Sorry that stating a fact is bashing. I have said plently of positives about Nojel but facts remain shooting the basketball is not his strength. Numbers/facts prove that.
Don’t worry about how I raise my child.
Recruiting improvements?
- Thread starter Boilermaker
- Start date
Don’t worry about how I raise my child.
Everyone except for you considers top 100 football recruits to be “blue chip”. Some would argue the top 250-300 are.
The "Baby Boilers" didn't exactly come out of the gate hot. They lost to 4 unranked teams (I don't believe they went to the tournament), including to Wofford at home.
So you're going to take my overall point and pick out ONE small thing in it to nitpick on?
Ok, so take the "blue chip" recruit out of the post. Purdue's recruiting class is still nothing mind-boggling. It's not even top 20, and it's #40 in terms of average stars. Again, it's a tremendous improvement but to act like "basketball has never come close to having this much talent!" is ridiculous.
Ah, so you dismiss one of our players as not panning out in the first half of his sophomore year - and then immediately take a shot at his free throws as an indication he won't improve. Because if THAT doesn't happen, then forget about it!
Maybe he's saying we need more players that are instant impact and not long term projects...
Which is literally impossible to predict. Kentucky didn't make the NCAA Tournament in a not strong basketball conference with a bunch of 5 star freshmen. Transitioning from high school to college is not always instantaneous.
I think everyone would agree the perfect way to build a basketball team is with 4 year players with top 50 players mixed in. We are doing great recruiting the four year role players. We need to get the elite talent to mix in.
Btw, "The Kentucky Way", has only missed the tournament 1 time, and they have a championship, 2 other finals 4s and two other elite 8s in the time Painter has been the coach here. I would love to have that success.
His own mother was on here saying he wasn’t right on his free throw shooting.
At the time of the post he was 3/12. Time doesn’t change facts.
First, I think you're trying to take what you want and think should be possible to force us to have that program. Last year's senior class was not "four year role players". Yes, it would be wonderful to have a bit more talent this year - but I also don't think the players on this team are a bunch of role players. People went into this season with absurd expectations - I said it myself over and over (and actually was criticized for being "negative"). We simply lost a significant amount of our team and are young and inexperienced this year.
There's a reason almost every college program out there has cycles except for a small number. There's only 16 teams in the country that have gone to the NCAA Tournament more than 3 years in a row - Purdue's one of those 16, and one of 2 Big Ten programs. Your expectation is basically that Purdue is UNC, MSU, Arizona, etc. - except Purdue's spending a fraction of the price on its program vs. those other schools. Purdue doesn't even come close to a school like Illinois. You're blaming Painter for that. Painter has far out-performed compared to the investing in his program he has.
The mention of Kentucky was in direct response to saying we need instant impact players -- that example is one of many examples that you cannot predict how talent will adapt to the college level.
Another example? Look at the Baby Boilers. Scott Martin and Robbie Hummel were basically dead even in terms of talent going into college. They were ranked #75 and #76 nationally. Robbie adapted his freshman year significantly better than Scott did. Scott ended up being fine at Notre Dame, but it was impossible to predict that Robbie would be "instant impact" and Scott would take more time.
It had nothing to do with whether we want to be like Kentucky or not.
I'm a huge fan of the 2014 class actually. Vince and Haas were instant impact players. Biggie and Carsen were instant impact players as well. The issue is that the 2017 class and the 2018 class so far have not showed any instant impact players. In fact, the 2017 class hasnt shown any sophomore leaps either.
*I'm sure we are about to go into a discussion on what constitutes impact*
So I hear there are the same number of 5-star football players as 5-star basketball players. I will need to check that out. Of course we offer about 6.5 more football players than basketball players (85/13 = 6.5) so have many more opportunities to get a 5-star player in football than in basketball, right?
I like that line of thinking! We should offer every player in the top 100... surely we land a couple... right?So I hear there are the same number of 5-star football players as 5-star basketball players. I will need to check that out. Of course we offer about 6.5 more football players than basketball players (85/13 = 6.5) so have many more opportunities to get a 5-star player in football than in basketball, right?
