Recruiting
- Thread starter Nerdberts
- Start date
Actually I was here prior to that in a discussion about whether NE would start over PJ or not. As far as the other part, whether you see me as an "IU fan" or not, I have always been respectful in my posts.
You actually disproved your point in this rant. You asked if we would rather have Anderson or nothing. And nothing is what we would be getting if we don't look outside of the Midwest. So many important pieces from this team came outside of the Midwest. You also asked if I would rather have a top 7 player over a top 200 player and made it about geographical location. Wanting JJJ over Haarms has nothing to do with location, but everything to do with talent. The other Midwest players you listed were also top talent players. Painter goes after the top talented kids on the Midwest every year. He also misses time and time again. Going directly against Kansas, Butler, IU, MSU, Michigan Notre Dame, Kentucky takes away our advantage of proximity. Still focus on the Midwest, but keep looking for underrated talent that fits the system elsewhere.
If you think that Purdue should only target Midwest talent, that makes this one of your most ridiculous arguments (and trust me, that is saying something). I wouldn't trade Carsen for any of the other local PGs we were targeting in that class, and he was initially ranked below them all. Now he is U19. I listed a handful of guys we should target, none were in the Midwest, all were underrated, and all would be a great fit.
I am hoping your argument is that we need to land top rated local talent and you just voiced it terribly. Nobody would disagree with that. Painter is placing a priority on local talent, but I love that he is trying to open up pipelines to Florida, Texas, and other places. That's what has made this team so special.
Maybe I could have worded it differently. But there is a ton of basketball talent within Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio. . And many people on this board have criticized Painter for not being able to reel it in. the biggest criticism Painter has received is his continued inability to bring in the best talent of Indiana. With a few exceptions, people just assume if an Indiana player is in the top 10, they will go elsewhere and not even consider Purdue. people would be shocked if Langford chose Purdue. I was kind of shocked JJJ even considered Purdue.
I had thought the Lutz hiring was based on Lutz' relationships and ability to sign players from LA Lum rather than expanding our recruiting coverage I had thought Lutz had already built a rapport there where the door was closed to Painter. it was posted a while back that Embery was one of lutz' recruiting targets. I guess after seeing what Zo did by hiring Porter's dad, and what Brohm did with al l his previous WKU recruits, I had expectations that Lutz would bring with him somebody good that he was previously recruiting while at Creighton. I believed that Lultz was recruiting both 2018 and 2019 players while at Creighton, and at least one would follow him.
I would think that with Painter's position on many different USA teams, that he has a good eye and reputation for talent outside our area and that we didn't really need to expand our recruiting efforts, because Painter was already reaching out across the country. and through his AAU tournament visits , he was already scouting players from other areas.
Sometimes I don't understand after putting so much time in developing a relationship with a player, why they would chose a lesser school like MSU, IU or ND or Butler. And I want Painter to fight harder for those guys rather than being honest and running a clean program. Sometimes I wish Painter was more like Calipari, Pitino and the UNC coach.
I would think that is a small part of it but not the only reason. Also need to remember LaLum just went through a coaching change when their HC left to be an assistant at DePaul.
Regarding Embery, something obviously changed and that is why we went from being in his original top 5 and out of his second top 5. Really haven't heard anything but got to remember that it is Painter's call at the end on who we are pursuing.
Re 18-19 players: I believe we have offered Drew Timme (Creighton target) and Jalen Wilson who Lutz was recruiting.
Expanding our base: as well regarded as Painter is, that doesn't mean he has access to any player anywhere in the country. Lutz has a lot of connections in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. Those will end up paying dividends in the long run, IMO
Crean was fired year after winning by 2 games and getting to Sweet 16. Painter hadn't been to 16 since 2010 or 11?
So Crean wasn't fired for missing the tourney and an 11th place finish with two NBA caliber players?
Good to know.
2 what? One missed half the year and one was drafted in the 2nd round. Neither made Summer League first team or were BIG MVP.
