Painter at Purdue ... The Pros & Cons

[Born Boiler]

Pro: Painter is 238-134 overall at Purdue (.640); Purdue is .636 overall all-time (1738-995).
Con: Losses to Wofford, Bucknell, North Florida, Gardner-Webb, Little Rock.
Pro: Eight 20-win seasons in 11 years.
Con: Three losing seasons in 11 years.
Pro: One Big Ten season championship.
Con: One in 11 years; previous average for Purdue was one every 5.1 years (Keady: 6 in 25).
Pro: Three-time Big Ten Coach of the Year.
Con: Lost Purdue’s long-time league lead in Big Ten season championships (tied at 22 by IU).
Pro: 113-81 in Big Ten (.582); Purdue is .582 in Big Ten all-time (923-664).
Con: Two last-place finishes in 11 years; two of nine for Purdue in 111 league seasons.
Pro: Third all-time in coaching victories and games at Purdue.
Con: Lost Purdue’s long-time unique status of holding winning records over every Big Ten school in all-time series (now 7-16 vs. Ohio State to trail 85-89 overall; 1-2 vs. Maryland).
Pro: Eight NCAA appearances in 11 years; two Sweet Sixteens.
Con: 8-8 in NCAA with losses in four of last five games; Purdue 35-28 overall in 28 NCAAs.
Pro: Won one Big Ten Tournament title.
Con: Five losses to lower seeds in Big Ten Tournament.
Pro: Coached nine All-Big Ten first-team selections.
Pro: Credited with coaching five All-Americans; (four were honorable mentions).
Pro: Coached four future NBA players (with more on hand).
Pro: Program generally yields players with academic success and few off-court problems.
Con: Lost or forced 20 players to transfer in 10 years.
Pro: Purdue alumnus and former player.
Con: IU fan before recruitment.
Pro: Provided impetus for major facility improvements and staff salary upgrades.
Con: Forced alma mater to hike individual salary just after agreeing to contract extension.
Pro: Longevity provides continuity.
Con: Philosophy and usual styles of play can routinely drive away some outstanding recruits.
Pro: Adjusted roster makeup after program had suffered from deficits in size and depth.
Con: Has never fielded sufficient quickness beyond one or two players.
Con: Intimidates reputed scorers, yielding hesitant and subsequently erratic shooters; Purdue has finished in nation’s top 50 in shooting percentage only once under Painter (37th in 2016 as of March 20); Purdue has finished in the top 100 in shooting just three times in his 11 years.
Con: Emphasizes positioning on defense rather than forcing turnovers, leading to deficits in possessions yielding shots; Purdue was 343rd nationally in turnovers forced and 325th in turnover margin for 2015-2016 as of March 20.
Con: Fails to develop and find some use for some evident talents (Scott, Stephens, Taylor).
Con: Fails to remedy consistent problems in season (handling pressure, Swanigan’s travels).
Con: Fails to adjust in games for foes’ solo shows who “get their heads up” for career highs.
Con: Plays slow backup guards over quicker or taller starters at clutch time (Mathias, Cline).
Con: Fails to use program’s lone McDonald’s All-American at clutch time.
Con: Coached three largest blown leads in Purdue history (19 points, three times); coached 10 of the 20 times in history that Purdue lost after leading by 12 or more.
Pro: Teams able to play at a level that builds such leads and heightens expectations.
Con: 7-10 in overtime games (.412); Purdue is .580 in OT all-time (51-37).
Pro: Teams and program generally show substantial resilience after adversity.
Con: More instances of adversity than most would like to see.

