Recruiting improvements?

[lbodel]

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 don't know the inner workings, but my guess is that basketball has been doing fine and putting butts in seats, even with sub-par resources. So the focus and money has been funneled to football - from facilities to now paying Brohm as the 2nd highest coach in the Big Ten.

During this time, the resources for basketball have remained stagnant while other Big Ten schools have been investing heavily in coaching staffs and facilities. And even the facility project for basketball prior to this was not really even catching Purdue up to its peers. Purdue is the only Big Ten program with a practice facility that men's and women's have to share and only features 1 full court. This is a new-er facility and it's already behind every single Big Ten program - not a lot of forward-thinking.

Hopefully if football stays steady, the revenue that was so down from football will solidify again and they can quickly add in more resources for basketball.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

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.

You must have me confused with someone else. I’m merely pointing that football recruiting is better than basketball recruiting at the moment.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

I don't know the inner workings, but my guess is that basketball has been doing fine and putting butts in seats, even with sub-par resources. So the focus and money has been funneled to football - from facilities to now paying Brohm as the 2nd highest coach in the Big Ten.

During this time, the resources for basketball have remained stagnant while other Big Ten schools have been investing heavily in coaching staffs and facilities. And even the facility project for basketball prior to this was not really even catching Purdue up to its peers. Purdue is the only Big Ten program with a practice facility that men's and women's have to share and only features 1 full court. This is a new-er facility and it's already behind every single Big Ten program - not a lot of forward-thinking.

Hopefully if football stays steady, the revenue that was so down from football will solidify again and they can quickly add in more resources for basketball.

I would agree with all of this.

 

[Boilermaker]

Sooooo...per my original post at the top of this thread. Does Painter and/or the admin learn anything from Brohm’s recruiting style/success and try some of those techniques in the basketball realm? Or is Painter so rigid or incapable that he cannot ever reel in, without shady games, the top talent we all want (the Biggie situation wasn’t so much a reeling in thing). I think Painter will continue to learn and grow (albeit not as fast as many would like) and if Brohm continues his successful recruiting ways that Painter (and the AD) can’t help but learn something from it. Heck, even if nothing else perhaps at least the AD expecting more in the recruiting dept and setting the BB recruiting bar higher and allocating a more competitive budget.

 

[BoilerBiker]

And even the facility project for basketball prior to this was not really even catching Purdue up to its peers. Purdue is the only Big Ten program with a practice facility that men's and women's have to share and only features 1 full court. This is a new-er facility and it's already behind every single Big Ten program - not a lot of forward-thinking.

and thats a reflection of the old regime(AD and/or pres.). although I thought painter approved of it at the time too.

it seems that many are more pleased with the new leadership. hopefully the ross-ade reno meets expectations, and brohm has input.

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.

you didn't respond with a link, but it appears youre referencing expenditures from the 2016-17 season (ending '17 fiscal year), since you say wisconsin is 4th, purdue 9th, and rutgers > purdue.

given that timeframe, theres some caveats that may not reflect typical spending - e.g. rutgers $1.25 of $2.1M payout to eddie jordan. if excluded, their rank would be near the bottom of the conference, and closer in line to their prior years as expected.

also made comparison to the illinois coach/assistants pay. this caveat is their increase in $ was spurred by their recent timing of hire (similar to the brohm situation) vs painter/staff already here. underwoods asst. pool is 850k (up from 600k under groce) and 550k for support staff. did not find purdues official assistant pool, but a mention that lutz was at $250k (with the total coaches salaries/bonus/etc at 3.7M) - which doesn't seem too far off the recent illinois increases.

it would be interesting to see more years data to see the trend changes (like rutgers is linked).

it doesn't seem purdue is drastically off pace, especially in the smaller dollar categories like assistants.
if purdue went from 950k for danny hope earlier in the decade to 6M for brohm, I would think purdue is more than capable competing, especially in these lower level categories like assistant, support staff, recruiting.

