Painter at Purdue ... The Pros & Cons

[Dryfly88]

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.

#1 - I can't argue with your criteria. I just don't know who that person is? Would have to have a specific person listed before comment could be made.

#2 - Smart just got to UT and isn't going anywhere in the next couple years. Made the tournament and seems to have program heading in right direction. Set to make $3 million + the next few years.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but until specific names are given of people that could realistically come to PU it is impossible to say we would be better off.

So far the following names have been given in this thread:

Smart (not leaving UT)
Cuonzo (just got current job, isn't leaving)
Steve Fischer (old, why would you leave SDSU?)
Marshall (makes over $3 million already)

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

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?

To a point, yes but IU's tradition is brought up and that is more than 10 years old. And no, I am not a IU fan. It's hard to miss that point when it is mentioned.

As far as your point is Izzo a better coach than Painter? It's irrelevant to the topic and you're completely missing your own point. Is east lansing a better destination than west lafayette? Hands down, yes and no I am not a MSU fan either. It's just reality.

I think it is pretty obvious now that you have no idea what the kids want. Especially when you are struggling to even keep your own points straight. No one has said that the things you mentioned aren't important, but it isn't the end-all-be-all to their decision and there is mountains of facts you are ignoring that prove that to be true.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

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.

Well good thing I am not wrong then. If you choose to be dense that is your problem not mine. I'm still very much right regardless and it's pretty evident.

And by the way, I'll react to posters however I see fit. Again since you seem rather slow, if you don't like it, tough. It just means you were wrong and I was right.

 

[bonefish1]

To a point, yes but IU's tradition is brought up and that is more than 10 years old. And no, I am not a IU fan. It's hard to miss that point when it is mentioned.

As far as your point is Izzo a better coach than Painter? It's irrelevant to the topic and you're completely missing your own point. Is east lansing a better destination than west lafayette? Hands down, yes and no I am not a MSU fan either. It's just reality.

I think it is pretty obvious now that you have no idea what the kids want. Especially when you are struggling to even keep your own points straight. No one has said that the things you mentioned aren't important, but it isn't the end-all-be-all to their decision and there is mountains of facts you are ignoring that prove that to be true.

Who brings up iu tradition? Iu fans. Duh.

How is the izzo and painter comparison irrelevant? We're often competing for the same players, the schools are very similar, both are the 'other' big state school in their state. Both came up the coaching tree of VERY similar predecessors.
Tell me why you think EL is better than WL? Is it closer to a beach or something?

What are the mountain of facts you're referring to?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

What are the mountain of facts you're referring to?

Just re-read this thread. It's all there and you are just either too dense or too naive to realize it. You've been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, so sack up and admit it. The rest of your post has been answered already.

Arguing with you is like arguing with my 5 year old. I tell you the sky is blue, but you swear up and down that it isn't even though you can see it is.

You're wrong. It's a fact. Deal with it.

 

[bonefish1]

Just re-read this thread. It's all there and you are just either too dense or too naive to realize it. You've been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, so sack up and admit it. The rest of your post has been answered already.

Arguing with you is like arguing with my 5 year old. I tell you the sky is blue, but you swear up and down that it isn't even though you can see it is.

You're wrong. It's a fact. Deal with it.

Are you and honey badger the same person.
Just because YOU say something, doesn't make it a fact. Opinions aren't facts either.

 

[BBG]

Who brings up iu tradition? Iu fans. Duh.

How is the izzo and painter comparison irrelevant? We're often competing for the same players, the schools are very similar, both are the 'other' big state school in their state. Both came up the coaching tree of VERY similar predecessors.
Tell me why you think EL is better than WL? Is it closer to a beach or something?

What are the mountain of facts you're referring to?

Here is a novel idea, you BOTH are right! The coach is the most important part to a recruit imo.... but the other things DO have a part in the decison. And it's not a static choice either. And what I mean by that that is what one recruit likes another may not, so you can't just say one place is a better destination than another because it is subjective.

To counter that, look no further than Caleb for an example of someone choosing a school based on something other than a coach. Caleb wanted to play the 4 and next to a 7 footer and Izzo wanted Caleb at the 5. If the coach was the only reason players chose a school, Caleb would of gone to MSU based on the criteria in this thread.

 

[NVBoilerFan]

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

ESPN and Vitale built Duke.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Are you and honey badger the same person.
Just because YOU say something, doesn't make it a fact. Opinions aren't facts either.