 

[HomelessHarvey97]

Pro: Painter is 238-134 overall at Purdue (.640); Purdue is .636 overall all-time (1738-995).
Con: Losses to Wofford, Bucknell, North Florida, Gardner-Webb, Little Rock.
Pro: Eight 20-win seasons in 11 years.
Con: Three losing seasons in 11 years.
Pro: One Big Ten season championship.
Con: One in 11 years; previous average for Purdue was one every 5.1 years (Keady: 6 in 25).
Pro: Three-time Big Ten Coach of the Year.
Con: Lost Purdue’s long-time league lead in Big Ten season championships (tied at 22 by IU).
Pro: 113-81 in Big Ten (.582); Purdue is .582 in Big Ten all-time (923-664).
Con: Two last-place finishes in 11 years; two of nine for Purdue in 111 league seasons.
Pro: Third all-time in coaching victories and games at Purdue.
Con: Lost Purdue’s long-time unique status of holding winning records over every Big Ten school in all-time series (now 7-16 vs. Ohio State to trail 85-89 overall; 1-2 vs. Maryland).
Pro: Eight NCAA appearances in 11 years; two Sweet Sixteens.
Con: 8-8 in NCAA with losses in four of last five games; Purdue 35-28 overall in 28 NCAAs.
Pro: Won one Big Ten Tournament title.
Con: Five losses to lower seeds in Big Ten Tournament.
Pro: Coached nine All-Big Ten first-team selections.
Pro: Credited with coaching five All-Americans; (four were honorable mentions).
Pro: Coached four future NBA players (with more on hand).
Pro: Program generally yields players with academic success and few off-court problems.
Con: Lost or forced 20 players to transfer in 10 years.
Pro: Purdue alumnus and former player.
Con: IU fan before recruitment.
Pro: Provided impetus for major facility improvements and staff salary upgrades.
Con: Forced alma mater to hike individual salary just after agreeing to contract extension.
Pro: Longevity provides continuity.
Con: Philosophy and usual styles of play can routinely drive away some outstanding recruits.
Pro: Adjusted roster makeup after program had suffered from deficits in size and depth.
Con: Has never fielded sufficient quickness beyond one or two players.
Con: Intimidates reputed scorers, yielding hesitant and subsequently erratic shooters; Purdue has finished in nation’s top 50 in shooting percentage only once under Painter (37th in 2016 as of March 20); Purdue has finished in the top 100 in shooting just three times in his 11 years.
Con: Emphasizes positioning on defense rather than forcing turnovers, leading to deficits in possessions yielding shots; Purdue was 343rd nationally in turnovers forced and 325th in turnover margin for 2015-2016 as of March 20.
Con: Fails to develop and find some use for some evident talents (Scott, Stephens, Taylor).
Con: Fails to remedy consistent problems in season (handling pressure, Swanigan’s travels).
Con: Fails to adjust in games for foes’ solo shows who “get their heads up” for career highs.
Con: Plays slow backup guards over quicker or taller starters at clutch time (Mathias, Cline).
Con: Fails to use program’s lone McDonald’s All-American at clutch time.
Con: Coached three largest blown leads in Purdue history (19 points, three times); coached 10 of the 20 times in history that Purdue lost after leading by 12 or more.
Pro: Teams able to play at a level that builds such leads and heightens expectations.
Con: 7-10 in overtime games (.412); Purdue is .580 in OT all-time (51-37).
Pro: Teams and program generally show substantial resilience after adversity.
Con: More instances of adversity than most would like to see.

I am going to pray for you tonight.

 

[Cleanface]

I made it to the part about the BTT, then gave up.

 

[honey_badger]

A very awesome list you have compiled. Now start a list of obstacles that Painter faces coaching at an institution like Purdue. I'll get things started:
Cons: recruiting budget
Cons: Mackey Arena
Cons: People don't even know what state Purdue is in
Cons: that sewage plant down south

 

[BoilerFan#35]

Biggest con is recruiting. Swanigan is the only guy he has really won over the big schools in the last four years. Isaac had some offers but no great ones. Carsen had Baylor and SMU. AJ had Minny and Cincy. Vince had Xavier and WVU. There all solid recruits but no great ones(other than Caleb). Don't get me wrong they all turned out good but if we could land a top 30 or 40 guy every year we could be a top 10 team year in and out.

 

[bonefish1]

Recruiting is all about the coach, not the school, not the girls, not the academics, not the location.
You need a great salesman to be a head coach and recruit top talent.

 

[BBG]

Recruiting is all about the coach, not the school, not the girls, not the academics, not the location.

Yeah that last part just isn't true. Is it all about that? No, but it certainly plays a part of it and to some recruits, a big part.