total spending:
1. Michigan State: $14.1 million
2. Indiana: $13.4 million
3. Ohio State: $10.6 million
4. Illinois: $10.1 million. (may incl. 1.7 to groce)
5. Wisconsin: $9.6 million
6. Michigan: $8.8 million
7. Rutgers: $8.3 million. (-1.25 to e.jordan)
8. Minnesota: $8.2 million
9. Purdue: $8.1 million
10. Nebraska: $7.6 million
11. Iowa: $7.5 million
12. Maryland: $7.4 million
13. Penn State: $6.1 million

top recruiting spending:
1 nebraska $553,286
2 indiana $521,305
3 illinois $457,064
4 purdue $382,894
5 penn st $336,396

links
rutgers
https://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketbal...oes_rutgers_spend_on_mens_basketball_and.html
illinois
https://qctimes.com/sports/college/...cle_c092df7e-a821-599b-8c7c-f365af8d3f4e.html
purdue commitment to assistants
https://purdue.rivals.com/news/purdue-making-longer-term-commitments-to-assistant-coaches

 

[ChoiceBeef]

Sooooo...per my original post at the top of this thread. Does Painter and/or the admin learn anything from Brohm’s recruiting style/success and try some of those techniques in the basketball realm? Or is Painter so rigid or incapable that he cannot ever reel in, without shady games, the top talent we all want (the Biggie situation wasn’t so much a reeling in thing). I think Painter will continue to learn and grow (albeit not as fast as many would like) and if Brohm continues his successful recruiting ways that Painter (and the AD) can’t help but learn something from it. Heck, even if nothing else perhaps at least the AD expecting more in the recruiting dept and setting the BB recruiting bar higher and allocating a more competitive budget.

I would hope he would learn some lessons on generating excitement, social media usage, and closing recruits. Those are three areas I feel that Brohm and his staff out perform Painter.

 

[bonefish1]

What are your thoughts on a healthy Hummel or Haas? And try to be honest LOL.

I don’t have enough confidence in Painter as a tourney coach to say a healthy Hummel or haas would have meant a FF. Probably a better shot with Hummel but an athletic team would have taken us apart with Haas.

 

[tjreese]

Sooooo...per my original post at the top of this thread. Does Painter and/or the admin learn anything from Brohm’s recruiting style/success and try some of those techniques in the basketball realm? Or is Painter so rigid or incapable that he cannot ever reel in, without shady games, the top talent we all want (the Biggie situation wasn’t so much a reeling in thing). I think Painter will continue to learn and grow (albeit not as fast as many would like) and if Brohm continues his successful recruiting ways that Painter (and the AD) can’t help but learn something from it. Heck, even if nothing else perhaps at least the AD expecting more in the recruiting dept and setting the BB recruiting bar higher and allocating a more competitive budget.

Not sure what are you stating with being rigid or incapable that he cannot ever reel in ? I assume that was rigidity in recruiting...that Matt is too rigid in recruiting and misses players? Could very well be true, but don't know the specifics of rigidity in his recruiting style. What is he doing in recruiting that he needs to be less rigid and change? Relative to Brohm's technique (which I don't know the specific differences between Jeff and Matt) where does Matt need to be less rigid? Could one of the rigidity things be that Matt needs to go to Bo and ask for an Eron Hodge type person for basketball since his staff may have less personnel than other Big programs like Lbodel has stated in some threads?

 

[mathboy]

I don’t have enough confidence in Painter as a tourney coach to say a healthy Hummel or haas would have meant a FF. Probably a better shot with Hummel but an athletic team would have taken us apart with Haas.

It is all speculation at this point. With a healthy Vince Edwards, and a healthy Haas, we dismantled plenty of athletic teams, including Michigan twice. With those guys healthy, I feared no team.

 

[tjreese]

It is all speculation at this point. With a healthy Vince Edwards, and a healthy Haas, we dismantled plenty of athletic teams, including Michigan twice. With those guys healthy, I feared no team.

