You have to beat higher seeds in the tourney to advance (most years) unless you're gifted a bracket like we were 2 years ago and choked in the S16 against St. Peters.
Painter: Best Coach yet to Make a Final Four
- Thread starter Steve83
- Start date
Purdue is the choke artist program of the decade after another March Madness implosion
When Friday's game was in the balance, Fairleigh Dickinson never wavered. Purdue ran, hid and hoped FDU would collapse.
www.usatoday.com
No. They judge them mostly on asses in the seats. As long as Painter fills Mackey, the Purdue Ath Admin is happy.
Again- None of that proves “tournament ineptitude”.Purdue is the choke artist program of the decade after another March Madness implosion
When Friday's game was in the balance, Fairleigh Dickinson never wavered. Purdue ran, hid and hoped FDU would collapse.www.usatoday.com
In fact : 4 out of 6 S16s proves otherwise.
Newsflash: big-time college basketball is a business. There’s no ROI on a $60-$70 million coaching change.
I don't mean this as a personal insult but that doesn't seem like a very mature point of view. Many very successful mid sized businesses that are never going to unseat Walmart, Amazon or Apple and I wouldn't consider them having a loser's mentality for not going for broke to try. Particularly in an environment where luck has a significant impact (as it often does in most environments), sustaining a high level of success and waiting for a break that allows you to break through is often preferable to 'selling out' in an effort to get to the highest level. Just one KH's opinion.
Last edited:
You are living in a black and white reality designed appease your ego and its biases, which want to be favorable towards Purdue.
Truth lies in nuance.
There is no nuance proving “tournament ineptitude”.
Do yourself a favor and google “recency bias” and “ineptitude”.
Completely agree with that statement but would argue that it's true on both sides. Lumping the last three NCAAT losses in together doesn't come close to telling the full story either.
Really, just depends on the lens you view it through. Multiple losses to double-digit seeds, incuding a loss as a 1-seed, to me, is a form of ineptitude. In my opinion, yes, the Sweet Sixteen is a nice accomplishment, but context matters.
Also, the "Sweet Sixteen" is nothing more than an illusory label used to sell signifance to fans like yourself.
Also, I'm not sure "recency bias" really comes into play here. Purdue is sort of known to struggle in the tournament, and it's been the case since the Keady years. That's not recenty bias. The patterns are undeniable.
I'm really not trying to argue on here, nor do I care to be snarky (that is a game of the ego). Just offering my perspective. You are welcome to have yours as well.
Be well and go Boilers.
Last edited:
If we’re now going back 40 plus years, neither Painter or Keady displayed “tournament ineptitude.”
My point was that there is a larger pattern of not being able to break through.
And, in my opinion, that stems the culture. Parts of the culture are very positive -- the tradition, the consistency/stability, the 'doing things the right way,' attitude, etc.
Parts of the culture, in my opinion, are also negative. Resistance to change/stubborness in certain areas, arguably a slightly outdated style of play, not enough emphasis on players who can create their own shot, etc.
And don't get me wrong, the "culture" is also responsible for Purdue's success. I just believe Purdue can get to the next level, but I have doubts about it doing so as long as it continues to follow the same model.
Life is Yin Yang. There is a dark and light to everything. Just my perpsective.
Last edited:
That's just your opinion. In my opinion, there has been both success and ineptitude.
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Do you think Purdue has to recruit better in order to make that work? I.e. updated style of play, guys who can get their own shots, etc.
My opinion is yes because everyone wants those type of guys but I really don’t know the answer. Matt has found some level of success zigging when other guys zag with traditional centers and guys long on skill and short on physical attributes, supplemented with the occasional superstar. In my ideal world he upgrades to longer, more athletic versions of they type of kid he likes, but I honestly don’t know the right answer.
If we’re just going with unfounded opinion, MP is a top 10 coach nationally, in my opinion.
Just a few random thoughts-
I hope all that desire a successful tourney get that this year and every year. I believe these people are Boilers that weigh things different than other Boilers. Different valuations in all of life happen all the time. Although the tourney perspective I may hold is less significant than some, it doesn’t mean I’m right and others are wrong. I get that. I do have a different perspective on particulars than many. One thing that hits me odd is if these teams that embarrass some (and not sure how anyone is embarrassed when he or she has nothing to do with any result) by beating Purdue in a particular game were not good in that particular game, does it follow that the teams Purdue beat were perhaps not good in a particular game? Yet, Purdue beats these teams and they compare the results of the teams that Purdue beats and loses to determine some average ranking of Purdue with other schools. Obviously there is some bias in weighing things with bias being inevitable in some fashion. Doing that, the conclusion is that Purdue on the average is a very good team for months. Purdue is a very good team…beating teams that beat other teams to earn some ranking. The configuration of playing styles is not as large as the number of teams on schedule. There are more teams played in a season than the variety of styles of those teams. Sure there are some tweaks here and there, but those styles are not that different…although the combinations of each team’s styles in a potential game would be greater than 30 or so. The respective player differences would offer more variation than playing styles IMO.
So although my preferred offensive structure would be slightly different than Purdue the last few years, how do I reason that the style that is successful against good teams (good teams (SOS) because they beat other teams to earn their ranking) is ineffective against teams from the population of which earning the high ranking was obtained? I can’t logically. Still, it is generally believed that Purdue was good enough and should have won the last three years based upon the playing style that generated that opinion. It didn’t happen. Bad luck or assignable causes?
Is the playing style that generated success against teams that had success against other teams no longer effective...in the tourney? If so, why? Is the talent differences between the teams less than the loose play of the underdog and the favorite’s pressure to win? Something is different in the tourney and yet I can’t believe there is more pressure to beat a 16 seed than there is in the do or die game of a Big season or tournament.