 

[Born Boiler]

I am going to pray for you tonight.

Thanks, with this being Holy Week, and right back at ya ... for your inability to digest and discuss facts.

 

[euchre13]

Recruiting is all about the coach, not the school, not the girls, not the academics, not the location.
You need a great salesman to be a head coach and recruit top talent.

So if coach K quits this year and they hire Painter. Duke stops getting any kid they want?

When has Purdue been a recruiting power? It's not Painter.

 

[bonefish1]

So if coach K quits this year and they hire Painter. Duke stops getting any kid they want?

When has Purdue been a recruiting power? It's not Painter.

If coach K came to Purdue, do you think Purdue would win a national championship?
It's ALL about the coach.
Once a player commits and is at PU, do you really believe their experience as a player is any different than it is at another high major school? Do you think the fan base is more passionate at Kansas, the academic support system better at UK, the facilities better at duke, the environment better at MSU? There's nothing at those programs that distinguish them from PU.
You people that buy into the excuses of why PU is difficult to recruit to are as bad as Burke coming up with his excuses.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

If coach K came to Purdue, do you think Purdue would win a national championship?
It's ALL about the coach.
Once a player commits and is at PU, do you really believe their experience as a player is any different than it is at another high major school? Do you think the fan base is more passionate at Kansas, the academic support system better at UK, the facilities better at duke, the environment better at MSU? There's nothing at those programs that distinguish them from PU.
You people that buy into the excuses of why PU is difficult to recruit to are as bad as Burke coming up with his excuses.

I nominate this post for dumbest post of the year.

So based on your assumptions, every campus then is equal and thus can recruit anyone they want. So those other schools that have trouble recruiting and where the recruits specifically mention the campus and environment in their recruiting process are all lying then right?

You really have no idea about what you are trying to talk about here.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

If coach K came to Purdue, do you think Purdue would win a national championship?
It's ALL about the coach.
Once a player commits and is at PU, do you really believe their experience as a player is any different than it is at another high major school? Do you think the fan base is more passionate at Kansas, the academic support system better at UK, the facilities better at duke, the environment better at MSU? There's nothing at those programs that distinguish them from PU.
You people that buy into the excuses of why PU is difficult to recruit to are as bad as Burke coming up with his excuses.

Lol coach K built Duke. Nobody cared about it before he arrived. He made a bad comparison. He earned all his recruits..

 

[FLAG HUNTER]

I am sure Painter is wondering what he needs to do to improve, whether he comes up with answers and can follow thru , only a few more years will tell.

 

[bonefish1]

I nominate this post for dumbest post of the year.

So based on your assumptions, every campus then is equal and thus can recruit anyone they want. So those other schools that have trouble recruiting and where the recruits specifically mention the campus and environment in their recruiting process are all lying then right?

You really have no idea about what you are trying to talk about here.

Show me the quotes where a recruit said he didn't choose a school because of the campus or the environment.
Recruits choose a school for 3 reasons:
The coach, the coach and the coach.
If the campus played that big of a role, the SEC would be dominant in basketball.
These other schools have no recruiting advantages over Purdue other than their coach and assts doing a better job of selling the program and opportunity.

 

[bonefish1]

Lol coach K built Duke. Nobody cared about it before he arrived. He made a bad comparison. He earned all his recruits..

That validates my point that it's the coach and not the school.
Remember what happened to UNC after Dean Smith left?
What about Notre Dame after Lou Holtz?
Those programs have all the tradition, facilities and commitment to winning but without the right head coach, they became average.
Hell, look what Izzo has done for MSU. MSU and PU were pretty much on par when heathcote and Keady were here.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

That validates my point that it's the coach and not the school.
Remember what happened to UNC after Dean Smith left?
What about Notre Dame after Lou Holtz?
Those programs have all the tradition, facilities and commitment to winning but without the right head coach, they became average.
Hell, look what Izzo has done for MSU. MSU and PU were pretty much on par when heathcote and Keady were here.

I know I quoted the wrong post.