What I'm trying to figure out with my limited exposure to basketball in my short duration on earth is how a coach in the tourney coaches different than any big game against a quality opponent. What do "tourney" coaches do so different than they do against a quality opponent outside the tourney in another big game? I guess since they know less about each other and the players are more of a factor that guessing a higher percent right than the opposing coach guesses in that game leads to a higher percent of better guesses that leads to a better outcome?

 

[mathboy]

What I'm trying to figure out with my limited exposure to basketball in my short duration on earth is how a coach in the tourney coaches different than any big game against a quality opponent. What do "tourney" coaches do so different than they do against a quality opponent outside the tourney in another big game? I guess since they know less about each other and the players are more of a factor that guessing a higher percent right than the opposing coach guesses in that game leads to a higher percent of better guesses that leads to a better outcome?

I think there is some truth in what you say. I know most coaches, including Painter, do better against coaches they have faced before. That said, a quick look at the better teams we played outside of our conference shows we were usually successful against them.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

Could one of the rigidity things be that Matt needs to go to Bo and ask for an Eron Hodge type person for basketball since his staff may have less personnel

I agree with this proposal. Hodges is the President of recruiting - in my mind. Nothing else to do but find and engage recruits. Really interesting article about Georgia football and the recruiting engine Kirby brought there.

I believe the rigidity is from Painter insisting on being the lead on all priority recruits. If he was getting Malik and JJJ each year, perhaps I would feel differently but he isn’t so change. Perhaps an assistant should tell “MOVE”.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

What do "tourney" coaches do so different than they do against a quality opponent outside the tourney in another big game?

I think it is poise and the ability to adapt quickly when things aren’t working on the biggest stage. The closest thing I can recall with Painter was against Nova at home when we slowed down the game and fed Haas and almost won.

The second was the game against Kansas in the tourney when we almost beat them. He had a game plan and it almost worked with the limited lineup and personnel we had.

I like Painter but he has that deer in the headlights look during these blowout loses.

 

[TX4GB]

I agree with this proposal. Hodges is the President of recruiting - in my mind. Nothing else to do but find and engage recruits. Really interesting article about Georgia football and the recruiting engine Kirby brought there.

I believe the rigidity is from Painter insisting on being the lead on all priority recruits. If he was getting Malik and JJJ each year, perhaps I would feel differently but he isn’t so change. Perhaps an assistant should tell “MOVE”.

 

[lbodel]

Sooooo...per my original post at the top of this thread. Does Painter and/or the admin learn anything from Brohm’s recruiting style/success and try some of those techniques in the basketball realm? Or is Painter so rigid or incapable that he cannot ever reel in, without shady games, the top talent we all want (the Biggie situation wasn’t so much a reeling in thing). I think Painter will continue to learn and grow (albeit not as fast as many would like) and if Brohm continues his successful recruiting ways that Painter (and the AD) can’t help but learn something from it. Heck, even if nothing else perhaps at least the AD expecting more in the recruiting dept and setting the BB recruiting bar higher and allocating a more competitive budget.

The answer is football is not basketball. And football's classes are not blowing away basketball, so this idea that Painter needs to go sit down with Brohm to learn his tricks is literally laughable. Alabama's basketball coach isn't sitting down with Nick Saban. This whole comparing the two program is something you need to get off of. Football and basketball are not the same.

 

[lbodel]

I think it is poise and the ability to adapt quickly when things aren’t working on the biggest stage. The closest thing I can recall with Painter was against Nova at home when we slowed down the game and fed Haas and almost won.

The second was the game against Kansas in the tourney when we almost beat them. He had a game plan and it almost worked with the limited lineup and personnel we had.

I like Painter but he has that deer in the headlights look during these blowout loses.

Yes, we've beaten dozens of ranked teams under Painter, but we've only employed strategy in 2 games.

Nailed it!

Painter is actually incredibly regarded for his strategizing. You'd need to take off the blinders for that.

 

[Statey]

Sounds like a plan. How did that work for Tom Crean?

