly, he (and/with his staff) can't get that premier talent.

Are there worse Head Coaches? No doubt about it. Are there better ones? Without question. Does it matter...at/for Purdue? Not at all. Purdue has had many chances in the past 36 years since they last appeared in a Final Four to reach another one, several really good ones for that matter, and they have failed to do so and chances are better than not that they will continue to fail to do unfortunately, as Painter's model and style of coaching mirrors that of his predecessor.

 

[BoilerBiker]

One perspective to keep in mind. When Keady came to Purdue, he had been a head coach for several years. I think Matt was only HC at NI just one year before coming to Purdue. We need to recognize the learning curve he is experiencing when considering his performance.

Secondly, Matt had to work under a tightly constrained recruiting budget for several years that drug his team's talent level down to the bottom. We are just now recovering from that Cordova-disaster. When ever I read someone blindly average his early success, the down years, and then the most recent 18 months I cringe at the errors in judgement that can lead to.

I understand the criticism of Painter, and I think much of it is just. What I don't agree with are the posters who seem to believe that his performance as a coach is a constant, never improving. That just is not the case. He and his assistants will continue to improve. Will that improvement rate match everyone's expectations? Probably not everyone's, but I think I am willing to let this bet ride.

I think there are plenty of examples of FF coaches who se teams struggled in the NCAA's early in their careers. Their eventual success came out of many failures.

agree with much of DG's response.

interesting comparison/results with his season at siu:
won the conference, conference coach of the year, ranked as high as #15 in the country, #9 seed, 1st round tourney loss.

budget -
impacted asst coaches more than recruiting expenses. the loss of martin (recruiting) and lusk (XOs) were huge. and even then, those guys wanted to be head coaches. so an increase to even more of a competitive pay would not guarantee them staying anyway. always a double-edged sword in having great assistants, we just apparently havent been quite able to match them with replacements.

cordova was here from 2007-12, which corresponds to painters greatest years at purdue finishing 2,2,1,2,6 & 2 sweet 16s during that time. and even in the last four years, our recruiting rankings are slightly better than michigan st, virginia, villanova, xavier - all who finished this regular season ranked in the ap top 5 and earned high seeds.

even then, i ask how can mid majors continually out perform so many others without their budgets, talent, etc?
not just one year runs, but consistently like gonzaga, wichita st now, vcu, butler, xavier, even a northern iowa.
typically it is the head coach that trumps and precedes all of those other categories.

learning curve after 10 years, blindly averaging early success - ?
i do not understand these arguments. why would we not look at it his whole career and look where the trends are?
i see the exact opposite - cmp did quite well during his early tenure at purdue.
the first half at purdue, he improved the team from last to first with back to back sweet 16s as noted above.
but the second half - after cordova left, after staff pay increases - we fell back down to last again.
we have now risen back to tied for 3rd in conference play, but not yet winning any tourney games (when actually making the tourney).

i think cmp can provide much better results as proven by both his first 6 years of success at purdue and short time at siu.
he'll have much added pressure in the next year, or two, to keep trying to not only get that back, but be even better.

 

[vilehoopster]

I said this in another post, but pasting it here.

Let’s go with the excuse Painter said to Doyal, we need that one player who can break down a defense. Painter always finds a way to blame the players. Accordng to Haas, I sure repeating Painter comments to the team after the game, we, the players, were too passive, or what he said to Doyal: we need better players. That is total BS: We had good enough players to get a 17 point lead on Iowa at home, a big lead at Maryland, a huge lead then blow it against Michigan State at home, and get a lead against Kansas five years ago, or a 7 point lead against Cincy with 50 seconds to go, or get a 13 point lead with 3 and1/2 minutes on Thursday. Those lost leads and losses are on the coach, who clearly does a poor job with late games X’s and O’s, holding the ball and quitting to attack, and who does a terrible job of teaching how to beat a press and pressure defense.

 

[mathboy]

agree with much of DG's response.

interesting comparison/results with his season at siu:
won the conference, conference coach of the year, ranked as high as #15 in the country, #9 seed, 1st round tourney loss.

budget -
impacted asst coaches more than recruiting expenses. the loss of martin (recruiting) and lusk (XOs) were huge. and even then, those guys wanted to be head coaches. so an increase to even more of a competitive pay would not guarantee them staying anyway. always a double-edged sword in having great assistants, we just apparently havent been quite able to match them with replacements.

cordova was here from 2007-12, which corresponds to painters greatest years at purdue finishing 2,2,1,2,6 & 2 sweet 16s during that time. and even in the last four years, our recruiting rankings are slightly better than michigan st, virginia, villanova, xavier - all who finished this regular season ranked in the ap top 5 and earned high seeds.