You're right. Your opinion isn't fact but mine is. You see I backed mine up with links and facts as have others, you're just ignoring it because you just simply cannot admit you are wrong. Are you really this insecure that even on an anonymous forum you can't sack up and just admit to those of us that are better than you, that you were wrong?

 

[*4purdue*]

20 win season does not mean that much anymore. It's not a guarantee to the NCAA like it use to be. Teams play 32-35 games these days, so it's not a mile stone, especially when you play a weak non-con. schedule. That's 12 win right there. You can go under .500 in conference & win 20 games with the conference tourney.

 

[Statey]

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.

Actually, his age is a very significant factor in passing on him. Similar to the way age will be used against AJ in the draft, it will be used against Fisher. With AJ, it's more about the potential (or lack thereof) he has yet to show NBA scouts, whereas with Steve it's about his long-term capacity to do a job. I lot of your posts make perfect sense to me... but this Steve Fisher thing is not one of them. It would be borderline asinine to hire Fisher. Unless of course, you're suggesting that Purdue emulate it's rent-a-PG approach like with Octeus and Hill and apply it to coaches, because a year or 2 is about all you could safely count on at SF's age, both from a health and a desire-to-keep-working standpoint.

 

[bonefish1]

You're right. Your opinion isn't fact but mine is. You see I backed mine up with links and facts as have others, you're just ignoring it because you just simply cannot admit you are wrong. Are you really this insecure that even on an anonymous forum you can't sack up and just admit to those of us that are better than you, that you were wrong?

Re-list your links to all the facts, I must have missed them. Especially the ones that prove East Lansing is better than WL.

 

[Chuchumutha]

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.

If we go after Fisher, just remember we'll need an extra chair on the bench for his caregiver.

 

[bleedgoldandblack]

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.

I think this is a good list. I would point out that if you got someone to cover point #2, you cover point #1 by default.

 

[purdue4sure]

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.

Those schools continued to get top recruits. You seem to be confusing recruiting success with team success. A coach can recruit top talent and still not do anything with it.

 

[mathboy]

Re-list your links to all the facts, I must have missed them. Especially the ones that prove East Lansing is better than WL.

Oh for heaven's sake, go back and reread this thread. You will find those links. Don't be so childish. Baking a Pie is fairly accurate, regardless of the small number of posts.

You are being sort of pig headed about this recruiting thing. Stop and read a few of the reasons why kids pick certain schools. Sure the coach is the major influence, but there are a lot of other factors too. Sometimes those other factors are more important than the coach to the kids.

 

[boilerzz]

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.

You may want to look into the athletic dorms at Kentucky and Kansas. Or the academic scandal at North Carolina. Or the prostitutes at Louisville (not just recruits). There are a multitude of differences for student athletes at different programs.

 

[bonefish1]

You may want to look into the athletic dorms at Kentucky and Kansas. Or the academic scandal at North Carolina. Or the prostitutes at Louisville (not just recruits). There are a multitude of differences for student athletes at different programs.

So, what you're saying is you have to cheat? How do all the teams compete who don't cheat?
Purdue doesn't face any unique challenges in recruiting that other schools don't face.
Besides Tom Izzo, what's attractive about MSU?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Purdue doesn't face any unique challenges in recruiting that other schools don't face.

This statement of yours has been proven false many times already. At this point you are either just trolling, being dense, ignoring facts because they counter your argument or all of the above.

 

[boilerzz]

So, what you're saying is you have to cheat? How do all the teams compete who don't cheat?
Purdue doesn't face any unique challenges in recruiting that other schools don't face.
Besides Tom Izzo, what's attractive about MSU?

Nope. UK and Kansas didn't cheat to build those dorms. They just had wealthy benefactors who were willing to do what was necessary to take advantage of the existing rules.

 

[bonefish1]

This statement of yours has been proven false many times already. At this point you are either just trolling, being dense, ignoring facts because they counter your argument or all of the above.

How many of these perceived recruiting 'challenges' do you agree with?:
-not enough black students on campus
-not enough nightlife
-middle of nowhere
-bad weather
-academics too tough
-lower recruiting budget
-self funded athletic dept
-facilities are sub par
-too many other big programs to compete with
-not near a beach
-program won't bend the rules

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

How many of these perceived recruiting 'challenges' do you agree with?:
-not enough black students on campus

Stopped reading at that point because it pretty much confirms that you are just trolling and my previous post about you was spot on.

Just sack up and admit it, everyone else sees how full of crap you are.