Perhaps the next thread is the mental part of a coach that doesn’t take on as much risk when driven by analytics as one who goes by gut…or the mental part of some, part…most players? We all know everyone makes decisions with different risk factors, does having more cerebral players lead to more risk adverse play? Well March is a long time away and we will all have many enjoyable moments with this team and get that “unusual” bad taste inside from not beating IU last year as well as not winning both the year before.
Last edited:
In my opinion, it starts and ends with Painter.
I think he relies too heavily on analytics and he is not as intuitive as one needs to be when it counts in March, which prevents him from going against the grain when he needs to.
And you are entitled to your opinion.
I also believe he's a really good coach with serious flaws when it comes to changing the game-plan, and this flaw has been exposed multiple times in March by massively inferior teams.
Last edited:
any idea when he started using more analytics? I'm a believer in stats for a lot of things, but more eye and gut in basketball since I believe coaches create some stats
He definitely can be stubborn. Insisting on your 7’-4” 300 lb center chasing a 6’-6” 200 lb guy around the 3 point line doesn’t make any sense to me.
And I’m really hoping we have someone better than Morton to start at the 3 this year. We need everyone on the floor besides Zach to be a shooter.
Maybe you are overrating painter's teams because of how they overachieve in the regular season....we never get top rated classes....most years we're predicted middle pack in the big ten....so our seeding is higher than it should be....our system is how we overachieve with lesser talent....my only suggestion for your demands of better performance in the tourney is recruit higher rated players but Goodluck getting those to come here....we don't buy players and we're not a blueblood....so the odds of that happening are small....maybe painter's not doing such a bad job after all....
He first hired a full-time analytics position in 2017. He’d certainly used analytics before but this took it to a different level.
I agree with your point. There is little doubt that analytics work over a long period of time. The problem comes when you need to win six games in a row and a statistical outlier can sink you. Over a long enough. period of time the results will navigate back to the mean but that’s not helpful in a single loss tournament. I.e. just keep taking good shots is probably the right approach over the course of a season but it can kill you in a single game.
BoilerDeac, when do you think Purdue will return to the Final Four?
I am going with 2025 San Antonio, TX. We may win it all.
Just a gut feeling, but if I'm wrong, so be it. We will need someone
like Harris to come in 2024 or a key transfer guard to be added next
offseason I think to make it happen. What's your prediction?
I think the “lesser” talent think is overhyped.
Hummel, E’Twaun, JaJuan Johnson, Hammons, Vince Edwards, Biggie, Carsen, Ivey, Furst, Morton, TKR, Brandon Newman, Colvin, Haas, etc. were all top 100 in the “rankings,” and plenty others were highly coveted, like Mathias, Loyer, Heide, etc.
Purdue has gotten and gets plenty of talent.
People act like nobody else wanted these players, which just isn’t true.
That said, Painter has definitely done a really nice job finding some ‘under the radar’ players like Smith, Haarms, Edey, who were criminally “under ranked.”
Over the last 40 years ,Do you consider Purdue to be a Top 20 program? Keeping in mind, that 41 years ago, we were in the Final Four.
I don't, and probably won't, ever agree that Purdue is at some perceived disadvantage when it comes to recruiting.
Recruiting starts and ends with the head coach. Period. It's not the location, girls, academics, beach, etc, etc, etc.
Money, sure. But if Purdue is going to refuse to play in the gray NIL world, then that's their fault.
Do you know the definition of the word “ineptitude”…?
I’ll help you out. It means “incompetent”. Do you know what that word means?
Well, it was a different question. And obviously you don't want to answer because you know where I'm going to take that.
I think it can be argued that Purdue is a top 20 program, but I'd be interested to know what other top 20 programs haven't made a FF in the last 40 years.
But, back to the original question, which I think was about tournament ineptitude? It's obviously subjective. Is making a S16 a big accomplishment or should that be expected out of Top 5 seeds? What's not expected is for high seeds to be consistently upset by 13, 15, and 16 seeds. That's a disturbing trend.
Look at Purdue's recruiting rankings the past 10 years....nothing higher than 37....and it's mainly in the 40s and 50s for team rankings....that doesn't scream final four type of recruiting....you're just used to painter getting the most out of unheralded recruits....Painter is doing well above what he should be doing according to these projections....like I said, if you want more final fours go find higher rated recruits....but be careful, Purdue doesn't pay like other schools and we're not a big enough name to get those top kids....you could fire painter and bring in a more dynamic recruiter but that's not always going to yield better results....
Yeah we don't play in the gray area, you must be a new Purdue fan to not know that.....and money is the biggest driver of recruiting, we just can't compete with the blue bloods there....you saw what Nijel pack did...he didn't go to Miami because of the coach...
Fair enough. But I also think basketball is MUCH different than football.
One player can have a much greater impact in basketball than in football.
Therefore, you don't NEED multiple top-50 guys in every class.
Class rankings in basketball, in my opinion, are overrated, and not as significant as they are in football.
Hmm, as weird as it sounds, I think Purdue's chances MIGHT be better once Zach is gone.
TKR and Furst should then get all the minutes they can handle, and Smith will be even better, in theory.
That, combined with a more experienced Colvin...but, yeah, getting dynamic guards, like Gicari Harris, seems like it will be really important for Purdue's Final Four hopes.
What's with the snark, man? Let's discuss like adults, not egoic children.
Ineptitude means "lack of skill or ability."
Painter has displayed a "lack of skill or ability" in beating tremendously inferior, outmatched, lower-seeded teams in the tournament. That is ineptitude.
Since you care so much about beating higher seeds, tell us, on average, how many teams lose to lower seeded teams each year in the tournament. Your obsession with it makes it look like you think it's a very rare occurrence.
Similar threads
