Striking while the iron is hot?

[tjreese]

Most wish the recruiting was a bit better. Does anyone think Purdue is reeling a bit by a lack of budget (recruiting and coaches leaving) during the time when the Baby Boilers were the talk of many? Did losing that opportunity cause a major step back or not have any effect recruiting today? A new vibrant coach..winning big in an exciting style made no jump. Did Matt cause this or was Matt the recipient to deal with it...or both to some degree?

 

[Wolegib]

I don't believe our budget has anything to do with our recruiting success or lack of it.

Painter just lost out on two elite players. he had recruited Hall for a long time. Nnaji had a dad who said he was all about academics and would do a very careful review of all schools involved, and then chose Arizona. Okoro said he wanted to study computer science and then chose Oregon.

Reviewing those three situations, I don't believe throwing another $1 million into the recruiting budget would have changed the outcome. and the same could be said about Langford, TJD, tyger, JJJ, Brooks, Franklin, Timm, Carmody, Phininsee Okoro and others.

I can't believe any additional amount of money spent would have changed their mind. The reality is Purdue dedicated a lot of time and money to each of these recruits and simply struck out. They went somewhere else they liked better. if we had signed these players, you would never be addressing the issue of what our recruiting budget was or is. if we had signed JJJ or Hall or Nnjadi, would you even care what our budget is? there is just something about Purdue or painter or the current team or players, that these recruits didn't like or want to be a part of. it was their decision and no amount of money given "ABOVE THE TABLE" was going to change the outcome.

Purdue doesn't need to spend more money on travel to find more players. They had awesome players literally right in their own back yard in West Lafayette. Painter selected Langford and many other elite players for his US national team but couldn't convince him to play for Purdue? The Speice AAU tournaments and the AAU tournaments in Chicago have some of the best talent in the country. You don't have to travel every week to Orlando and Vegas.

perhaps if you want, you could spend more money on the assistant coaching staff. But rather than increasing the salaries of the current ones, I'd use the additional money to hire different ones.

frankly, I don't believe our budget is the issue.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

we need to start funding AAU teams. Clearly the NCAA is ok with it.

 

[tjreese]

I don't believe our budget has anything to do with our recruiting success or lack of it.

Painter just lost out on two elite players. he had recruited Hall for a long time. Nnaji had a dad who said he was all about academics and would do a very careful review of all schools involved, and then chose Arizona. Okoro said he wanted to study computer science and then chose Oregon.

Reviewing those three situations, I don't believe throwing another $1 million into the recruiting budget would have changed the outcome. and the same could be said about Langford, TJD, tyger, JJJ, Brooks, Franklin, Timm, Carmody, Phininsee Okoro and others.

I can't believe any additional amount of money spent would have changed their mind. The reality is Purdue dedicated a lot of time and money to each of these recruits and simply struck out. They went somewhere else they liked better. if we had signed these players, you would never be addressing the issue of what our recruiting budget was or is. if we had signed JJJ or Hall or Nnjadi, would you even care what our budget is? there is just something about Purdue or painter or the current team or players, that these recruits didn't like or want to be a part of. it was their decision and no amount of money given "ABOVE THE TABLE" was going to change the outcome.

Purdue doesn't need to spend more money on travel to find more players. They had awesome players literally right in their own back yard in West Lafayette. Painter selected Langford and many other elite players for his US national team but couldn't convince him to play for Purdue? The Speice AAU tournaments and the AAU tournaments in Chicago have some of the best talent in the country. You don't have to travel every week to Orlando and Vegas.

perhaps if you want, you could spend more money on the assistant coaching staff. But rather than increasing the salaries of the current ones, I'd use the additional money to hire different ones.

frankly, I don't believe our budget is the issue.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I was inquiring and perhaps you did? By not striking when the iron was hot..not following up with better players than Purdue had immediately after the baby boilers...did THAT set Purdue back to where they might be today? IF they followed up with better talent, would Purdue be more likely to have landed the players they missed on this year? That was what I was trying to see what others think...and perhaps that was in your mind when you posted...which could be a legitimate thought...