Well, it got him a job coaching a Georgia program with half the pressure of that at Purdue and doing it for more money than Painter is making. By that measure, he's actually doing quite well.

EDIT: To be clear, I do not think he's a good coach or that his shotgun recruiting strategy is in any way preferred to Painter's... just answering the question as presented.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

Yes, we've beaten dozens of ranked teams under Painter, but we've only employed strategy in 2 games.

Nailed it!

Painter is actually incredibly regarded for his strategizing. You'd need to take off the blinders for that.

The question was with regards to the tournament not regular season games and what makes someone a good tourney coach.

If someone gives 2 examples that doesn’t mean those are the only 2 instances - they are simply examples.

Please tell me what adjustments your god made to stop Kansas from curb stomping us? What about VCU? Little Rock?

 

[lbodel]

What I'm trying to figure out with my limited exposure to basketball in my short duration on earth is how a coach in the tourney coaches different than any big game against a quality opponent. What do "tourney" coaches do so different than they do against a quality opponent outside the tourney in another big game? I guess since they know less about each other and the players are more of a factor that guessing a higher percent right than the opposing coach guesses in that game leads to a higher percent of better guesses that leads to a better outcome?

For one, a "tourney coach" is not really a thing. People called Izzo a tourney coach for so long - hasn't really looked like one the last few years with the quality of team he's had - losing to two double digit seeds and not making it past the second round in the last 3 years.

Purdue's actually rarely been upset in the tournament. Purdue's been "upset" twice - Ark LR and VCU. Obviously VCU didn't seem like a crazy upset after their run. Technically, we lost to a 3 seed as a 2 seed vs. Texas Tech. Every other year we've lost to a seed better than us. We're 5-1 in 8/9 and 4/5 games. Those are "toss up" games and we've only lost one of those. So this idea that we somehow we're some different team in the NCAA Tournament and Painter is not a "tournament" coach - I think is a bit of a stretch.

What we HAVE NOT had is any sort of luck in our brackets. We've played the best possible seed in all but 2 of our 22 NCAA Tournament games (VCU and last year facing #10 Butler instead of a 7 seed). For example, last year - Michigan made the Final Four and faced a 7 seed in the Sweet 16 (instead of a 2 seed), and faced a 9 seed in the Elite 8 instead of a 1, 4 or 5 seed. And obviously played an 11 seed in the Final Four. Luck is very much a part of the tournament.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

What we HAVE NOT had is any sort of luck in our brackets

I agree.

Luck has not been on Purdue’s side.

 

[lbodel]

You literally posted about a regular season game vs. Villanova. Were we playing an NCAA Tournament game in December?

 

[PU pit bull]

I think it is poise and the ability to adapt quickly when things aren’t working on the biggest stage. The closest thing I can recall with Painter was against Nova at home when we slowed down the game and fed Haas and almost won.

The second was the game against Kansas in the tourney when we almost beat them. He had a game plan and it almost worked with the limited lineup and personnel we had.

I like Painter but he has that deer in the headlights look during these blowout loses.

I saw that same look after Auburn's 9th touchdown. It happens.

 

[lbodel]

The question was with regards to the tournament not regular season games and what makes someone a good tourney coach.

If someone gives 2 examples that doesn’t mean those are the only 2 instances - they are simply examples.

Please tell me what adjustments your god made to stop Kansas from curb stomping us? What about VCU? Little Rock?

Purdue is 5-1 in 8/9 and 4/5 match ups. How are we doing so well in those "toss up" games if we can't strategize or make adjustments? Did those 5 teams all lay eggs against us and we lucked out? Those are pure toss-up games.

We also gave eventual national champion Florida their toughest game of their tournament in the second round. I guess that was simply luck.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

You literally posted about a regular season game vs. Villanova. Were we playing an NCAA Tournament game in December?