Last sweet 16 was last year(2017)
You picked three of the best coaches in the college game who also happen to have all made it to the final four. I'm not so sure I would want a final four if we vacate the wins for cheating. like I said before our recruiting will improve as we produce more NBA players and especially if we make it to the final four. Some people have that innate sales talent, painter is young and will get better as long he keeps trying to improve.
is it so wrong to wish painter was more like 3 of the best coaches in the NCAA? I also picked those three because their ethics are slightly questionable, yet they keep their jobs, and the infractions on each despite their actions has been minimal.
I'm guessing, but haven't seen this qualified in any thread recently that recruiting you believe has more to do with the coach than the other factors in that a coach is over 50% of the decision and that all the other variables do not add up to the coach. I can't believe that, but wihtout the qualifiers it seems some do.
So I'm clear on your opinion TJ, are you saying that the coach is less than 50% of a recruits decision to attend a school?
Yes. It is wrong. Quite wrong really.
This is a question that I have specific experience with. I will make my answer super-simple as it could ramble on forever. Recruits will immediately eliminate schools that have a head coach that they don't like. When they don't like him, they're done. On the other hand, they will tend to like many coaches, in that case, the coach becomes far less of a factor than several others.
Crean topped the B1G in recruiting. He had more McD AAs than any other B1G school.
Also, the bIggest recruiting budget, by far. Biggest in the BIG and one of the biggest nationally. Money can buy some things.
Yes, that's my belief. When I look at a school, I believe all of the BIG 10 schools offer one of the best educations in the nation, so that is not a factor. Academically, IU is a very good school. Michigan is great! Northwestern is one of the best. Purdue is awesome academically. And the thing about BIG10 schools is they are the best in the nation in more than one academic area. Purdue may be known as an engineering school, but it's pharmacy, chemistry, agriculture, management, veterinary schools are also some of the best in the nation. And it's the same for every BIG10 school. I had a choice of going to UW, Northwestern or Purdue. For me, any of those schools was a win win situation. So, in saying that, at least when recruiting against BIG 10 schools, academics is a non factor, because they are all great schools.
Haas said several times he chose Purdue primarily because of Painter and his ability to develop big men. To me, that sounds like he picked Purdue because of the coach.
A lot of recruits transfer when a coach leaves and they follow the coach to his new school. It happens all the time when a coach leaves a school and signs elsewhere, he brings a recruit with him. Can you say mizzou and Porter? Porter is a great example of a player deciding on a school solely on their coach. He never even visited mizzou before signing with them.
Sure there are other factors. But if Coach K were to leave Duke and become the new coach at Alabama, Would that 5*mcDonalds All American still remain committed to Duke? Or would he sign with ALabama?
I'll compare Purdue with MSU. They have so many factors that are equal. The school, academics, climate are all about the same. I believe that playing for IZzo verses Painter could be a big factor, just like playing for Coach K, Or negatively, playing for Coach Knight or Coach Brown. The coach makes a huge difference good or bad. I wouldn't want my son playing for Hazell over Saban. Although Alabama may be the exception if Saban left to coach USC, a football player would probably still choose Alabama.
So yes, I believe the coach represents at least 50% and maybe more for a player choosing a school. I highly doubt Purdue's enormous usage of red bricks in its building construction or posts on this forum have swayed any recruit's decision
It is my opinion that it is, but that is based on "unsupported thought" and not supported by anything else. Let me try this...there are many variables that come into play with various strengths. I don't think one variable is enough to sway every recruit ..say something over 50%. Now, I think a reasonable debate could be made whether the coach was the most important variable or not, but the most important may be less than 50%. I think the coach is maybe the biggest variable, but less than 50%. Not saying this , but assume a coach is 30%, players on team 15%, location 10%, style 10%, playing time 25%, location 10% as a crude example.
Could be that a player likes coach A better than B, but likes them both and the differnce between coaches is slight as far as liking both...does the player take coach B due to all the other things?
Last edited:
I have one data point to support that as well Calbert Cheaney. I know his highschool coach and knew about Calbert as a freshman or sophomore...memory loss here. His high school coach was a Purdue grad, but Knight fan from either Tell city or Bloomfield...been a few years ago as well. When Calbert hopped in teh car with his high school coach he told Gerald Vandeventer (coach) he wasn't going there (Purdue). I haven't talked to Gerald in years (Supt somewhere in southern Indiana today) to know the exact reason...but was rubbed wrong by Bruce Weber.