In other words was this a building process and is Purdue not as high today as a result? I don't know...but...all through life we can point to a slight difference here and there and totally different results in some cases

 

[mathboy]

Most wish the recruiting was a bit better. Does anyone think Purdue is reeling a bit by a lack of budget (recruiting and coaches leaving) during the time when the Baby Boilers were the talk of many? Did losing that opportunity cause a major step back or not have any effect recruiting today? A new vibrant coach..winning big in an exciting style made no jump. Did Matt cause this or was Matt the recipient to deal with it...or both to some degree?

I have been saying for a while. Coincident with the arrival of the baby Boilers, Matt's recruiting budget was severally cut. That's why there were no follow-on classes after the BB's. That whole period created teams in football, MBB and WBB that hit the bottom of the BIG, simply because we could not recruit, nor could we hire and keep good assistant coaches.

People say Matt has been here 14 years and what has he done? Right? Well a good amount of that time was running under those severe restrictions and should not count. Basically we squandered the momentum of the Baby Boilers. Now we have to rebuild back to where we were, but our competition is now using that budget-driven poor performance against us through negative recruiting.

It is a catch 22 type situation that can only be rectified by (1) getting a new coach that doesn't have the past budget-baggage attached that Painter does, or (2) slowly working back to good recruits and gradually getting better. If you choose option 1, there is a high likelihood that you will not find a replacement anywhere near as good as Matt Painter, one of the best pure coaches in the game, and loyal to Purdue. If you choose option 2, then we must be patient and supportive. I prefer option 2. Purdue administration and alumni created this mess, now we need to give Matt the chance to reverse it.

Just think about Tom Izzo saying to a potential recruit, "Go look on the Purdue board. You will see that many don't want Painter at Purdue...". Yes, they look, and yes, some of the weasels on here contribute to that negative perspective.

 

[BoilerMaker P]

Butler went to two national championship games (one in Indianapolis) in back to back years at the end of the Baby Boilers' careers. Purdue didn't beat ND or Butler in the Crossroads Classic for five years. That probably didn't help either.

 

[Riptrain]

Just think about Tom Izzo saying to a potential recruit, "Go look on the Purdue board. You will see that many don't want Painter at Purdue...". Yes, they look, and yes, some of the weasels on here contribute to that negative perspective.

Yeahhhh I don't think that Izzo relies on internet message boards as a recruiting tool...

 

[overthetop16]

I have been saying for a while. Coincident with the arrival of the baby Boilers, Matt's recruiting budget was severally cut. That's why there were no follow-on classes after the BB's. That whole period created teams in football, MBB and WBB that hit the bottom of the BIG, simply because we could not recruit, nor could we hire and keep good assistant coaches.

People say Matt has been here 14 years and what has he done? Right? Well a good amount of that time was running under those severe restrictions and should not count. Basically we squandered the momentum of the Baby Boilers. Now we have to rebuild back to where we were, but our competition is now using that budget-driven poor performance against us through negative recruiting.

It is a catch 22 type situation that can only be rectified by (1) getting a new coach that doesn't have the past budget-baggage attached that Painter does, or (2) slowly working back to good recruits and gradually getting better. If you choose option 1, there is a high likelihood that you will not find a replacement anywhere near as good as Matt Painter, one of the best pure coaches in the game, and loyal to Purdue. If you choose option 2, then we must be patient and supportive. I prefer option 2. Purdue administration and alumni created this mess, now we need to give Matt the chance to reverse it.

Just think about Tom Izzo saying to a potential recruit, "Go look on the Purdue board. You will see that many don't want Painter at Purdue...". Yes, they look, and yes, some of the weasels on here contribute to that negative perspective.

Really agree with this post. The mentality of Purdue's administration up until the last couple of years was largely staying frugal and keeping our teams "competitive". I love that Bobinski seems to understand that if you're not gaining momentum, you're losing it. College sports is ALL about taking momentum and keeping it.