 

[Dryfly88]

That validates my point that it's the coach and not the school.
Remember what happened to UNC after Dean Smith left?
What about Notre Dame after Lou Holtz?
Those programs have all the tradition, facilities and commitment to winning but without the right head coach, they became average.
Hell, look what Izzo has done for MSU. MSU and PU were pretty much on par when heathcote and Keady were here.

I normally stay out of these threads about coaching changes but I decided to participate in this one.

I agree with your premise that the coach is extremely important to recruits. I don't go as far as you and say it's everything, but I think we are close to agreement. That said, if I made you AD for the day what would you do? Please be specific and name the coach that you would hire to replace CMP. I say be specific because I'm interested in exactly who you think you could hire to replace him and why you think that person would be more effective at PU.

The names you have mentioned (Izzo, Coach K) aren't coming so who would you get and why?

 

[lbodel]

Biggest con is recruiting. Swanigan is the only guy he has really won over the big schools in the last four years. Isaac had some offers but no great ones. Carsen had Baylor and SMU. AJ had Minny and Cincy. Vince had Xavier and WVU. There all solid recruits but no great ones(other than Caleb). Don't get me wrong they all turned out good but if we could land a top 30 or 40 guy every year we could be a top 10 team year in and out.

Purdue has plenty of talent. Recruiting in basketball is very unlike football in that a lot of players do not end up with a lot of offers because a) schools don't have a lot of scholarships to put out there and b) since you're recruiting at a much smaller quantity, you recruit at a much more personal level. Just because player X doesn't have an offer listed from Michigan State doesn't mean Michigan State wouldn't ever offer them. Michigan State's last 3 recruiting classes had a total of 5 three star players.

But also, you're cherrypicking - or just have selective memory. Vince had an offer from Michigan - which recruits at a pretty high level. Isaac had offers from 11 Power 5 schools, including Virginia, UCLA and Texas A&M (just "some" offers). Basil had offers from Indiana, Notre Dame, Xavier and Illinois. Kendall had offers from Illinois and Wisconsin. AJ had offers from Indiana and Illinois (yet you only mentioned Minnesota and Cincy).

It's not like these guys are "diamonds in the rough" that are MAC level talent coming out of high school.

Would it be nice to have 5 stars on the team at all times? Sure it would. You know the program in the Big Ten prior to this year that had the most 5 star recruits? IU - and obviously it was a mess for them for multiple years. It's about having the right make up for your team. And obviously there are also teams that have 5 star recruits that aren't that good - see Georgetown. It's riding the fence - you need to have good talent, but you also need good coaching. Oklahoma's talent level is not overwhelming on paper - Buddy Hield was a 4 star #86 ranked guy. But Lon Kruger put together pieces and coached the heck out of them. You can't play the "we need more talent to get where we want to be" - and then a few days earlier were saying Painter doesn't know how to coach. If we don't have enough talent, then we wouldn't be performing at the level we're performing - and at the same time, you don't get 26 wins playing in the Big Ten by having a coach who doesn't know what he's doing.

I think the end all is that Painter is a good coach that has room to still improve. And that's ok - there aren't a lot of 45 year old coaches that don't. And I think it's great that fans have the expectations they do - as do I. I was always skeptical of this team just because of the inconsistency from Hammons and somewhat Davis. I'm not excited for a first round loss by any means. But I think spouting on message boards he's terrible and should be fired after we lost 1 round earlier than we were favored to is literally the biggest waste of time and energy.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

I normally stay out of these threads about coaching changes but I decided to participate in this one.

I agree with your premise that the coach is extremely important to recruits. I don't go as far as you and say it's everything, but I think we are close to agreement. That said, if I made you AD for the day what would you do? Please be specific and name the coach that you would hire to replace CMP. I say be specific because I'm interested in exactly who you think you could hire to replace him and why you think that person would be more effective at PU.

The names you have mentioned (Izzo, Coach K) aren't coming so who would you get and why?