Sounds like a plan. How did that work for Tom Crean?I like that line of thinking! We should offer every player in the top 100... surely we land a couple... right?
I think the trick for Painter to use this strategy is that he will have to wear looser pants and learn how to clap all the time. Do you know if Painter is a diet coke drinker?
I'm not worried about scoring next year...every year someone goes through this and they still score the ball then next year.
What Purdue will lose is a person capable of making something happen on his own...can get a basket when nothing is there and determine a game in the final minutes. That will be missed.
That said I was more impressed with Purdue today offensively when Carson only had 16 points and others were more involved fairly early in the second half I think. Carsen can score early if something is there to keep teams honest...but if not an open shot take a few seconds off the clock and let others touch it and get them involved...Carsen can always get in his as the clock is winding down.
I said over and over before this season - the worse Carsen's PPG stat is, the better we'll be as a team. And that's not on Carsen at all. Teams are focusing on Carsen and until others start stepping up to where teams need to focus more on them, Carsen has it on his shoulders to score - and doesn't get a lot of good looks because of the defensive focus. The more and more these guys get more comfortable on the offensive end, it will make things flow a lot better. That being said, it has also been nice to see the defensive improvement.
it’s a top 25 class. Been a while since Painter has done that, and I would argue the basketball program has historically recruited better than football at Purdue.
Or put another way, Brohm is recruiting better than his predecessors, and Painter is arguably recruiting worse than his.
I don't really care what you define as that - we have played what, 6-7 weeks of basketball? I'm not going to make judgments on a freshman at this point in the season, especially given how much inexperience the team overall has. I mentioned in another post - the Baby Boilers freshman year, we lost to some pretty questionable teams in non-conference play, including Wofford at home. We couldn't even break 60 points in a few of our non-conference games against teams like Florida International. I wasn't going to throw in the towel on that team then and I'm not gonna throw in the towel on these players now.
I'm not sure the phrase the worse Carsen's stats are...but I know what you are saying. Carsen needs less shots day in and day out. The better the other guys are the easier it will be for Carsen
The difference is that the baby boilers were a top 10 recruiting class, not a class ranked in the 40s
So you complain about my definition of blue chip, but now you're going to compare recruiting class rankings between football and basketball? Lol ok. PS It's ranked 27th currently on Rivals.
Classes are ranked by points that are assigned to each recruit. Class size dramatically changes class rankings.
Thus...
a. You don't really even hear much about basketball recruiting class rankings because they vary so widely in size - how do you rank a 2 person class vs. a 5 person class? Rivals doesn't even show basketball rankings prior to 2018. For example, Purdue's 3 person basketball recruiting class is ranked 34 nationally. Louisville's is ranked 5th in the country - but doesn't have any 5 star recruits, it's just 5 people. And NC State's is ranked 51st in the country - but is 1 five star recruit. I mean if that's all NC State needs, that's a pretty damn good class, not the 51st in the country. Right?
b. Same thing with football. Purdue's class is ranked 27th with 25 recruits. Virginia Tech, for example, is ranked behind Purdue's. It has the same number of 4 stars as Purdue, but it's a class of 20. I mean, VA Tech's actually bringing in a higher percentage of 4 star players - which is better.
If you rank the classes by average star of commitment, Purdue's 40th. Personally, I think you have to combine both of those ways of ranking to get a better picture.
That being said, it's not even super clear how comparing classes within football is by these recruiting services - let alone then trying to compare the rankings within completely different sports.
By the way, you're arguing about recruiting rankings of 1 year where the difference is 27th vs. 34th. Both ranked 6th in the Big Ten.
Both are good classes, can you not just be happy?
It was also a class of 5 players, not 3. You will literally never be remotely happy. Must be a blast to be around.
Answer this 1 question for me, would you?
Can you name one program that fits your expectations of results, whose investment in their coaching staff and program falls in the bottom half of their respective conference?