You have to get a coach or two like Cuonzo and make it worth their while to remain an Assistant or Associate Head Coach - give them independence, pay them their market value. Painter seems to be a good high-level, strategy, administrator-type coach, but even the best strategists need someone to give them perspective and to fight in the trenches. When you look at it from a "momentum" perspective, each coach and non-coach staff member has to be evaluated for the positive impact that they've had recently - past success and doing a "good" job don't matter in the game of momentum unless you leverage them into current and future success.

Also agree that option 2 seems to be the best option. Option 1, where you blow it up and restart, is predicated on the dangerous assumption that someone else could do any better. When you don't have a lot of precedent to look at for Purdue specifically, it's difficult to back that assumption up - "comparable" programs aren't always as similar as they appear.

 

[Wolegib]

I believe the biggest problem is Purdue has a tendency to rebuild rather than reload. Wen we have great players, there never seems to be elite players waiting in the wings to take their place. And as long as they're here we don't attract other elite players at their position, because they don't want to wait for playing time.

Tyger is a good example. When recruiting him, it appeared he'd have to compete with Nojel for a starting position for at least three years. JJJ didn't want to sit on a bench behind Edwards. Several other bigs didn't want to sit on a bench behind Haas.

I believe a big turn-off to recruits is a lack of playing time for young players. Painter has a bad tendency to play experienced players over more talented players. Cline and Grady and Evan are great examples. last year's 4 seniors were also a great example. Recruits see these players receiving the bulk of playing time and they look for a school where the coach at least tells them they will be an immediate impact player as a freshman.

I have to ask, how much time would JJJ have played for Purdue last year? Would he have started, or been Haas and Edward's back-up? Would he have been a featured player like Swanigan was? Admittedly, he didn't start for MSU last year either. however he probably knew coming to Purdue, he'd spend a lot of time on the bench and wouldn't receive much of an opportunity to display his talents. Izzo probably lied to him about his role and playing time. but he trusted painter to tell the truth, and knew his role with our current team last would be limited.

I believe having Carsen probably also scared off some potential elite recruits this year. Guys like Romeo knew Carsen was going to be the man, so why even bother coming to Purdue. Romeo chose a place that promised him he could start and take as many shots as he wanted. I highly doubt painter would make those type of promises. So Romeo's recruitment was essentially over before it even began.

As a recruit, I have to believe the red shirting of Sasha, Wheeler and Dow has impacted some recruits' decision process as no elite basketball player ever wants to red shirt. I also have to believe the playing time given to tre and hunter is also impacting recruit's decisions. Sure, tre and hunter may receive more playing time as the year progresses, but by then, a recruit has already made their decision and commitment. Grady is receiving more playing time than TRE? really? I know there are valid reasons for this, but can a 17 year old high school recruit with dreams of playing in the NBA see those reasons? Would painter start Evan over Brooks, Hall or TJD next year? Will he start Sasha over IT and newman? or Wheeler over hall or Gillis? They each may have decided no. Would painter be willing to build next year's team around a freshman? or would he make a lesser talented, more experienced player the main man?

Playing experienced players over younger more talented ones has consequences. the thing about the baby boomers and the class that just graduated is that they played a lot of minutes as freshmen. I didn't see that last year, and I'm not seeing it this year either. Experience is winning out over talent. that might help win games over lesser teams. but it's not attracting young recruits.

A big question not answered. if Carsen does the expected and turns pro, who will be Purdue's main man next year? Somebody currently on the team? or an incoming freshman? I would think a one and done type of player would jump at the opportunity to be the "man" next year. unless painter's recruiting pitch is that they have to earn their playing time by playing defense and knowing the plays. if I was a one and done type player, I believe I'd be a little scared of coming to Purdue for fear I'd be sitting on the bench while learning painter's system.

 

[tjreese]

Butler went to two national championship games (one in Indianapolis) in back to back years at the end of the Baby Boilers' careers. Purdue didn't beat ND or Butler in the Crossroads Classic for five years. That probably didn't help either.

No , it didn't and BUTLER got to that point by making sports important "AGAIN" after a previous president. I know that as a fact !