I would go after Greg Marshall if he's going to leave Wichita this is the year. They lose their two best players. Marshall has already accomplished so much at a mid major, more than Painter has ever here. If I couldn't get him I would go after Steve Fisher he may of been in trouble at Michigan but has been clean at San Diego State a long time now. If I couldn't get either of those two I would go after Cuonzo. Purdue grad who led California to one of its best seasons in a long time. In only his second year. It would also be an easy turnover for the Purdue community.

 

[lbodel]

I would go after Greg Marshall if he's going to leave Wichita this is the year. They lose their two best players. Marshall has already accomplished so much at a mid major, more than Painter has ever here. If I couldn't get him I would go after Steve Fisher he may of been in trouble at Michigan but has been clean at San Diego State a long time now. If I couldn't get either of those two I would go after Cuonzo. Purdue grad who led California to one of its best seasons in a long time. In only his second year. It would also be an easy turnover for the Purdue community.

This is a bizarre list.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

Purdue has plenty of talent. Recruiting in basketball is very unlike football in that a lot of players do not end up with a lot of offers because a) schools don't have a lot of scholarships to put out there and b) since you're recruiting at a much smaller quantity, you recruit at a much more personal level. Just because player X doesn't have an offer listed from Michigan State doesn't mean Michigan State wouldn't ever offer them. Michigan State's last 3 recruiting classes had a total of 5 three star players.

But also, you're cherrypicking - or just have selective memory. Vince had an offer from Michigan - which recruits at a pretty high level. Isaac had offers from 11 Power 5 schools, including Virginia, UCLA and Texas A&M (just "some" offers). Basil had offers from Indiana, Notre Dame, Xavier and Illinois. Kendall had offers from Illinois and Wisconsin. AJ had offers from Indiana and Illinois (yet you only mentioned Minnesota and Cincy).

It's not like these guys are "diamonds in the rough" that are MAC level talent coming out of high school.

Would it be nice to have 5 stars on the team at all times? Sure it would. You know the program in the Big Ten prior to this year that had the most 5 star recruits? IU - and obviously it was a mess for them for multiple years. It's about having the right make up for your team. And obviously there are also teams that have 5 star recruits that aren't that good - see Georgetown. It's riding the fence - you need to have good talent, but you also need good coaching. Oklahoma's talent level is not that impressive on paper at all. But Lon Kruger put together pieces and coached the heck out of them. You can't play the "we need more talent to get where we want to be" - and then a few days earlier were saying Painter doesn't know how to coach. If we don't have enough talent, then we wouldn't be performing at the level we're performing - you don't get 26 wins playing in the Big Ten by being clueless.

I think the end all is that Painter is a good coach that has room to still improve. And that's ok - there aren't a lot of 45 year old coaches that don't. And I think it's great that fans have the expectations they do - as do I. I was always skeptical of this team just because of the inconsistency from Hammons and somewhat Davis. I'm not excited for a first round loss by any means. But I think spouting on message boards he's terrible and should be fired after we lost 1 round earlier than we were favored to is literally the biggest waste of time and energy.

Well you told me! Sure these guys work out well but we don't have a superstar for next season. Which are desperately needed in March. Glad our "good coach" blows a lead in almost every big game. I'm just tired of average if you want to keep riding the Painter train to the ceiling of a sweet sixteen I hope you have a great time.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

This is a bizarre list.

Yep. Nobody has ever thought of two of the best mid major coaches to hire. As well as a former alumni who is doing a decent job himself.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

I would go after Greg Marshall if he's going to leave Wichita this is the year. They lose their two best players. Marshall has already accomplished so much at a mid major, more than Painter has ever here. If I couldn't get him I would go after Steve Fisher he may of been in trouble at Michigan but has been clean at San Diego State a long time now. If I couldn't get either of those two I would go after Cuonzo. Purdue grad who led California to one of its best seasons in a long time. In only his second year. It would also be an easy turnover for the Purdue community.

I wouldn't take any of those guys over Painter. Steve Fisher? Cuonzo is off to a decent start but let's see him actually start winning some national level games versus just recruiting well. To think he'd come in and instantly just take us to another level is foolish.