Not going to look up specifics, because I think resource excuses are BS, but Texas Tech, South Carolina, Nevada doesnt have the resources we do, i would imagine Wisconsin spends less on bball than we do. Should I go on? If Painter deserved/commanded more resources he would get them. Brohm is a .500 coach and is the 8th highest paid coach in the country. Purdue has the resources.
The 247 composite, which is considered the most accurate ranking, has us at 25, and that’s BEFORE David Bell officially committing next Saturday.
And again, I think most would argue that Brohm is outperforming his predecessors in recruiting, and CMP is not. He certainly inherited a worse program. CMP took over a program that had been to 2 Elite eights in the 10 years before he got here.
Well, you should spend more time on "specifics".
We don't spend more on basketball than Wisconsin, let alone even close to evenly with Wisconsin. Wisconsin is 4th in the Big Ten in spending on basketball - we are 9th. Rutgers spends more on basketball than we do.
Texas Tech spends nearly $1 million more on head and assistant coaching salaries. Outside of coaching, Texas Tech has 2 additional positions on its basketball staff than what Purdue has, and also has a dietician and 5 more graduate assistants than Purdue has.
Also, I find it humorous that you list some of these programs as up to your standards (i.e. better than Purdue). South Carolina has been to the NCAA Tournament one time in the last 14 years. Currently, they are 4-7.
Oh, and South Carolina spends over a million dollars more per year on basketball than Purdue.
Purdue ranks 44th in spending on basketball. Spending certainly isn't everything. Like I said, Purdue has outperformed its spending big time, particularly with consistency of winning. But there are also realities of having sustained, high level success requiring investment. I think this is what you're actually wanting, no? The teams you mentioned, well for one aren't in the bottom half of their conference or are still investing more in areas of importance. But they also haven't sustained winning. It doesn't take much for a "flash in the pan". Consistency is the tough part. I mean Kentucky pays its top assistant (their recruiter) more than what we pay our 3 assistant coaches combined.
The part that's frustrating to me is that money can buy you some "hot name" head coach - but it doesn't mean they can coach a team and develop players (cough, Mark Turgeon, cough). Painter has shown he can do that. We have the coach down - we need to improve recruiting. A lot of that is assistant coaching and support staff - where Purdue trails significantly compared to its peers. I mean, Illinois has an assistant coaching pool that's 44% larger than Purdue's. Does that make any sense to you?
Ah, thanks for telling me which recruiting service is the mack daddy of recruiting rankings. Wow, if only Painter ever put together a class ranked 6th in the Big Ten. Imagine where we'd be.
Also, the year before Painter took over, Purdue was 7-21. To act like he was handed the keys to the castle and just had to cruise through is complete BS.
So are we for spending money on the athletic programs or not? I see a lot of arguments that we don’t spend what others do on the basketball program. Simultaneously, there have been several posts saying that the investment in our head football coach was not worth it or not earned.
For instance, Ibodel’s example of South Carolina spending more than and only having been to 1 NCAA tournament in 14 years (really it’s 2 because they were there in 2004 and 2017). Regardless, they’ve only had Frank Martin for six years and By his third year they had already won almost 40 more games than his predecessor won in his four previous years there and they went to the much coveted Final Four in 2017. Maybe USC thinks that investment is paying off for a school that was previously only really a football school with an “also ran” tag in SEC basketball.
I’m not really in the “Fire Painter today” camp, but it’s time for the AD to seriously consider his current assets before deciding to reinvest or perhaps make a new, larger investment in basketball.
For instance, Ibodel’s example of South Carolina spending more than and only having been to 1 NCAA tournament in 14 years (really it’s 2 because they were there in 2004 and 2017). Regardless, they’ve only had Frank Martin for six years and By his third year they had already won almost 40 more games than his predecessor won in his four previous years there and they went to the much coveted Final Four in 2017. Maybe USC thinks that investment is paying off for a school that was previously only really a football school with an “also ran” tag in SEC basketball.