 

[BoilerBiker]

I have been saying for a while. Coincident with the arrival of the baby Boilers, Matt's recruiting budget was severally cut. That's why there were no follow-on classes after the BB's.

as lbodel pointed out in another thread,
burke was already not spending $ before any cordova cuts. (and are those cuts confirmed, or speculation? ). tiller and keady complained for years about lack of $ commitment. keady almost left too.

the other thread also linked the recruiting budget encompassing the cordova years 08-13. purdue was mid pack to 8th in the big ten during that time. more competitive than I imagined, if she did slash $.

if all $ issues were more cordova than burke,
then painter and others would have benefited the 6+ years since she left?

 

[Wolegib]

I truly believe that the baby boomers playing so much hurt Purdue's recruiting a lot more than the budget did. if you know a player is going to start for the next 2-3 years at your position, why bother being interested in coming to Purdue? Martin saw that and left. I'm sure if martin saw it, then potential elite recruits saw it as well. When hummel was at purdue, if yo u were a SF/PF recruit, you knew he was going to start, so why bother coming to purdue? the baby boomers played a lot of minutes, as did the class that just graduated. Look at Stephens. he had more talent than Dakota. but he saw the writing on the wall as well and left. Nobody wants to come to a school if they believe the coach has favorites that he will play over more younger, talented players.

Basically in both situations, Purdue had a core of players who played a lot of minutes, and very little depth, or young players waiting in the wings. look at 2019. Who will be our starters and key players? freshmen? or existing players? if existing players, we're sure not giving them much playing time or opportunity to develop.

Treed said it many times last year. it was very hard for her son to develop when he was only given 1-5 minute opportunities per game to play and that was usually in non-critical situations. A young player needs opportunities to play and minutes to make mistakes and learn from them.

 

[BoilerBiker]

A new vibrant coach..winning big in an exciting style made no jump. Did Matt cause this or was Matt the recipient to deal with it...or both to some degree?

not landing tyler zeller in the following class
was likely the bigger impact imo.

 

[lbodel]

Really agree with this post. The mentality of Purdue's administration up until the last couple of years was largely staying frugal and keeping our teams "competitive". I love that Bobinski seems to understand that if you're not gaining momentum, you're losing it. College sports is ALL about taking momentum and keeping it.

You have to get a coach or two like Cuonzo and make it worth their while to remain an Assistant or Associate Head Coach - give them independence, pay them their market value. Painter seems to be a good high-level, strategy, administrator-type coach, but even the best strategists need someone to give them perspective and to fight in the trenches. When you look at it from a "momentum" perspective, each coach and non-coach staff member has to be evaluated for the positive impact that they've had recently - past success and doing a "good" job don't matter in the game of momentum unless you leverage them into current and future success.

Also agree that option 2 seems to be the best option. Option 1, where you blow it up and restart, is predicated on the dangerous assumption that someone else could do any better. When you don't have a lot of precedent to look at for Purdue specifically, it's difficult to back that assumption up - "comparable" programs aren't always as similar as they appear.

Have we heard any concrete things that this new administration has done to improve the resources for men's basketball? I am "at a distance" from Purdue, so don't see everything. But I haven't heard that our resources have changed for men's basketball....

 

[Chi-Boiler]

I get the idea that elite players don't want to go to a place where they're not going to get quality PT. Sure, Romeo was never going to come to Purdue because of Carsen being the man at the 2G. But I don't see how that explains the rest of team when it comes to this year's freshmen? Couldn't elite players in that class (minus Romeo) see the chance to step right in? Particularly at the 4-spot where we've been starting a former walk-on all season?

My take is that the Purdue/Painter "system" works in many situations, but it does not work in all situations. Because of that, we will continue to go through lulls like the current one while "Matt's guys" fully grasp the system, to the point that we see what we saw in the Jr/Sr years of Haas, PJ, Dakota and Vince. We may get a Biggie or a Big Dog now and again, but it will not be the norm. And it may never be the norm unless the field is flipped by "Matt's guys" somehow going to the Final Four. That had a small chance to happen if Haas doesn't get hurt last year, but Villanova would have been too tough anyway.