I like that thinking, However, I believe academics should be included as 10%. because it can determine if a player is accepted to attend that school. We lost that DB transfer recruit from Notre Dame (Williams ?) purely because of academics. He liked us, but Purdue would not admit him. A second division 1 school also refused to admit him as well after he committed to them.
I believe location is lower. Kansas seems to do well. but Miami, NYC, Orlando and Hawaii do not. One would think Hawaii or NYC would have a great team.
I'm not sure about players on a team. it didn't make a difference for Porter. But I believe it swayed Biggie. Biggie wanted to play PF. Having Hammons allowed Biggie to play PF. and at the time he signed, he thought he'd be a one and done player. And Star players don't stay on teams long enough to be used as an attraction or lure for other players. In the NBA, you can use LeBron to attract other players. In the NCAA, that player will be gone. Having Swanigan didn't attract anybody to come to Purdue.
I believe playing time is a lot lower. if you're a stud player, you just expect to start, no matter who is playing at your position. Take JJJ and Langford for example. No matter who is currently projected to play that position, they would both be projected as the new starter.
I think the coach is closer to 50%. Izzo can shed a tear, and poof, he attracts a player. Some players really wanted to play for Bobby Knight so they could become a man! I sent my son to Coach K's basketball camp, and we live in Illinois. I also sent him to the local SIU basketball camp, and Weber's camp at Illinois. I didn't send him to Painter's basketball camp. I paid a lot more money to have him learn from Coach K. and I have Coach k's autograph.
my purpose was not to suggest a percent of my thoughts because every player will alter numbers from another player, but to indicate a "few" variables that come to mind with the purpose that the coach may be the most important and not enough to swing it due to several other factors and the potentially minimal difference in liking the coach. I have experienced this quite a few times in real life where a variable may be statistically significant and yet small in the totality of other significant variables..and then there are times that a variable may not only be statistically significant, but heavily weighed in the equation. I just tried to show how a coach could be the most important but that difference between other coaches NOT great enough to compensate for the other variables...
those are great factors and the % is about right. However, in many cases, those factors are all equal. for JJJ, did it come down to the coaches being the determining factor? I don't know how big of a factor izzo verses Painter was.
for me the financial aid I received was about an 80% factor. My parents couldn't afford to send me to Northwestern.
For my son, financial aid was also a factor. Michigan and Purdue were too expensive. He had a choice of playing basketball at some division 2 and 3 schools or accepting an academic scholarship to attend U of I or SIU. he chose SIU because they also offered him a "quasi' track team scholarship. He didn't really care about the coach, players or location. but the opportunity to be on a Division 1 team was a huge factor along with going with a lot of his friends. friends do make a big difference for many. if he was 3 inches taller or could catch a football, his recruitment would have played out differently.
I would guess its >75% a choice about the best program. We all know the programs considered as blue bloods, they will always have an advantage in recruiting. Those programs will always be able to reload with a talented coach, just like they reload with top recruits. It's a self perpetuating system in some respects and we have to get our foot in the door to continue improving. Explosive change sounds great but Painter seems like the patient and methodical type. I feel like he has improved the foundations of our program and believe we are built for sustained growth. make a final four and our relevancy, visibility and attractiveness as a program for high level talent will improve. That said, I love our current team and roster, they are a bunch of winners, and I think we have a shot for a great run this year.
I was thinking about MSU UCLA, UK, UNC, Kansas and Duke. and also OSU, Texas, ND, and Alabama.
if Coach K left Duke, I would suspect Duke would not be as attractive for a recruit. if Izzo left MSU, I would have to believe Mich and Purdue and OSU would sign the players that would have gone to MSU. but UCLA, UK, UNC and Kansas have had multiple coaching changes, and each coach seems to still be able to recruit elite players. So I believe the coach is a bigger factor at certain schools, but not all schools.
Football seems to be different because assistant coaches sometimes play as big of a role in recruiting as the head coach does. OSU, ND, USC, Alabama and Texas have all had multiple coaching changes, but the recruits don't seem to care and still flock to their schools. how much of a factor was kiffin at USC ? ND had some really terrible coaches, but would still have a top 20 recruiting class.
on the other hand, at a school like Purdue or Minnesota in football, the coach is a much bigger factor in attracting recruits. Illinois signed Lovie Smith hoping his name would attract recruits. if Purdue signed Drew Brees or Kyle Orton as a QB coach, would recruits flock to Purdue?