Correct which shows he can adjust and knows how to coach. He just hasn’t been consistent on the highest level of the tournament when the margin of error is lower.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

Purdue is 5-1 in 8/9 and 4/5 match ups. How are we doing so well in those "toss up" games if we can't strategize or make adjustments? Did those 5 teams all lay eggs against us and we lucked out? Those are pure toss-up games.

We also gave eventual national champion Florida their toughest game of their tournament in the second round. I guess that was simply luck.

You should read your own posts

What we HAVE NOT had is any sort of luck in our brackets. We've played the best possible seed in all but 2 of our 22 NCAA Tournament games (VCU and last year facing #10 Butler instead of a 7 seed). For example, last year - Michigan made the Final Four and faced a 7 seed in the Sweet 16 (instead of a 2 seed), and faced a 9 seed in the Elite 8 instead of a 1, 4 or 5 seed. And obviously played an 11 seed in the Final Four. Luck is very much a part of the tournament.

 

[Boilermaker]

The answer is football is not basketball. And football's classes are not blowing away basketball, so this idea that Painter needs to go sit down with Brohm to learn his tricks is literally laughable. Alabama's basketball coach isn't sitting down with Nick Saban. This whole comparing the two program is something you need to get off of. Football and basketball are not the same.

In your laudably zealot defense of Painter and the BB team (and for the record I’m a Painter supporter) you mischaracterized my question, or at least how I meant to ask it. We’ve seen a marked increase in FB recruiting due to a change in strategy (and yes, credit some of the new car smell excitement). For $6M we’d expect to see that, but what I’m getting at is will the AD see this and support Painter better (resources and assistant budget) and will they expect higher ranked BB recruiting classes? Will Painter and staff see things they like from Brohm and incorporate them? I have no idea how much coaching staff between FB and BB typically interact, but it seems like some bleedover could (would?) happen. It goes both ways too. Painter can (and likely has) helped Brohm regarding being a head coach in the B1G and at PU in particular (guys talk).

 

[lbodel]

and thats a reflection of the old regime(AD and/or pres.). although I thought painter approved of it at the time too.

it seems that many are more pleased with the new leadership. hopefully the ross-ade reno meets expectations, and brohm has input.




you didn't respond with a link, but it appears youre referencing expenditures from the 2016-17 season (ending '17 fiscal year), since you say wisconsin is 4th, purdue 9th, and rutgers > purdue.

given that timeframe, theres some caveats that may not reflect typical spending - e.g. rutgers $1.25 of $2.1M payout to eddie jordan. if excluded, their rank would be near the bottom of the conference, and closer in line to their prior years as expected.

also made comparison to the illinois coach/assistants pay. this caveat is their increase in $ was spurred by their recent timing of hire (similar to the brohm situation) vs painter/staff already here. underwoods asst. pool is 850k (up from 600k under groce) and 550k for support staff. did not find purdues official assistant pool, but a mention that lutz was at $250k (with the total coaches salaries/bonus/etc at 3.7M) - which doesn't seem too far off the recent illinois increases.

it would be interesting to see more years data to see the trend changes (like rutgers is linked).

it doesn't seem purdue is drastically off pace, especially in the smaller dollar categories like assistants.
if purdue went from 950k for danny hope earlier in the decade to 6M for brohm, I would think purdue is more than capable competing, especially in these lower level categories like assistant, support staff, recruiting.

total spending:
1. Michigan State: $14.1 million
2. Indiana: $13.4 million
3. Ohio State: $10.6 million
4. Illinois: $10.1 million. (may incl. 1.7 to groce)
5. Wisconsin: $9.6 million
6. Michigan: $8.8 million
7. Rutgers: $8.3 million. (-1.25 to e.jordan)
8. Minnesota: $8.2 million
9. Purdue: $8.1 million
10. Nebraska: $7.6 million
11. Iowa: $7.5 million
12. Maryland: $7.4 million
13. Penn State: $6.1 million

top recruiting spending:
1 nebraska $553,286
2 indiana $521,305
3 illinois $457,064
4 purdue $382,894
5 penn st $336,396

links
rutgers
https://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketbal...oes_rutgers_spend_on_mens_basketball_and.html
illinois
https://qctimes.com/sports/college/...cle_c092df7e-a821-599b-8c7c-f365af8d3f4e.html
purdue commitment to assistants
https://purdue.rivals.com/news/purdue-making-longer-term-commitments-to-assistant-coaches

One example of the problem with your analysis is we're all competing with programs in real time. We need to be forward thinking.