even then, i ask how can mid majors continually out perform so many others without their budgets, talent, etc?
not just one year runs, but consistently like gonzaga, wichita st now, vcu, butler, xavier, even a northern iowa.
typically it is the head coach that trumps and precedes all of those other categories.

learning curve after 10 years, blindly averaging early success - ?
i do not understand these arguments. why would we not look at it his whole career and look where the trends are?
i see the exact opposite - cmp did quite well during his early tenure at purdue.
the first half at purdue, he improved the team from last to first with back to back sweet 16s as noted above.
but the second half - after cordova left, after staff pay increases - we fell back down to last again.
we have now risen back to tied for 3rd in conference play, but not yet winning any tourney games (when actually making the tourney).

i think cmp can provide much better results as proven by both his first 6 years of success at purdue and short time at siu.
he'll have much added pressure in the next year, or two, to keep trying to not only get that back, but be even better.

I understand the question. Keep in mind that recruiting impact is always 3-5 years after the event that can affect it. You build relationships with high school players, maybe 1-2 years out, and it is your upper class players that rely carry the team. That adds the second part of the timeline, adding another 2-3 years to the timing. So a cut in 2008 recruiting $'s affects the teams record in 2011 or 2012. How did we do then?

The ramp up is quicker if you play freshmen and sophomores a lot. Remember last years team started 2-3 freshmen? You are seeing the toll that inexperience creates.

 

[BoilerBiker]

So a cut in 2008 recruiting $'s affects the teams record in 2011 or 2012. How did we do then?

true.
not awful though, unranked 2011 (2 guys), #20 rivals in 2012.

retention rates kill us though.
from the 2008-2013 classes, i count 10 defections out of 19 total recruits
(incl j.simpson but not his fault)

 

[PaBoiler78]

true.
not awful though, unranked 2011 (2 guys), #20 rivals in 2012.

retention rates kill us though.
from the 2008-2013 classes, i count 10 defections out of 19 total recruits
(incl j.simpson but not his fault)

throw in occasional 4 star recruits that in the latter part of their Jr. year can't even crack the rotation to provide quality depth.

 

[jageh345]

I usually like Doyel but he seems to bought into what many Purdue fans have which is "this is the best we can do".

I like Painter as well, but he's been here 11 years and all he's got to show for it is a few sweet 16s and 2 major late game meltdowns in round 1.
He's got Keady tourney coaching disease.

I usually like Doyel but he seems to bought into what many Purdue fans have which is "this is the best we can do".

I like Painter as well, but he's been here 11 years and all he's got to show for it is a few sweet 16s and 2 major late game meltdowns in round 1.
He's got Keady tourney coaching disease.

I think this guy hit on Painter.If he is still learning to coach we can expect the same performance in the future.If he has'nt learned to coach by know when will he.

 

[honey_badger]

CMP admitted in the article that he should have fouled on the last possession. He said he made a mistake.

So many coaches learn that the hard way, but why is he learning that so late in the game (later in his career - although i think he is still one of the youngest coaches in the B1G except for pitino/collins)
I mean even the announcers said, ok, now is when purdue will foul.....and it never came, lol

 

[Boiler59]

Doyel has written some good human interest articles. However, it seems to me that he seems to suck up to coaches or other interview subjects so that he can have free access to them.

 

[boilerzz]

But understand this: The kind of recruits Painter needs to hit the next level? Playmakers with lots of high-major options? They’re not picking a school where the loudest noise is hysterical shrieking from the angriest fans.

Hmm...

 

[BBG]

But understand this: The kind of recruits Painter needs to hit the next level? Playmakers with lots of high-major options? They’re not picking a school where the loudest noise is hysterical shrieking from the angriest fans.

Hmm...

Interesting comment. People need to realize that social media, forums, etc are read by recruits and can impact their decision.

 

[TC4THREE]

2 things.

1. I don't believe "this is the best we can do". I think we can do more. I think Painter can do more. I think Painter WILL do more. Hence, I want to keep him.

2. His ability to recruit the 2007 class, in my opinion, was greatly aided by him being the coach-in-waiting for a year while Gene coached his last season. IIRC, he was able to focus on recruiting during that year.

 

[DG10]

2 things.

1. I don't believe "this is the best we can do". I think we can do more. I think Painter can do more. I think Painter WILL do more. Hence, I want to keep him.

2. His ability to recruit the 2007 class, in my opinion, was greatly aided by him being the coach-in-waiting for a year while Gene coached his last season. IIRC, he was able to focus on recruiting during that year.

I agree in that Purdue can do better, and should do better than it has...I don't agree that Painter WILL do better, however. He might...but given past history, what he has done, and what happened before he took over with his predecessor, I am skeptical that he WILL do better as you suggest.