 

[purduepat1969]

I have been saying for a while. Coincident with the arrival of the baby Boilers, Matt's recruiting budget was severally cut. That's why there were no follow-on classes after the BB's. That whole period created teams in football, MBB and WBB that hit the bottom of the BIG, simply because we could not recruit, nor could we hire and keep good assistant coaches.

People say Matt has been here 14 years and what has he done? Right? Well a good amount of that time was running under those severe restrictions and should not count. Basically we squandered the momentum of the Baby Boilers. Now we have to rebuild back to where we were, but our competition is now using that budget-driven poor performance against us through negative recruiting.

It is a catch 22 type situation that can only be rectified by (1) getting a new coach that doesn't have the past budget-baggage attached that Painter does, or (2) slowly working back to good recruits and gradually getting better. If you choose option 1, there is a high likelihood that you will not find a replacement anywhere near as good as Matt Painter, one of the best pure coaches in the game, and loyal to Purdue. If you choose option 2, then we must be patient and supportive. I prefer option 2. Purdue administration and alumni created this mess, now we need to give Matt the chance to reverse it.

Just think about Tom Izzo saying to a potential recruit, "Go look on the Purdue board. You will see that many don't want Painter at Purdue...". Yes, they look, and yes, some of the weasels on here contribute to that negative perspective.

I'm all for patience. But how long should he have, in your opinion, to address it? Curious about your thoughts there.

 

[overthetop16]

Have we heard any concrete things that this new administration has done to improve the resources for men's basketball? I am "at a distance" from Purdue, so don't see everything. But I haven't heard that our resources have changed for men's basketball....

Nothing that has been publicly shared, other than some Mackey improvements. My comment was speaking more to the mentality of the AD - Burke and Bobinski seem to be night and day different.

 

[purduepat1969]

I truly believe that the baby boomers playing so much hurt Purdue's recruiting a lot more than the budget did. if you know a player is going to start for the next 2-3 years at your position, why bother being interested in coming to Purdue? Martin saw that and left. I'm sure if martin saw it, then potential elite recruits saw it as well. When hummel was at purdue, if yo u were a SF/PF recruit, you knew he was going to start, so why bother coming to purdue? the baby boomers played a lot of minutes, as did the class that just graduated. Look at Stephens. he had more talent than Dakota. but he saw the writing on the wall as well and left. Nobody wants to come to a school if they believe the coach has favorites that he will play over more younger, talented players.

Basically in both situations, Purdue had a core of players who played a lot of minutes, and very little depth, or young players waiting in the wings. look at 2019. Who will be our starters and key players? freshmen? or existing players? if existing players, we're sure not giving them much playing time or opportunity to develop.

Treed said it many times last year. it was very hard for her son to develop when he was only given 1-5 minute opportunities per game to play and that was usually in non-critical situations. A young player needs opportunities to play and minutes to make mistakes and learn from them.

If you bring in NBA caliber talent, the next class doesn't wait very long to get playing time, as they're usually gone in 2 to 3 years. The only players Purdue has had anywhere close to this under Painter's tenure was Biggie and Carsen.

 

[tjreese]

not landing tyler zeller in the following class
was likely the bigger impact imo.

sure didn't help

 

[lbodel]

as lbodel pointed out in another thread,
burke was already not spending $ before any cordova cuts. (and are those cuts confirmed, or speculation? ). tiller and keady complained for years about lack of $ commitment. keady almost left too.

the other thread also linked the recruiting budget encompassing the cordova years 08-13. purdue was mid pack to 8th in the big ten during that time. more competitive than I imagined, if she did slash $.

if all $ issues were more cordova than burke,
then painter and others would have benefited the 6+ years since she left?

People love to hate on Cordova. The fact is the decisions were at Burke's feet, not hers. Did she proactively say hey we should really spend more money on men's basketball? No. But that's not really a President's job. The President's job is to listen to the needs of the athletic director. If the athletic director wasn't proposing anything, then a president thinks it's fine and dandy. The coaches report to the athletic director, not the President. Matt Painter doesn't run to the President if he needs something. A university president spends a fraction of their time on athletics. They aren't spending their time imposing rental car restrictions - that was Morgan Burke.