Painter isn't going anywhere. I wish people would give it a rest.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Purdue has plenty of talent. Recruiting in basketball is very unlike football in that a lot of players do not end up with a lot of offers because a) schools don't have a lot of scholarships to put out there and b) since you're recruiting at a much smaller quantity, you recruit at a much more personal level. Just because player X doesn't have an offer listed from Michigan State doesn't mean Michigan State wouldn't ever offer them. Michigan State's last 3 recruiting classes had a total of 5 three star players.

But also, you're cherrypicking - or just have selective memory. Vince had an offer from Michigan - which recruits at a pretty high level. Isaac had offers from 11 Power 5 schools, including Virginia, UCLA and Texas A&M (just "some" offers). Basil had offers from Indiana, Notre Dame, Xavier and Illinois. Kendall had offers from Illinois and Wisconsin. AJ had offers from Indiana and Illinois (yet you only mentioned Minnesota and Cincy).

It's not like these guys are "diamonds in the rough" that are MAC level talent coming out of high school.

Would it be nice to have 5 stars on the team at all times? Sure it would. You know the program in the Big Ten prior to this year that had the most 5 star recruits? IU - and obviously it was a mess for them for multiple years. It's about having the right make up for your team. And obviously there are also teams that have 5 star recruits that aren't that good - see Georgetown. It's riding the fence - you need to have good talent, but you also need good coaching. Oklahoma's talent level is not overwhelming on paper - Buddy Hield was a 4 star #86 ranked guy. But Lon Kruger put together pieces and coached the heck out of them. You can't play the "we need more talent to get where we want to be" - and then a few days earlier were saying Painter doesn't know how to coach. If we don't have enough talent, then we wouldn't be performing at the level we're performing - and at the same time, you don't get 26 wins playing in the Big Ten by having a coach who doesn't know what he's doing.

I think the end all is that Painter is a good coach that has room to still improve. And that's ok - there aren't a lot of 45 year old coaches that don't. And I think it's great that fans have the expectations they do - as do I. I was always skeptical of this team just because of the inconsistency from Hammons and somewhat Davis. I'm not excited for a first round loss by any means. But I think spouting on message boards he's terrible and should be fired after we lost 1 round earlier than we were favored to is literally the biggest waste of time and energy.

+1000. Spot on post.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

I wouldn't take any of those guys over Painter. Steve Fisher? Cuonzo is off to a decent start but let's see him actually start winning some national level games versus just recruiting well. To think he'd come in and instantly just take us to another level is foolish.

Painter isn't going anywhere. I wish people would give it a rest.

You wouldn't take Greg Marshall? LMAO. The guy has won as many tourney games at Wichita as Painter has at Purdue. Marshall has done it in two less season also.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

That validates my point that it's the coach and not the school.
Remember what happened to UNC after Dean Smith left?
What about Notre Dame after Lou Holtz?
Those programs have all the tradition, facilities and commitment to winning but without the right head coach, they became average.
Hell, look what Izzo has done for MSU. MSU and PU were pretty much on par when heathcote and Keady were here.

Actually your post here pretty much supports it's not all about the coach. Tradition and the facilities pull in the right coach which then he is able to sell a recruit on.

This is football, but since you ventured in to it now applies: http://thedailycougar.com/2014/11/19/campus-facilities-impact-recruiting/

And let's not forget about social media: https://www.spredfast.com/social-marketing-blog/how-social-media-changing-college-recruiting

So while the coach is important and more important than the other things of course, saying that the other things have zero impact is just simply being naive and blind.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

You wouldn't take Greg Marshall? LMAO. The guy has won as many tourney games at Wichita as Painter has at Purdue. Marshall has done it in two less season also.

No. We'd beat Wichita 7 times out of 10 this year. And it would probably be 9 times next year.

 

[Dryfly88]

You wouldn't take Greg Marshall? LMAO. The guy has won as many tourney games at Wichita as Painter has at Purdue. Marshall has done it in two less season also.

Marshall makes over $3 million at WSU, he isn't coming to PU. Steve Fischer is 70 years old, seriously you want him?

 

[lbodel]

Well you told me! Sure these guys work out well but we don't have a superstar for next season. Which are desperately needed in March. Glad our "good coach" blows a lead in almost every big game. I'm just tired of average if you want to keep riding the Painter train to the ceiling of a sweet sixteen I hope you have a great time.