The greatest key to him doing better is recruiting, and that is not his greatest strength, nor has it been. Personally, some staff changes may help with that, and I am all for seeing something done in that regard.

His success with the '07 class was a perfect storm of circumstances, including his being the coach-in-waiting and able to devote all of his time to recruiting (a luxury the average HC does not have obviously, and one that he has not had again and won't).

The '17 class in Indiana is ridiculously loaded...and I think it is imperative that Painter have some success with that class, as he can't afford not to (from a talent impact standpoint, or a perception standpoint).

While improved and successful recruiting is the greatest key for him indeed doing better moving forward, he has to change as well, which is something else that that he has not been good at/with.

He has to be open to using/playing zone...he has to get/have better athletes...he has to place an emphasis on the PG position...and he absolutely has to have some plan in place for playing against and attacking a press. Many coaches with his experience don't make those types of changes at this juncture...again, I am skeptical as to whether he can...or will.

 

[pb1941]

To be fair, he's won 1 regular season and 1 conference tournament title (not in the same year). I know there's the whole traditional regular season championship mantra in the Big Ten.

Also, Gene Keady didn't go to his first Sweet 16 until his 8th year and didn't go past the second round again until he made his first Elite 8 appearance 14 years in.

How many teams were picked for the tournament when G.K started coaching at Purdue. I`m sure they didn`t pick 6 out 10.

 

[Dryfly88]

I agree in that Purdue can do better, and should do better than it has...I don't agree that Painter WILL do better, however. He might...but given past history, what he has done, and what happened before he took over with his predecessor, I am skeptical that he WILL do better as you suggest.

The greatest key to him doing better is recruiting, and that is not his greatest strength, nor has it been. Personally, some staff changes may help with that, and I am all for seeing something done in that regard.

His success with the '07 class was a perfect storm of circumstances, including his being the coach-in-waiting and able to devote all of his time to recruiting (a luxury the average HC does not have obviously, and one that he has not had again and won't).

The '17 class in Indiana is ridiculously loaded...and I think it is imperative that Painter have some success with that class, as he can't afford not to (from a talent impact standpoint, or a perception standpoint).

While improved and successful recruiting is the greatest key for him indeed doing better moving forward, he has to change as well, which is something else that that he has not been good at/with.

He has to be open to using/playing zone...he has to get/have better athletes...he has to place an emphasis on the PG position...and he absolutely has to have some plan in place for playing against and attacking a press. Many coaches with his experience don't make those types of changes at this juncture...again, I am skeptical as to whether he can...or will.

I have seen this "loaded 2017 class" mentioned a lot on here. Yet, I only know of 4 highly ranked kids. Only 1 of those (Williams) does it look like we are even in the mix for. Are you and others set up for disappointment if we don't land him? Just trying to get straight exactly which "loaded" kids you think we are in a position to land.

 

[M51]

I have seen this "loaded 2017 class" mentioned a lot on here. Yet, I only know of 4 highly ranked kids. Only 1 of those (Williams) does it look like we are even in the mix for. Are you and others set up for disappointment if we don't land him? Just trying to get straight exactly which "loaded" kids you think we are in a position to land.

I have seen 6-7 in various Top 150 lists. Wilkes, Scruggs, Williams are top 50-60 on almost every list. Scout has two from La Lumiere. Then there is Jackson from Indy and another from Pike whose name I cannot recall.

Ga is loaded for 2017, seems like there are 8-10 in every top 150 list. About half are top 50.

 

[Dryfly88]

I have seen 6-7 in various Top 150 lists. Wilkes, Scruggs, Williams are top 50-60 on almost every list. Scout has two from La Lumiere. Then there is Jackson from Indy and another from Pike whose name I cannot recall.

Ga is loaded for 2017, seems like there are 8-10 in every top 150 list. About half are top 50.

I will go with your number of 6-7 in Indiana.

Which of those kids are we seriously in on?

 

[M51]

I will go with your number of 6-7 in Indiana.

Which of those kids are we seriously in on?

Perhaps 2,3. Williams and the guard from Pike? I did not look at schools for each prospect so I don't know an exact number.

 

[Dryfly88]

Perhaps 2,3. Williams and the guard from Pike? I did not look at schools for each prospect so I don't know an exact number.

I've watched Williams a few times. I'm not familiar with any of the others mentioned. Thanks for the info. I hope we can land at least one for 2017.

 

[DG10]

I have seen this "loaded 2017 class" mentioned a lot on here. Yet, I only know of 4 highly ranked kids. Only 1 of those (Williams) does it look like we are even in the mix for. Are you and others set up for disappointment if we don't land him? Just trying to get straight exactly which "loaded" kids you think we are in a position to land.

There are 7 I believe from Indiana in the top 150.

Purdue may only be in the mix for one as you suggest, but if so, that in and of itself is disappointing and an issue.