 

[Wolegib]

sure didn't help

I believe that's the real issue. Painter commits to certain players and it's very obvious. other elite recruits don't want to come here and sit waiting in the wings. Zeller didn't want to sit behind JJ, so he went elsewhere.

I don't understand why painter was unable to land an elite PF last year or this year. I can understand why he was unable to when Swanigan was here.

another problem is painter has a tendency to recruit to fill needs rather than just recruit the best players available. and some times he totally ignores certain positions because his star player is there .

 

[tjreese]

I'm all for patience. But how long should he have, in your opinion, to address it? Curious about your thoughts there.

I'm not mathboy and really don't know. I do however believe that Matt has been tarnished by the results. Look how many Purdue fans fail to recognize the mess that it was. Can you imagine what the non Purdue people think? I think there comes a time when the pieces may fall together and if an advancement doesn't take place for whatever reason...things become really difficult. Brohm got a lot of press coming to Purdue. Then he had a group of hungry seniors that he pieced together to get a solid Big D..and to his credit devised some trick plays and overall solid coaching to break even and get to a bowl game. He did a very good job...make no mistake. However, had Hazell done "anything" with the same talent and Jeff went 7 and 6 or 8 and 5..people would be happy, but not to the same limit. Then this year he has a chance to duplicate last year...with a lot of help by Rondale people can say....give this man some talent and see what he can do.

I don't really wish to compare the two coaches even though some may consider I did. I only chose them since we are more familiar with them. I think Jeff was a great hire and he was and is able to strike while the iron is hot to move forward...something Matt couldn't do and I think THAT situation has hurt recruiting. How much...who knows? I know this...if I were having an essay graded...I hope it always followed a really bad essay ...because "perception" carries a lot of weight with many people...even people that should be more in tune than others.

How long should he have to address it and all the things "it" references...I don't know. I know he is much more respected by coaches than the general population, but if the population grows and the expectations seemed legitimate...there will be an ending date...

 

[hoosierdog1]

Perhaps you didn't understand what I was inquiring and perhaps you did? By not striking when the iron was hot..not following up with better players than Purdue had immediately after the baby boilers...did THAT set Purdue back to where they might be today? IF they followed up with better talent, would Purdue be more likely to have landed the players they missed on this year? That was what I was trying to see what others think...and perhaps that was in your mind when you posted...which could be a legitimate thought...

In other words was this a building process and is Purdue not as high today as a result? I don't know...but...all through life we can point to a slight difference here and there and totally different results in some cases

I believe so.I remember thinking Baby Boilers really gonna help with recruiting but it didn't.MP did not take advantage of the Baby Boiler era.

 

[RFSNES]

I don't believe our budget has anything to do with our recruiting success or lack of it.

Painter just lost out on two elite players. he had recruited Hall for a long time. Nnaji had a dad who said he was all about academics and would do a very careful review of all schools involved, and then chose Arizona. Okoro said he wanted to study computer science and then chose Oregon.


I hear what we don't need to do, what do we need to do!

Reviewing those three situations, I don't believe throwing another $1 million into the recruiting budget would have changed the outcome. and the same could be said about Langford, TJD, tyger, JJJ, Brooks, Franklin, Timm, Carmody, Phininsee Okoro and others.

I can't believe any additional amount of money spent would have changed their mind. The reality is Purdue dedicated a lot of time and money to each of these recruits and simply struck out. They went somewhere else they liked better. if we had signed these players, you would never be addressing the issue of what our recruiting budget was or is. if we had signed JJJ or Hall or Nnjadi, would you even care what our budget is? there is just something about Purdue or painter or the current team or players, that these recruits didn't like or want to be a part of. it was their decision and no amount of money given "ABOVE THE TABLE" was going to change the outcome.