Blows a lead in almost every big game? These are such massively general statements. I mean first off, would you rather be down in every game and have to come clawing back? Cause then you'd be complaining about how we always find ourselves in a hole. I guess we need to make sure we're exactly even with teams with 5 minutes left so we can't blow leads or have to come back from being down.

There were games this year that we had leads and maintained a lead and won. There were games this year where we had a lead and lost. There were games this year where we were losing and came back to win. There were games where we were losing and lost. And quite frankly, you can probably look at 95% of the schools to find very similar outcomes.

Just because 3 or 4 out of our 30+ games stand out to you doesn't make it a trend or "almost every big game".

 

[FirstDownB]

Steve Fischer is 70 years old, seriously you want him?

He probably wants to leave San Diego to transition into retirement in Indiana.

 

[mathboy]

Thanks, with this being Holy Week, and right back at ya ... for your inability to digest and discuss facts.

Those weren't facts. They were some facts, mixed with opinions formed from no actual factual data what so ever. I will give you tow examples of the slant on the OP's post.

• Painter intimidates shooters? Really? When he says at his press conferences that he wants kids to shoot? How does the OP know he intimidates his shooters? Do you really think Etwaan or Robbie were intimidated? How about Cline or Mathias?
• Fails to develop "evident talent" like Scott, Stephens, Taylor. Really? What do you base this bit of insight on? I've watch Scott and Stephends play, and I am not impressed with that "evident talent" thingy the OP talks about. Taylor was injured and red-shirted a season, then was behind two 7 footers. So, how do we know he hasn't developed?
• Fails to adjust in games for foes’ solo shows who “get their heads up” for career highs. In case you haven't noticed, this happens all the time to other schools too. Remember Rapheal going off for 19 points against MSU? How about Cline hitting 5/6 3pt shoots in a game? Both players are not our top scorers. Other coaches have the same issue here as Painter. Hence my conclusion is that it is just part of the college game, and not the fault of the coach.

Sometimes I think we fail as a generation in critical thinking. We let our emotions get in the way. We listen to someone spout a mixture of facts and fiction and we can't tell the difference between them. That is a sad state.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

Marshall makes over $3 million at WSU, he isn't coming to PU. Steve Fischer is 70 years old, seriously you want him?

Yep coack K is so washed up too.

 

[mathboy]

If coach K came to Purdue, do you think Purdue would win a national championship?
It's ALL about the coach.
Once a player commits and is at PU, do you really believe their experience as a player is any different than it is at another high major school? Do you think the fan base is more passionate at Kansas, the academic support system better at UK, the facilities better at duke, the environment better at MSU? There's nothing at those programs that distinguish them from PU.
You people that buy into the excuses of why PU is difficult to recruit to are as bad as Burke coming up with his excuses.

Actually, kids decide to go to a certain school - in particular order: (1) because they like one of the players already committed to the school, or one of the upper classmen. (2) They like ambiance of the campus when they visit. (3) They like the facilities like a new weight room, or a new arena. (4) The coach has a plan to developp them and utilize them. (5) They like the assistant coach. (6) They are promised something outside of normal recruiting. (7) The weather was nice when they visited, and they had fun at the parties they went to. (8) The academics looked eas - UNC easy. (9) The coach spent a lot of time watching them at their high school games. (10) They have been a life-long fan of the school.

Sure, the coach plays a role in all this, but there are plenty of other factors that affect recruiting. Maybe this list doesn't fit your preconcieved notions, but it is reasonable accurate.

 

[Dryfly88]

Yep coack K is so washed up too.

Coach K = Steve Fischer if that is your point than I guess I have nothing to add. They are both old, besides that I don't know where your comparison is??

Steve Fischer, seriously?

 

[bonefish1]

I normally stay out of these threads about coaching changes but I decided to participate in this one.

I agree with your premise that the coach is extremely important to recruits. I don't go as far as you and say it's everything, but I think we are close to agreement. That said, if I made you AD for the day what would you do? Please be specific and name the coach that you would hire to replace CMP. I say be specific because I'm interested in exactly who you think you could hire to replace him and why you think that person would be more effective at PU.