 

[bonefish1]

Stopped reading at that point because it pretty much confirms that you are just trolling and my previous post about you was spot on.

Just sack up and admit it, everyone else sees how full of crap you are.

Yeh, that's about the reply I expected. Remember, just because you say it, doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Yeh, that's about the reply I expected. Remember, just because you say it, doesn't make it a fact.

You're the one making comments that are constantly being proven false and somehow are still missing it. So yeah, you are either dense or just trolling. That can be the only explanation at this point so you probably should take your own advice here champ. You're certainly on the losing end of this argument.

 

[rgarlitz]

As long as we're just tossing out names, I'm interested in Ben Jacobson:

• Proven commodity -- has not had a losing season in 10 years at NIU
• Tough-as-nails teams
• Reasonable success in the NCAA tournament (wins over Kansas, Texas)
• Outside the Keady coaching tree but would fit in well at Purdue
• Seems to develop players
• Knows the Midwest

 

[mathboy]

How many of these perceived recruiting 'challenges' do you agree with?:

-not enough black students on campus - Don't think this is an issue
-not enough nightlife - yes
-middle of nowhere - yes
-bad weather - yes, but comparable with 90% of the BIG
-academics too tough - yes
-lower recruiting budget - for a while, better now
-self funded athletic dept - see budget
-facilities are sub par - no, facilities are average at best
-too many other big programs to compete with - not an issue
-not near a beach - yes, but most players could give a shit
-program won't bend the rules - yes

Okay Bonedish, what's your point? I answered your questions, so what? We have already rehashed these a number of times. What is that you want to say?

Look, I don't like to chew on real Purdue fans who post here, but most of your posts seem to be from someone not well aware of how college basketball is played, coached, or even appreciated. Mostly, I think you are just trolling this board and trying to be obnoxious and get attention. What is your deal here?

 

[Born Boiler]

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.

Some "actual factual data" is what your emotions deleted. Context matters. So does common knowledge.

Painter, as stated above, has had one Purdue team in his 11 years finish in the nation's top 50 in shooting percentage -- this year's team ranks No. 37. Only three of his 11 Purdue teams have finished among the nation's top 100 teams in shooting. That's because he intimidates his own shooters with his philosophy, his offense and with in-game benchings for "bad shots." That works to a point, but too often, players who arrive as 20-point scorers leave looking over their shoulders. The only thing shot is their confidence. Our shooting has been wildly erratic, and that's a huge key.

Talent? Try the bit of factual insight that Scott and Stephens arrived here as four-star recruits and Taylor was a three-star. Scott scored over 2,000 points in high school. Stephens was heralded for his range. Taylor was cited as one of the best players in New England. Thousands saw enough in their brief appearances here to clamor for each of them to gain playing time. Instead their common stat has been DNP. If given adequate time to develop against the many cupcakes we play, Scott would have been a top asset at the point, Stephens would have been a more well-rounded option at the two, and Taylor could have averted the need to play smaller as soon as Swanigan or Edwards drew a foul.

And when a 12-point scorer knocks you out of the NCAA by scoring nearly three times his average, you have a big problem in your ability to adjust. We routinely have been lit up by individuals, stars or not .. Uthoff, Hill, Shields, Sanders, Taylor, Abdur-Rahkman, Valentine, Hayes ... Only the stops were rare. As for Ray against MSU, they adjusted, shut him down and wiped out an 18-point deficit.

Fact is, we need improvements; even Painter has acknowledged that. This team was good; it could have been great.

 

[boiler-deuce]

Some "actual factual data" is what your emotions deleted. Context matters. So does common knowledge.

Painter, as stated above, has had one Purdue team in his 11 years finish in the nation's top 50 in shooting percentage -- this year's team ranks No. 37. Only three of his 11 Purdue teams have finished among the nation's top 100 teams in shooting. That's because he intimidates his own shooters with his philosophy, his offense and with in-game benchings for "bad shots." That works to a point, but too often, players who arrive as 20-point scorers leave looking over their shoulders. The only thing shot is their confidence. Our shooting has been wildly erratic, and that's a huge key.

Talent? Try the bit of factual insight that Scott and Stephens arrived here as four-star recruits and Taylor was a three-star. Scott scored over 2,000 points in high school. Stephens was heralded for his range. Taylor was cited as one of the best players in New England. Thousands saw enough in their brief appearances here to clamor for each of them to gain playing time. Instead their common stat has been DNP. If given adequate time to develop against the many cupcakes we play, Scott would have been a top asset at the point, Stephens would have been a more well-rounded option at the two, and Taylor could have averted the need to play smaller as soon as Swanigan or Edwards drew a foul.