You gave some caveat that Illinois' coaches were just hired so it was this brand new thing. Well, Purdue is still competing against that! Just because it's a new head coach doesn't mean it makes sense that Illinois is investing more. That means Illinois has the ability to hire assistant coaches at a higher caliber than what Purdue has. We lost an Associate Head Coach with Jack Owens - we didn't replace him with an Associate Head Coach. We can't afford it. Having just $100k more may not seem like a lot - but if you can bring in a top assistant coach at $350k vs. $250k - it dramatically changes your candidate pool. You seem to be dismissing these things as not a big deal - spending $1 million less than a program in a 12 month period is not peanuts.

It's the same thing with facilities - people say oh, Mackey got a huge renovation. Well, truth be told, most of it wasn't really about "basketball". We built a basketball practice facility with 1 full size court for the men's and women's team to share. Every other program in the Big Ten has at least one for men's and one for women's. I don't have the exact stats on this, but most Big Ten practice facilities also include strength and conditioning center for basketball. Purdue did not do that, and basketball shares it with every other sport except football. And then you have the more superficial stuff - the renovation didn't include adequate audio/visual components, from a sound system, to lighting, to video boards. So then Purdue had to go freaking crowdfund to get those upgrades done.

You can dismiss many of the problems as part of the "old" regime, but it's still a reality that it happened that way and the program has been affected by it. Our basketball program today, with its current players, etc., is a reflection of what was happening 4, 5, 6 years ago.

Purdue is not an Ohio State, Michigan, UNC, etc. Purdue has to work harder and smarter to get results. The basketball program has done a lot with a little - average support at best. When we do facilities, we have to be forward thinking and creative. We have a freaking engineering/architecture program that's one of the best in the country, yet what is one thing that is a "stand out" or unique thing of our facilities? There isn't one. We can't just play catch up, we have to be thinking about where we need to be in 5 years. I've seen positive change with the new leadership, but almost all of the effort has gone to football. We can't have an approach of "oh, this basketball program is winning and selling tickets, so let's just carry on" - we have to strike while the iron is hot. Quite frankly, we should have been doing something for basketball in the past 1-3 years that could help the program take the next step. It was a great time seize on the momentum. Instead, we've sat on our hands.

 

[lbodel]

You should read your own posts

So you think going 5-1 in all of those games was simply luck?

Basic reading comprehension would tell you that the "luck" I was referring to in a separate post had to do with deep runs and getting a break. Not we made this last second shot to beat a 4 seed. It's oh we get to play an 8 seed instead of a 1 seed.

This really is not complicated. But carry on.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

So you think going 5-1 in all of those games was simply luck?

Basic reading comprehension would tell you that the "luck" I was referring to in a separate post had to do with deep runs and getting a break. Not we made this last second shot to beat a 4 seed. It's oh we get to play an 8 seed instead of a 1 seed.

This really is not complicated. But carry on.

You’re the one talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You define luck however it is convenient to you and your narrative.

 

[lbodel]

In your laudably zealot defense of Painter and the BB team (and for the record I’m a Painter supporter) you mischaracterized my question, or at least how I meant to ask it. We’ve seen a marked increase in FB recruiting due to a change in strategy (and yes, credit some of the new car smell excitement). For $6M we’d expect to see that, but what I’m getting at is will the AD see this and support Painter better (resources and assistant budget) and will they expect higher ranked BB recruiting classes? Will Painter and staff see things they like from Brohm and incorporate them? I have no idea how much coaching staff between FB and BB typically interact, but it seems like some bleedover could (would?) happen. It goes both ways too. Painter can (and likely has) helped Brohm regarding being a head coach in the B1G and at PU in particular (guys talk).