It is not as if this class snuck up on Painter and staff...it has for at least four years been touted as one of the best in history in Indiana.

I believe Purdue had 14 targets in the top 150, with offers to 11 of them...in order for the program to have sustained success, never mind be relevant not just in the conference, but nationally, Painter has to be able to have some success in landing kids of that caliber...he had a golden opportunity to have some success with this year's team during the season and in the NCAA to have Purdue and his name out there and for Purdue to receive some attention on the national scene...but he failed to take advantage of it unfortunately.

Ultimately, he has to be able to have some success in the state of Indiana, particularly when there is a class like that in '17.

 

[nagemj02]

Agree with the bottom line that Painter is here for awhile and the best thing is for Purdue fans to get behind him and program. However, I don't think a few angry/frustrated comments that follow a crushing loss are unique to Purdue nor should they be surprising to anyone. I guess I'm sort of in the middle ground here.. Definitely not in the fire Painter camp. I've said all along you don't fire on the upswing, and I want to see how the important 2017 recruiting class pans out.

But there is one thing that stunts my optimism. It's this notion now that all we need is a playmaker at PG and everything will be fine. I don't think its that simple. Remember when all we needed was some quality big guys? Or some outside shooters? I mean, if it were as simple as getting a skilled PG, technically we had one in RJ and he was a bad fit. Maybe Bryson, too. He was limited skill-wise but you could probably put him in the same camp. At the very least we're seeing Painter have mixed results recruiting and developing that type of player.

Painter and most of his staff won't be here much longer if the newly appointed AD has some balls (or is not influenced by the program's traditionalists), doesn't put up with the continual pattern of failing to meet expectations (especially in the postseason) and decides he/she wants their own brand new staff.

 

[Dryfly88]

There are 7 I believe from Indiana in the top 150.

Purdue may only be in the mix for one as you suggest, but if so, that in and of itself is disappointing and an issue.

It is not as if this class snuck up on Painter and staff...it has for at least four years been touted as one of the best in history in Indiana.

I believe Purdue had 14 targets in the top 150, with offers to 11 of them...in order for the program to have sustained success, never mind be relevant not just in the conference, but nationally, Painter has to be able to have some success in landing kids of that caliber...he had a golden opportunity to have some success with this year's team during the season and in the NCAA to have Purdue and his name out there and for Purdue to receive some attention on the national scene...but he failed to take advantage of it unfortunately.

Ultimately, he has to be able to have some success in the state of Indiana, particularly when there is a class like that in '17.

You won't get any argument from me that it will be a disappointment if we don't land any. If there are 7 in the top 150 in Indiana then we should at least get 1.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Painter and most of his staff won't be here much longer if the newly appointed AD has some balls (or is not influenced by the program's traditionalists), doesn't put up with the continual pattern of failing to meet expectations (especially in the postseason) and decides he/she wants their own brand new staff.

whos expectations yours? No AD is going to fire a coach that gets his team to a top 10 ranking with as many wins as Painter had. I love how you wannabe experts throw around the whole expectations line without having the first clue on what that means.

 

[TC4THREE]

Painter and most of his staff won't be here much longer if the newly appointed AD has some balls (or is not influenced by the program's traditionalists), doesn't put up with the continual pattern of failing to meet expectations (especially in the postseason) and decides he/she wants their own brand new staff.

I am willing to bet Painter is here for awhile still. The new AD will have much bigger fish to fry (ie football) than to worry about a few fractured internet egos who had their feelings hurt over a program that was ranked in the top 25 all season long and sold out most of their home games.

 

[purdue4sure]

Boilermagi, you can't handle anyone critiquing this coach (unless it's a positive critique) so you call them names like a whiny little girl. Grow up and gain some objectivity. People who question other's people's fanship just because they offer a negative review of certain parts of a program -- like the head coach (who, in this case, has won one NCAA tournament game in the last five years -- are complete and total douchebags.

OK, I see your point. But I laughed out loud at you criticizing someone for calling people names, and then you called them names. And you even had people agree with you.

 

[nagemj02]

I am willing to bet Painter is here for awhile still. The new AD will have much bigger fish to fry (ie football) than to worry about a few fractured internet egos who had their feelings hurt over a program that was ranked in the top 25 all season long and sold out most of their home games.

It's definitely more than a few fractured internet egos, I can pretty much guarantee you that. Anyone who has watched Painter teams during his tenure cannot honestly say that he's gotten much better (if, at all) as a tactician or strategist in 11 seasons as HC, particularly in the final minutes of a close games in the NCAA Tournament. Also, he hasn't won an NCAA Tournament game in 4 years and he has just completed his 11th season (12th, if you want to count the '04-'05 season as the HC-in-waiting) as the HC.