And when a 12-point scorer knocks you out of the NCAA by scoring nearly three times his average, you have a big problem in your ability to adjust. We routinely have been lit up by individuals, stars or not .. Uthoff, Hill, Shields, Sanders, Taylor, Abdur-Rahkman, Valentine, Hayes ... Only the stops were rare. As for Ray against MSU, they adjusted, shut him down and wiped out an 18-point deficit.

Fact is, we need improvements; even Painter has acknowledged that. This team was good; it could have been great.

This team was VERY GOOD! This year was a Final4 type team. Not all Final4 type teams actually make it there. But, "one and done" is an epic fail and should be unacceptable not excused and tolerated. Painter, once again, dropped the ball.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

This team was VERY GOOD! This year was a Final4 type team. Not all Final4 type teams actually make it there. But, "one and done" is an epic fail and should be unacceptable not excused and tolerated. Painter, once again, dropped the ball.

The players failed too. You've never played any type of organized ball before have you.

 

[Dryfly88]

As long as we're just tossing out names, I'm interested in Ben Jacobson:

• Proven commodity -- has not had a losing season in 10 years at NIU
• Tough-as-nails teams
• Reasonable success in the NCAA tournament (wins over Kansas, Texas)
• Outside the Keady coaching tree but would fit in well at Purdue
• Seems to develop players
• Knows the Midwest

I looked up his current contract with UNI. He just signed a new deal last May so he is less than 1 year into it. It runs through 2024. Average pay is $900,000 per year, so that is a plus. Biggest problem is how his buyout for leaving early reads. If he leaves before May of 2017 he owes 50% of remaining contract value (over $3 million). Don't think PU would be interested in paying that much before signing him.

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of replacing CMP. I'm just interested in hearing specific examples of who people want to replace him with and then looking at those people. So far I have not heard anyone mentioned that would be a realistic replacement.

 

[bonefish1]

-not enough black students on campus - Don't think this is an issue
-not enough nightlife - yes
-middle of nowhere - yes
-bad weather - yes, but comparable with 90% of the BIG
-academics too tough - yes
-lower recruiting budget - for a while, better now
-self funded athletic dept - see budget
-facilities are sub par - no, facilities are average at best
-too many other big programs to compete with - not an issue
-not near a beach - yes, but most players could give a shit
-program won't bend the rules - yes

Okay Bonedish, what's your point? I answered your questions, so what? We have already rehashed these a number of times. What is that you want to say?

Look, I don't like to chew on real Purdue fans who post here, but most of your posts seem to be from someone not well aware of how college basketball is played, coached, or even appreciated. Mostly, I think you are just trolling this board and trying to be obnoxious and get attention. What is your deal here?

My point is, that some people think Purdue faces some unique challenges in recruiting that other schools don't face and that's what makes it 'tougher' to recruit to Purdue.
And to that, I call BS. Every school is going to face challenges of one kind or another. Otherwise, the Univ of Miami would dominate in football and basketball every year. After all, they seem to meet all your criteria. Nightlife, location, weather, beach, etc.
Do you know how many good programs are in $hit areas and how many $hit programs are in great locations?
I would argue that Purdue's location is an advantage. It's in a hotbed for talent, 2 hrs from Chicago, 2 hrs from Ft Wayne, 1 hour from Indy.

As for academics...give me a break. There are VERY few players, especially very talented players, that won't get admitted to a school based on academics. And once they're here, there's enough resources to make sure they stay eligible. Do you think Purdue is special academically? Well, there's about 20 other schools that can make the same argument.

Regarding bending the rules: Again, you don't think Painter and Purdue get as close to that line as possible without crossing it? If you think our program is absolutely squeaky clean, then you're naïve. No program is going to come right out and tell a player how they're going to break rules to gain an advantage (well, maybe L'ville or Memphis, but those are unique). Put it this way, there's a lot more clean programs than dirty programs.

The bottom line is, it all comes down to the coach and his ability to sell a recruit on an opportunity.
But, I think Painter's biggest isn't any of those issues mentioned above. I think his is how he uses the PG position. Therefore, Painters problem is more in coaching philosophy than anything else.

 

[boiler-deuce]

The players failed too. You've never played any type of organized ball before have you.

The players that Painter put on the floor. Recruited. Coached. Taught. Ran through practices. Worked on game plans with. The players failed because Painter dropped the ball...again.