Purdue doesn't need to spend more money on travel to find more players. They had awesome players literally right in their own back yard in West Lafayette. Painter selected Langford and many other elite players for his US national team but couldn't convince him to play for Purdue? The Speice AAU tournaments and the AAU tournaments in Chicago have some of the best talent in the country. You don't have to travel every week to Orlando and Vegas.

perhaps if you want, you could spend more money on the assistant coaching staff. But rather than increasing the salaries of the current ones, I'd use the additional money to hire different ones.

frankly, I don't believe our budget is the issue.

 

[tjreese]

I believe that's the real issue. Painter commits to certain players and it's very obvious. other elite recruits don't want to come here and sit waiting in the wings. Zeller didn't want to sit behind JJ, so he went elsewhere.

I don't understand why painter was unable to land an elite PF last year or this year. I can understand why he was unable to when Swanigan was here.

another problem is painter has a tendency to recruit to fill needs rather than just recruit the best players available. and some times he totally ignores certain positions because his star player is there .

Matt is paid good money. Matt wants to win. Matt is NOT going to play one player over another that is better in his eyes. You may think he is better and you may be correct, but Matt has NO seniority system. He has played many first year players...whether fifth year grads or freshmen. My comment you quoted had to do with no landing Zeller was a blow to the team.

Why Matt couldn't land PFs...I don't know. Off the subject, but I can visualize Rutgers moving up the food chain down the road. Their coach did a great job last year and they could be a force in the future with their population base

 

[tjreese]

I believe so.I remember thinking Baby Boilers really gonna help with recruiting but it didn't.MP did not take advantage of the Baby Boiler era.

I can't say Matt didn't take advantage (Maybe he didn't?), but can certainly agree that Purdue basketball was not able to leverage that for whatever the reasons were...somewhat due to Hummel going down and not seeing the bright lights

 

[BoilerBiker]

People love to hate on Cordova. The fact is the decisions were at Burke's feet, not hers. Did she proactively say hey we should really spend more money on men's basketball? No. But that's not really a President's job. The President's job is to listen to the needs of the athletic director. If the athletic director wasn't proposing anything, then a president thinks it's fine and dandy. The coaches report to the athletic director, not the President. Matt Painter doesn't run to the President if he needs something. A university president spends a fraction of their time on athletics. They aren't spending their time imposing rental car restrictions - that was Morgan Burke.

agree.

 

[Boilermb]

not landing tyler zeller in the following class
was likely the bigger impact imo.

As well as not landing any capable big man in the 2008 class. It also hurt that we lost Cuonzo Martin after the 2007-08 season.

 

[FirstDownB]

Some good discussion in this thread. I'll pitch in..

I think the idea that there are some recruiting limitations with the current Purdue/Painter "brand" has some merit. Other coaches start to hang things like "xx number of years without a Final 4" and "defense lives here" against you. In the recruiting world, hope and vision carry as much weight with 18 year olds as do results. There is a grace period with any new coach and his ability to sell recruits on these things. With time that speech wears off and is replaced with results. The parallel to our football team is these next 2-4 years, which are extremely critical in establishing the brand.

So, yes. Anything that damages your trajectory early on has lasting effects. If you haven't accomplished x,y,z by the time you have been at a school for 10 years, you won't sell recruits that they will accomplish x,y,z in their four years in your program.

Mathboy presented two options. I do believe there may be a third. It is rare, but I have seen a few coaches "reinvent" their brand mid-career. Often this comes as a result of being fired and being forced to start over. But sometimes you see it when a coach simply plateaus. I do believe Painter has some flexibility and has made some changes around his roster, but there remains a branding issue with recruits that is hard to shake.

 

[mathboy]

Yeahhhh I don't think that Izzo relies on internet message boards as a recruiting tool...

You don't think so? Why would he not?

Not a direct tool of course, but he can off-offhandedly say, "You know, the Purdue fans are unhappy with Matt Painter's accomplishment. Even they think he's mediocre".

 

[mathboy]

...another problem is painter has a tendency to recruit to fill needs rather than just recruit the best players available. and some times he totally ignores certain positions because his star player is there .

I am not sure this is a problem. Recruiting to 'needs' is the best way to develop a cohesive team. I think stockpiling, let's say 6' 7" Power Forwards creates a roster imbalance that leads to the team being very thin at some point, say at guard. It can also lead to a few undergrad transfers.