I’m not really in the “Fire Painter today” camp, but it’s time for the AD to seriously consider his current assets before deciding to reinvest or perhaps make a new, larger investment in basketball.
So to be clear, you think we should throw more money at the basketball program? How much more money would it take for Painter to start landing recruits? What should that money be used for? New staff positions? More head coach pay? Will paying our assistants better make them better recruiters?
You seem to have figured out that Painter isnt the problem, and the problem is lack of spending, so I want to hear specifics on what should change.
Maybe they will put these changes in for the next coach, because even with the changes I know you are going to suggest we will miss the tournament this year and be dreadful next year which will cost Painter his job.
link?
im curious to the fiscal year referenced, and breakdown of the spending categories and how they compare
Last edited:
it sounds like some still have concerns surrounding our AD/president/BOT - even the new ones.
(i had thought it was common consensus that football would be priority 1 - both from a rebuild standpoint, and being the pillar for the athletic dept as a whole. now the AD is doing too much too soon for football?).
its been 7+ years since painter demanded more $ and resources for bball (I.e. missouri). if we aren't sufficient again/still, what can painter do right now off-court to initiate more? what results on-court would make bobinski provide top $ ?
we did just spend nearly $2M for bball arena video boards - rather than toward asst. increases, expanded staff, etc.
(i had thought it was common consensus that football would be priority 1 - both from a rebuild standpoint, and being the pillar for the athletic dept as a whole. now the AD is doing too much too soon for football?).
its been 7+ years since painter demanded more $ and resources for bball (I.e. missouri). if we aren't sufficient again/still, what can painter do right now off-court to initiate more? what results on-court would make bobinski provide top $ ?
we did just spend nearly $2M for bball arena video boards - rather than toward asst. increases, expanded staff, etc.
Last edited:
Painter hasn’t put together a class as highly ranked as Brohm’s 2019 class since 2012.
Are you really arguing that there’s no difference in the trajectory of the 2 recruiting operations?
Purdue's basketball recruiting class is ranked the same damn place as the football recruiting class in the Big Ten. Yip-pee.
Painter hasn’t had a class ranked this high nationally since 2012.
How many times do we have to go over this?
Purdue's ASSISTANT coaching salaries are at the bottom of the Big Ten. Illinois, not exactly a premiere program, provides their head coach something like 40% more in a salary pool for assistant coaches than Purdue.
Do you realize who does most recruiting? Assistant coaches. When we had to replace Jack Owens, we didn't hire a new Associate Head Coach, we hired an Assistant Coach because the salary pool was so limiting to who we could hire. Our top assistant is getting paid less than some Big Ten programs' 3rd assistant. How is that remotely setting Purdue up for success?
If we can't hire assistant coaches in the top half of the Big Ten, then we can only do so much. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to grasp.
I mention the GAs - that's not a significant investment. I had a friend who was a GA for an SEC program and spent most of his time doing work for recruiting purposes.
Remember when the Painter/Mizzou thing happened - Painter didn't even give a hoot about his own salary. He wanted investment - he had to threaten to leave to get a full time strength and conditioning coach and a video person. These are BASICS of a power conference program. That just brought us up to the basics.
I don't get why it's so hard to understand that when you spend in the bottom half of the conference, you're probably not going to be regular conference contenders, let alone national contenders. You can have success - look at Tiller's years. We were middle of the pack spenders and we typically finished middle of the pack, and had a few 'top of the pack' years sprinkled in. Our results in basketball have far outpaced what you'd expect based on financial investment - we've finished 1st or 2nd in the Big Ten in 6 of the last 11 years, while spending in the bottom half of the conference.
Maybe you should focus on reading comprehension. In the Big Ten, Purdue's classes are both ranked 5th in football and basketball.
Cool, we get it. You hate Painter. Instead of trying to get Purdue Basketball what it needs to be successful, you'd rather just $hit on Painter cause you have some weird vendetta against him. The sad part is Painter is a Purdue alum who's done a lot on the cheap for his alma mater. Yet you are still some unappreciative Purdue "fan" with some weird agenda.