 

[rgarlitz]

Ya, I'm not really interested in replacing Painter either, DryFly, at least not before the new AD is in place.

Jacobson is just a guy who I think would do well at Purdue. I don't know much about his UNI contract other than he recently signed a lengthy extension. But you seem to know more about the terms than I do.

 

[mathboy]

My point is, that some people think Purdue faces some unique challenges in recruiting that other schools don't face and that's what makes it 'tougher' to recruit to Purdue.
And to that, I call BS. Every school is going to face challenges of one kind or another. Otherwise, the Univ of Miami would dominate in football and basketball every year. After all, they seem to meet all your criteria. Nightlife, location, weather, beach, etc..

Thought I would provide my opinion on these matters. Rather than being flippant and brisk, I will give it more thought. I put my opposing arguments in bold-italic. Please understand that you are welcome to your opinions. I might be wrong and you right. I don't think there is any harm in going back and forth on these.

Do you know how many good programs are in $hit areas and how many $hit programs are in great locations? Location is not the only factor. Does it contribute? Yes.
I would argue that Purdue's location is an advantage. It's in a hotbed for talent, 2 hrs from Chicago, 2 hrs from Ft Wayne, 1 hour from Indy. You see the problem right? Purdue is not in Chicago, Indy, or even Ft Wayne. It is in the middle of nowhere, and sometimes smells like rotting beans. You are correct in that Indiana as a whole is a hot bed of basketball talent. That is why there are so many good programs in the state, and so much competition for the recruits.

As for academics...give me a break. There are VERY few players, especially very talented players, that won't get admitted to a school based on academics. And once they're here, there's enough resources to make sure they stay eligible. Do you think Purdue is special academically? Well, there's about 20 other schools that can make the same argument. Many players go for the easy ride. Purdue asks that all students declare a major after 2 years and start taking classes in that major. There are no General Studies at Purdue. I think there is also a rigorous math requirement you don't have at Michigan or Ohio State, nor at MSU. We are at a real disadvantage here against some of the factory schools. This is a real problem for some recruits.

Regarding bending the rules: Again, you don't think Painter and Purdue get as close to that line as possible without crossing it? If you think our program is absolutely squeaky clean, then you're naïve. No program is going to come right out and tell a player how they're going to break rules to gain an advantage (well, maybe L'ville or Memphis, but those are unique). Put it this way, there's a lot more clean programs than dirty programs. Look who is in the final four.... UNC and Syracuse. Did they bend the rules? Ugh! I don't think either of us would recommend any change in the strict way Purdue approaches compliance. I think you might be underestimating what a disadvantage this can be. What? No hookers at Purdue? (TIC)

The bottom line is, it all comes down to the coach and his ability to sell a recruit on an opportunity.
But, I think Painter's biggest isn't any of those issues mentioned above. I think his is how he uses the PG position. Therefore, Painters problem is more in coaching philosophy than anything else. If you stand back far enough, you can ignore the details, then yes, Painter is at fault for everything about the basketball program you don't like. Is that a productive or useful position? No. It masks real issues we have with recruiting, and it can mislead you in your conclusions. Any coach we hire will face similar recruiting challenges.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Thought I would provide my opinion on these matters. Rather than being flippant and brisk, I will give it more thought. I put my opposing arguments in bold-italic. Please understand that you are welcome to your opinions. I might be wrong and you right. I don't think there is any harm in going back and forth on these.

Do you know how many good programs are in $hit areas and how many $hit programs are in great locations? Location is not the only factor. Does it contribute? Yes.
I would argue that Purdue's location is an advantage. It's in a hotbed for talent, 2 hrs from Chicago, 2 hrs from Ft Wayne, 1 hour from Indy. You see the problem right? Purdue is not in Chicago, Indy, or even Ft Wayne. It is in the middle of nowhere, and sometimes smells like rotting beans. You are correct in that Indiana as a whole is a hot bed of basketball talent. That is why there are so many good programs in the state, and so much competition for the recruits.

As for academics...give me a break. There are VERY few players, especially very talented players, that won't get admitted to a school based on academics. And once they're here, there's enough resources to make sure they stay eligible. Do you think Purdue is special academically? Well, there's about 20 other schools that can make the same argument. Many players go for the easy ride. Purdue asks that all students declare a major after 2 years and start taking classes in that major. There are no General Studies at Purdue. I think there is also a rigorous math requirement you don't have at Michigan or Ohio State, nor at MSU. We are at a real disadvantage here against some of the factory schools. This is a real problem for some recruits.