 

[mathboy]

I will also add to this that "New Coaches" often get the halo effect. Painter's first class, Crean's first class, Li'l Archie's first class are all great recruiting classes. The real difficulty is recruiting that second or third year class after your halo wears thin.

 

[Riptrain]

You don't think so? Why would he not?

Not a direct tool of course, but he can off-offhandedly say, "You know, the Purdue fans are unhappy with Matt Painter's accomplishment. Even they think he's mediocre".

A.) It probably looks unprofessional and petty...
B.) No one cares ultimately what gets said on here...It's a place for fans...
C.) Would Izzo have his assistants go on message boards to get fan sentiment on their team??? Dude has a hall of fame resume to sell..."Oh man Malik, BoilerIron on BGI really hates Painter...you sure you want to go to that school??"

 

[BoilerIron]

A.) It probably looks unprofessional and petty...
B.) No one cares ultimately what gets said on here...It's a place for fans...
C.) Would Izzo have his assistants go on message boards to get fan sentiment on their team??? Dude has a hall of fame resume to sell..."Oh man Malik, BoilerIron on BGI really hates Painter...you sure you want to go to that school??"

Shots fired....

 

[Boiler Buck]

Most wish the recruiting was a bit better. Does anyone think Purdue is reeling a bit by a lack of budget (recruiting and coaches leaving) during the time when the Baby Boilers were the talk of many? Did losing that opportunity cause a major step back or not have any effect recruiting today? A new vibrant coach..winning big in an exciting style made no jump. Did Matt cause this or was Matt the recipient to deal with it...or both to some degree?

Painter not striking while the iron was hot back then is completely on him... ....very inexperienced back then.....100% his fault with limited recruiting outreach to only specific targets back then.

 

[tjreese]

Painter not striking while the iron was hot back then is completely on him... ....very inexperienced back then.....100% his fault with limited recruiting outreach to only specific targets back then.

just so I understand....the limited recruiting outreach (I agree) inadvertently creates more specific targets you say and I agree. This was a function of Matt or the budget to not allow such travel...this is where you lost me.

 

[Riptrain]

Shots fired....

Yeah didn't you know your negativity lost Malik Hall...If only you kissed Painter's feet like McNut, Hall would be a Boiler

 

[mathboy]

Painter not striking while the iron was hot back then is completely on him... ....very inexperienced back then.....100% his fault with limited recruiting outreach to only specific targets back then.

Not sure what your intention or meaning is here. Can you clarify?

 

[mathboy]

A.) It probably looks unprofessional and petty...
B.) No one cares ultimately what gets said on here...It's a place for fans...
C.) Would Izzo have his assistants go on message boards to get fan sentiment on their team??? Dude has a hall of fame resume to sell..."Oh man Malik, BoilerIron on BGI really hates Painter...you sure you want to go to that school??"

He is not above crying and begging to get a recruit. You think that guy leaves any stone un-turned?

 

[atmafola]

Perhaps you didn't understand what I was inquiring and perhaps you did? By not striking when the iron was hot..not following up with better players than Purdue had immediately after the baby boilers...did THAT set Purdue back to where they might be today? IF they followed up with better talent, would Purdue be more likely to have landed the players they missed on this year? That was what I was trying to see what others think...and perhaps that was in your mind when you posted...which could be a legitimate thought...

In other words was this a building process and is Purdue not as high today as a result? I don't know...but...all through life we can point to a slight difference here and there and totally different results in some cases

no. The problem is Purdue and Painter. We are just not a sexy destination. Even with the baby boilers having an amazing year, we still lost an Indiana kid that would have completed that team to NC. Whether we struck while hot or not, we will be exactly where we are now. Painter's limitations as a recruiter comes down to
1) Purdue doesn't just give off a sexy vibe
2) limitations from Painter's own personality and playing style
3) Purdue won't pay under the table.

by the way, even if Purdue had the right recruits, count me as one those who are skeptical of Painter's abilities to not choke way the big games.