The names you have mentioned (Izzo, Coach K) aren't coming so who would you get and why?

I'd have to put some research into a list of candidates, but I can at least list some criteria:
1) someone totally unaffiliated with Purdue. Need to change the mindset and culture.
2) someone, whether as a HC or asst, spent time at programs that had a lot of success in the tourney.
3) someone who has put players in the NBA.
4) known as an offensive innovator.
5) someone with NBA 'connections'

I'd love Shaka Smart, might be tough to pull him away from TX, but he's always going to be second to football there.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

Coach K = Steve Fischer if that is your point than I guess I have nothing to add. They are both old, besides that I don't know where your comparison is??

Steve Fischer, seriously?

Just because a coach is old isn't a reason to pass on them. He may be 70 but if doesn't plan on retiring for a while it shouldn't matter.

 

[bonefish1]

Actually your post here pretty much supports it's not all about the coach. Tradition and the facilities pull in the right coach which then he is able to sell a recruit on.

This is football, but since you ventured in to it now applies: http://thedailycougar.com/2014/11/19/campus-facilities-impact-recruiting/

And let's not forget about social media: https://www.spredfast.com/social-marketing-blog/how-social-media-changing-college-recruiting

So while the coach is important and more important than the other things of course, saying that the other things have zero impact is just simply being naive and blind.

Wrong. Kids don't know, nor do they care about tradition. They don't care what the program was 10-20-30 years ago. That's why Duke could go in the crapper once Coach K leaves.
As for facilities, it's not like Purdue's are inferior. They're probably top 25 as far as facilities go. Mackey is an awesome game day experience, so the support is there.
It's all about the coach.
Lenniel.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Wrong. Kids don't know, nor do they care about tradition. They don't care what the program was 10-20-30 years ago. That's why Duke could go in the crapper once Coach K leaves.
As for facilities, it's not like Purdue's are inferior. They're probably top 25 as far as facilities go. Mackey is an awesome game day experience, so the support is there.
It's all about the coach.
Lenniel.

I take back what I said earlier. This is the dumbest post I have seen. So if kids don't know about tradition, then why has it been mentioned in the past when players pick a school? IU is a perfect example of that.

I get it, you're in deep on this so you won't admit you are wrong, but you most certainly are with just about everything you have posted on this subject. And every point you made has been given fact to support it, not just your naive hyperbolic perception of things.

 

[bonefish1]

I take back what I said earlier. This is the dumbest post I have seen. So if kids don't know about tradition, then why has it been mentioned in the past when players pick a school? IU is a perfect example of that.

I get it, you're in deep on this so you won't admit you are wrong, but you most certainly are with just about everything you have posted on this subject. And every point you made has been given fact to support it, not just your naive hyperbolic perception of things.

I'll rephrase: kids may care about recent tradition, but they don't care about 10 years ago. Or, at least when picking a program, tradition is down the list a ways.
Today, kids want exposure, they want a coach who will get them to the next level, they want a program that's on TV and can make tourney runs.
Answer this: is Izzo a better recruiter than Painter?
Is he a better Xs and Os coach?

 

[boilersallthewaynow]

A very awesome list you have compiled. Now start a list of obstacles that Painter faces coaching at an institution like Purdue. I'll get things started:
Cons: recruiting budget
Cons: Mackey Arena
Cons: People don't even know what state Purdue is in
Cons: that sewage plant down south

Don't forget ,

Con: Painter

I take back what I said earlier. This is the dumbest post I have seen. So if kids don't know about tradition, then why has it been mentioned in the past when players pick a school? IU is a perfect example of that.

I get it, you're in deep on this so you won't admit you are wrong, but you most certainly are with just about everything you have posted on this subject. And every point you made has been given fact to support it, not just your naive hyperbolic perception of things.

Liu,just as soon as you purchase controlling interest in this website you can pass judgment on other posters and it will matter but until such time you are just as meaningful as the rest of us paying members. No matter how wrong that you may be.