Regarding bending the rules: Again, you don't think Painter and Purdue get as close to that line as possible without crossing it? If you think our program is absolutely squeaky clean, then you're naïve. No program is going to come right out and tell a player how they're going to break rules to gain an advantage (well, maybe L'ville or Memphis, but those are unique). Put it this way, there's a lot more clean programs than dirty programs. Look who is in the final four.... UNC and Syracuse. Did they bend the rules? Ugh! I don't think either of us would recommend any change in the strict way Purdue approaches compliance. I think you might be underestimating what a disadvantage this can be. What? No hookers at Purdue? (TIC)

The bottom line is, it all comes down to the coach and his ability to sell a recruit on an opportunity.
But, I think Painter's biggest isn't any of those issues mentioned above. I think his is how he uses the PG position. Therefore, Painters problem is more in coaching philosophy than anything else. If you stand back far enough, you can ignore the details, then yes, Painter is at fault for everything about the basketball program you don't like. Is that a productive or useful position? No. It masks real issues we have with recruiting, and it can mislead you in your conclusions. Any coach we hire will face similar recruiting challenges.

Excellent post. It will go over bonefish's head, but an excellent post regardless.

 

[IndySouthsider]

-not enough black students on campus - Don't think this is an issue
-not enough nightlife - yes
-middle of nowhere - yes
-bad weather - yes, but comparable with 90% of the BIG
-academics too tough - yes
-lower recruiting budget - for a while, better now
-self funded athletic dept - see budget
-facilities are sub par - no, facilities are average at best
-too many other big programs to compete with - not an issue
-not near a beach - yes, but most players could give a shit
-program won't bend the rules - yes

Okay Bonedish, what's your point? I answered your questions, so what? We have already rehashed these a number of times. What is that you want to say?

Look, I don't like to chew on real Purdue fans who post here, but most of your posts seem to be from someone not well aware of how college basketball is played, coached, or even appreciated. Mostly, I think you are just trolling this board and trying to be obnoxious and get attention. What is your deal here?

How the the heck does UCONN get players then? Have you been to Storrs?

 

[Born Boiler]

How about keeping the recruits you do get? With Stephens now officially joining the list, that's two four-stars lost in the past two years and a total of 22 players lost to transfers in Painter's 11 years. And not one damn word about location or academics from any of them.

 

[bonefish1]

How about keeping the recruits you do get? With Stephens now officially joining the list, that's two four-stars lost in the past two years and a total of 22 players lost to transfers in Painter's 11 years. And not one damn word about location or academics from any of them.

Excellent points.
It's comical to me to read that some people on hear believe Purdue faces recruiting challenges that other schools don't.

Here's my counter points: if location mattered, northwestern would be a power. After all, beautiful campus on the lake, right next door to Chicago. Oh, tough academics you say? Tougher than Duke?
On the other side, East Lansing, Kansas, Uconn, Syracuse....ever been to those towns? They're nothing special.

Academics: who was the last player we lost to academics? And contrary to popular belief, Purdue does have a general studies major.
Trust me, using academics as a recruiting challenge for Purdue will draw laughs from places like Duke, Stanford, Michigan, etc.

You think P is tougher on compliance? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

[purdue4sure]

Excellent points.
It's comical to me to read that some people on hear believe Purdue faces recruiting challenges that other schools don't.

Here's my counter points: if location mattered, northwestern would be a power. After all, beautiful campus on the lake, right next door to Chicago. Oh, tough academics you say? Tougher than Duke?
On the other side, East Lansing, Kansas, Uconn, Syracuse....ever been to those towns? They're nothing special.

Academics: who was the last player we lost to academics? And contrary to popular belief, Purdue does have a general studies major.
Trust me, using academics as a recruiting challenge for Purdue will draw laughs from places like Duke, Stanford, Michigan, etc.

You think P is tougher on compliance? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Hahaha. The name has changed, but the schtick is the same.

 

[bonefish1]

Hahaha. The name has changed, but the schtick is the same.

No, I'm just not the type of fan who sits there and whines "Oh...it's so tough to recruit to Purdue, we have all these negatives about the school and disadvantages....If we were only located in a nicer area, had easier academics, were near a beach, had great nightlife....no wonder we don't get to the FF or win a NC. Gee, I'm just proud that we win 20 games a year."

Those are called "excuses".
If there's one program we should be comparing ourself to, it's MSU and I can guarantee you don't here those fans whining about how tough it is to get players there.