You're asking two COMPLETELY separate questions.

First, you need to stop the whole comparing football and basketball recruiting. It's not remotely the same. For example, the latter Keady years there was a lack of recruiting success and overall talent. Painter came in and improved that. Not necessarily some "major shift in strategy", it's just better than what was happening.

Purdue's HAD good classes. In fact, as recently has 2012 with Danny Hope the 2012 class was ranked 4th in the Big Ten (this year's class is 6th), and 33rd nationally (this year's class is 27th). In 2005, our class was ranked 5th in the Big Ten, 29th nationally. In 2004, 5th in Big Ten, 20th nationally. In 2003, 3rd in the Big Ten, 31st nationally. In 2002, 5th in the Big Ten.....the list goes on and on.

We are just so used to the disaster that was Hazell that it seems what's happening now is a miracle. This isn't anything "new" or groundbreaking for Purdue, we just had it so bad for a while. So this notion that Painter needs to go learn what this new and shiny object is doing is a bit far-fetched, even if the recruiting was remotely the same.

Going to the second part, which I think is a valid question. Here's the thing - let's say these Painter-haters had their wet dreams come true and we fired him and hired a new coach. Would we be spending the same as what we are now? Not even close. In fact, we're getting quite an "alumni" discount with Painter - given his resume, he's not really paid "market" rate.

So if we would spend more money supporting the program then, why aren't we doing it now? What is there to lose? We're having more sustained success than most other programs, we're selling out games. What's the risk? Why would we not want to support the program at a "market" rate? I'm failing to see the harm.

 

[lbodel]

You’re the one talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You define luck however it is convenient to you and your narrative.

Luck of an overall TOURNAMENT DRAW is not the SAME THING as whether you win or lose one individual game.

This must be what it's like to have a conversation with Donald Trump. Goodness.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

Luck of an overall TOURNAMENT DRAW is not the SAME THING as whether you win or lose one individual game.

This must be what it's like to have a conversation with Donald Trump. Goodness.

Can’t win arguments so you bring up my family than politics.

Stay classy.

 

[tjreese]

I think there is some truth in what you say. I know most coaches, including Painter, do better against coaches they have faced before. That said, a quick look at the better teams we played outside of our conference shows we were usually successful against them.

High school sectional games usually are closer than early season games. What I was trying to do was compare high stake games during the season...quality opponents wiht something on the line versus tourney games that are also high stake games, but know less about the team approach you are playing and the personnel on the opposing team.
If the comparisons have significantly different results then we can say that for some reason the tourney results differ from other equally talented teams during the season that Purdue win that are also high stakes. IF that difference exists, then it appears that knowing less about a team hinders Purdue moreso than other teams which obviously implies that personnel is the real difference...not tournament coaching.

 

[tjreese]

For one, a "tourney coach" is not really a thing. People called Izzo a tourney coach for so long - hasn't really looked like one the last few years with the quality of team he's had - losing to two double digit seeds and not making it past the second round in the last 3 years.

Purdue's actually rarely been upset in the tournament. Purdue's been "upset" twice - Ark LR and VCU. Obviously VCU didn't seem like a crazy upset after their run. Technically, we lost to a 3 seed as a 2 seed vs. Texas Tech. Every other year we've lost to a seed better than us. We're 5-1 in 8/9 and 4/5 games. Those are "toss up" games and we've only lost one of those. So this idea that we somehow we're some different team in the NCAA Tournament and Painter is not a "tournament" coach - I think is a bit of a stretch.

What we HAVE NOT had is any sort of luck in our brackets. We've played the best possible seed in all but 2 of our 22 NCAA Tournament games (VCU and last year facing #10 Butler instead of a 7 seed). For example, last year - Michigan made the Final Four and faced a 7 seed in the Sweet 16 (instead of a 2 seed), and faced a 9 seed in the Elite 8 instead of a 1, 4 or 5 seed. And obviously played an 11 seed in the Final Four. Luck is very much a part of the tournament.

exactly...and I was trying to logically attempt to get to that thinking when comparing other high stake quality games. To accept that you must think that a coach that knows less does better than when he knows more....go figure that one out.