Football recruiting seems to lean more toward the school program and tradition over the coach. In the South, if you were good at football, you went to Alabama. and there was never a question or option. it was a culture and tradition.
Football seems to be more program, school and tradition oriented; whereas basketball leans more toward more coach oriented except at a few select schools.
if Coach K left Duke, I would suspect Duke would not be as attractive for a recruit. if Izzo left MSU, I would have to believe Mich and Purdue and OSU would sign the players that would have gone to MSU. but UCLA, UK, UNC and Kansas have had multiple coaching changes, and each coach seems to still be able to recruit elite players. So I believe the coach is a bigger factor at certain schools, but not all schools.
Football seems to be different because assistant coaches sometimes play as big of a role in recruiting as the head coach does. OSU, ND, USC, Alabama and Texas have all had multiple coaching changes, but the recruits don't seem to care and still flock to their schools. how much of a factor was kiffin at USC ? ND had some really terrible coaches, but would still have a top 20 recruiting class.
on the other hand, at a school like Purdue or Minnesota in football, the coach is a much bigger factor in attracting recruits. Illinois signed Lovie Smith hoping his name would attract recruits. if Purdue signed Drew Brees or Kyle Orton as a QB coach, would recruits flock to Purdue?
Football recruiting seems to lean more toward the school program and tradition over the coach. In the South, if you were good at football, you went to Alabama. and there was never a question or option. it was a culture and tradition.
Football seems to be more program, school and tradition oriented; whereas basketball leans more toward more coach oriented except at a few select schools.
But who would be brought in to take the reins at duke? My guess is duke gets almost whoever they want to take over after coach K.
I don't think this can be underscored enough. Certainly many factors, and factors vary by recruit, but if the school doesn't have a head coach and/or a staff the player likes and feels comfortable with, it's basically game over for that school. Other factors can likely be overcome (ex: location, freshman playing time, etc.), but if the coach/player relationship isn't there, that's highly likely to be a dealer breaker for that school. Seems pretty obvious to me that - in a normal recruitment (no $, no influential middlemen, etc.) - nothing can outweigh the importance of the head coach.
Just consider the TIME a player will spend with a specific coach. In b'all, it's 4 years (alright, maybe 1 or 2 at times) with the head coach. In football, it's 5 years (all f'ball players redshirt, right???) with the assistant coach for his position. FOUR or FIVE YEARS!!! Yikes.
My bad. Signed a U19 player two years in a row and landing the runner up for National Player of the year/McDonald's all American = 3rd tier coach. Good to know. His '14 class had a U19 candidate and two possible NBA draft picks. His 15 class had Biggie, last year had Carsen, and this year has Eastern and Wheeler (Eastern could easily end up U19). That is a ridiculous amount of talent to call somebody tier 3 (in the Big Ten even) in recruiting. Either argument is stupid. He is a top 25-30 recruiter and has come a long way in his ability to coach and adjust. There are not 25 better coaches in the league and that's that. He has done quite well for himself after the post baby Boiler debacle when he almost got himself fired. Let's wait and see what this '17 class can do before continuing to trash it. So far, in the WUG, they have looked fantastic.
So, with all that, headed for a title? Final four?
Crean was the best recruiter in the B1G. What did that get him? A title? Final Four?
Lets get back to the original theme of this post, which is getting in state or near state talent. Its not the 50s,60s,70s,80s,or even 90s anymore. Just because a kid is from the state doesn't mean he's is automatically go to an in state school. This isn't Damon Bailey and "Hoosiers" anymore. Get the best available talent from where ever.
Being an out of state (Illinois) Purdue grad, I admit that I have never understood the in-state myopia of many Boilers. Yes, recruiting in-state is important and necessary but, imho, far from the end all, be all of recruiting it is made out to be by many.
I don't think it's in-state that is the main point. Indiana high school basketball and the recruits coming out of it are regularly some of the best of any state in the nation. If Purdue can recruit its home state well, that means we are getting good players. That's my opinion on it anyway.
Similar threads