 

[Boilermaker]

High school sectional games usually are closer than early season games. What I was trying to do was compare high stake games during the season...quality opponents wiht something on the line versus tourney games that are also high stake games, but know less about the team approach you are playing and the personnel on the opposing team.
If the comparisons have significantly different results then we can say that for some reason the tourney results differ from other equally talented teams during the season that Purdue win that are also high stakes. IF that difference exists, then it appears that knowing less about a team hinders Purdue moreso than other teams which obviously implies that personnel is the real difference...not tournament coaching.

Others have touched on this, but does higher inate athletic skill come into play during tourney time in a disproportionate way over coaching than it does during the regular season when coaches have more time to prepare (they know the schedule)? I’m sure there are outliers where coaching is a big reason for tourney success (e.g. Butler with Stevens) but is there a trend of higher skilled/athletic players being the dominate factor more so than coaching?

 

[tjreese]

Others have touched on this, but does higher inate athletic skill come into play during tourney time in a disproportionate way over coaching than it does during the regular season when coaches have more time to prepare (they know the schedule)? I’m sure there are outliers where coaching is a big reason for tourney success (e.g. Butler with Stevens) but is there a trend of higher skilled/athletic players being the dominate factor more so than coaching?

I absolutely believe that from a logically point. What the disproportionate amount is...remains unknown. Do not ignore the talent that was on that Butler team. There was a lot of talent...just lacking another's endorsement in star power.

 

[bonefish1]

Not sure what are you stating with being rigid or incapable that he cannot ever reel in ? I assume that was rigidity in recruiting...that Matt is too rigid in recruiting and misses players? Could very well be true, but don't know the specifics of rigidity in his recruiting style. What is he doing in recruiting that he needs to be less rigid and change? Relative to Brohm's technique (which I don't know the specific differences between Jeff and Matt) where does Matt need to be less rigid? Could one of the rigidity things be that Matt needs to go to Bo and ask for an Eron Hodge type person for basketball since his staff may have less personnel than other Big programs like Lbodel has stated in some threads?

Painter is what he is as a recruiter. After 14 years, I don’t think it’s realistic for him to change his style.
I think that his style, whatever it is, simply doesn’t appeal to top 50 and 5* recruits. And the results over the last 15 years have proven that.
Unfortunately, to be successful in the tourney, you need a few of those players. This, Painters ceiling being the S16.

 

[proudopete]

Painter is what he is as a recruiter. After 14 years, I don’t think it’s realistic for him to change his style.
I think that his style, whatever it is, simply doesn’t appeal to top 50 and 5* recruits. And the results over the last 15 years have proven that.
Unfortunately, to be successful in the tourney, you need a few of those players. This, Painters ceiling being the S16.

Two player of the year candidates in the last three years. Are you really this dense or are you acting?

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Others have touched on this, but does higher inate athletic skill come into play during tourney time in a disproportionate way over coaching than it does during the regular season when coaches have more time to prepare (they know the schedule)? I’m sure there are outliers where coaching is a big reason for tourney success (e.g. Butler with Stevens) but is there a trend of higher skilled/athletic players being the dominate factor more so than coaching?

I think this is dead on. With 48 hours in between games, you don’t have time to scout and game plan for the opposing team like you do in a league format, so usually the more talented team wins. It’s less about “tourney coaching”, and more about who has the best players that day, in my opinion.

AND- sometimes CMP and Keady were able to get their teams to beat more talented teams during the regular season by out-hustling them. This advantage goes away in the NCAAs when everyone is playing hard.

 

[tenwest]

Two player of the year candidates in the last three years. Are you really this dense or are you acting?

Could be most other teams are more balanced with talent.