Update on Harrison Ingram
- Thread starter Cthreepo
- Start date
Smokin’ coeds, juke joints and barbecue may get Shaka, but there are worse ways to go.
"hanging over his head" is a bit extreme. It's only hanging over his head if you vocally make it that way. The Final Four (or beyond) is as much luck as it is anything else. It's not something you can control. Duke has had the biggest names in college basketball in that same time period you mention - no Final Four.
People need to put away the measuring sticks and just enjoy it. If you like someone as a coach, their recruiting, etc. - there's no need to then remind them "oh you haven't done this". If the coach is doing the right thing and improving, more often than not they will eventually get there.
The consistent thing through the last 30 years is that Purdue really hasn't supported the basketball program in a "Final Four" caliber way.
I certainly agree with those sentiments at those places (I think you see it a bit with Texas Football -- no reason they should be irrelevant for a number of years now). In Austin, the football team is treated as VIPs wherever they go basically. But you only fall into it if you make a decision to - I think combined with how a lot of football/basketball recruits are these days, it's not a good combo. And the whole "likeness" thing will only distract athletes further.
However, I'd also say that there's simply certain coaches that fit in the certain places and jumping at the next big offer isn't often a great idea. Even look just at the Big Ten - half of the coaches have been at their schools less than 5 years. Or you look at Cuonzo - he's basically done the same thing at a number of schools now - that's probably his max unless it's the right fit. For Shaka, VCU was probably the school with the right fit and would play a somewhat rigid system. It's hard to come in somewhere, either adopt or change the culture, and make things your own.
It’s much easier to get the underdog, chip on their shoulder type kids to push themselves to the absolute max like Shaka’s system requires. Similar issue Pitino had trying to install his full court press with the Celtics.
Come on man. Location doesn't have anything to do with it. If it did, Miami, St. John, UCLA, etc would never lose a recruiting battle. (and Austin is nowhere near a beach).
These recruits, especially 5* recruits are not your typical 18-19 yr old college students. These are kids who have the potential to be making millions of dollars in 2 years.
It most certainly does. You're WAY behind the loop on all of this. Your problem is you are thinking of what you think are good locations, not what a recruit thinks.
You're living in a very limited vacuum it seems. From 2012, but should explain it for you:
Location matters
Pay particular attention to #13 where it says "The location of a school could prove to make a huge difference for many recruits."
Dude. Just stop. There’s no way you believe this.
Bonefish, There is a picture out there somewhere of Painter giving a coaching seminar. In the front row is Smart taking notes as fast as he could write. I have never seen a picture of Painter taking notes at one of Smart/s coaching talks. Why don't you go ask him who the better coach is, you might be shocked at the response you get.
So, places like East Lansing, MI, Columbus OH, Clemson, SC, Norman, OK, State College, PA, Lexington,KY are desirable?
Any of them located near a beach?
Great weather?
How about near a hoppin metro area for clubbin'?
Tell me what's unique or interesting about any of those locations geographically?
Again, Smart is 3-0 vs Painter and has a Final Four under his belt. One could argue that based on head to head matchups, Smart is the better coach. Painter has a much larger overall body of work and has been more consistent, but Smart smoked a Painter coached team on his way to the FF that year. You can't ignore that.
Again, I'm not saying who's better, but those facts are undeniable and unarguable.
You're wrong. I actually do believe it.
What do you think are important aspects of a schools location that influences a recruits decision? Be specific.
Good conversation. I think we, as fans, significantly overplay a school's location.
Even in the article linked it was only 13th, along with this: The location of a school could prove to make a huge difference for many recruits.
"Could."
The fact they rated it 13th indicates they don't believe it to be an overwhelming factor.
Even in the article linked it was only 13th, along with this: The location of a school could prove to make a huge difference for many recruits.
"Could."
The fact they rated it 13th indicates they don't believe it to be an overwhelming factor.
I did read your link. Sorry, but it was worthless. It basically said, "Some like the city, some like the country, some like colder weather, some like heat and humidity."
It gave no evidence, zero, that location has anything to do with recruiting other than personal preference.
Schools in FL, CA or HI do not have an inherent recruiting advantage because of location. It's more likely that there's more better players in close geographic proximity.
Additionally #15 also applies to location indirectly because distance from home is a factor. Which the location of the school to where the recruit's family lives, is a factor.
And I would counter that out of all the things that go in to recruiting, location is important enough that it made the list twice technically.
Even if we take the word "could" at face value, it directly refutes bonefish's notion that it has zero impact ever.
Last edited:
You only find it "worthless' because it doesn't follow your vacuum filled narrative. Sorry, it's s fact. So much so location type reasons are listed twice in it.
Could be, but I think you're making a connection that's spurious. To me, "location" means a venue that has benefits over an alternative: beach and warm weather over snow and cold; metro area with lots of attractions for those of college-age, vs. a town that offers zero options/alternatives.
The "Distance from home" thing is more of someone who wants to be able to play in front of friends and family... or someone who really yearns to get out their region of the country, regardless what the new venue offers.
Again... good conversation, and I think (as fans) we're over-thinking this topic.
Maybe the location is important when there are a couple $500,000 houses the recruit’s parents can rent cheaply, Near by, right?
and you seem to think that every recruit values the same things. Some like nice weather. Some like to play near family. Some like a party scene. Some would go anywhere that can get them to the next level.
they’re people, after all. I assume we couldn’t get this board to reach a consensus on which is the best place to live: NYC, Austin, Los Angeles, Indy, or south haven, MI
Not even remotely what I said nor is the context in what I was responding to.
Which is exactly why location matters for all of the things you mentioned here which is also supported in part by the article I linked.
Yep. This has grown legs more than it was intended since I originally responded to bonefish and his "it never matters" mantra.
For me there is entirely too much that goes in to why someone picks a school and assuming it's one thing when it is another is naive on our part. We're looking for a cut and dry reason when there never will be one.
You're missing the point.....Where a recruit lives does not have anything to do with the "location" of the school is proximity to home is a determining factor.
What you've been implying is that there are factors related to a schools geographic location (weather, night life, beach, etc) that impact a recruits decision. What I'm saying, is that for 5* recruits or recruits who might have pro aspirations, the program and coach are No1 and 1A in the recruits decision.
If location mattered, a crap hole like East Lansing would never land 5* recruits. They go there because of Izzo and the MSU program, not because of East Lansing.
I think the whole point is that recruiting isn't about 1 thing, but a number of factors combined. There are so many similar peers that a recruit is looking at, so glaring differences, especially down the list a bit when the top things are similar (i.e. basketball), can make a big impact.
Some are based on historical factors - a school like Michigan State or Kansas has been a top program a recruit's entire life, and have had a bunch of players be drafted. There are lots of recruits that it makes a big difference. There are many recruits that "take chances" on upstart teams or coaches. And there's programs like IU where they haven't had that level of success in their lives, but it's still a prominent part of the program.
Some are more "in present day" factors - i.e. you look at a Purdue vs. Illinois (which Illinois has always been a bit easier to recruit to) -- Champaign is a small town, but it's basically if Purdue was actually located in the levee right next to downtown Lafayette with nightlife/bars/clubs, restaurants, etc. Does it make a difference? Probably. Is it the sole reason? No. Clearly it's not solely about this - as Purdue has recruited better than Illinois for a number of recent years when Illinois has floundered a bit with coaches. But when the solid coach is there, that's now going to be a factor.
At the end of the day, to be successful consistently with recruiting is you need to be solid in the whole "menu" of what a recruit looks at. It's the same thing as a regular student - there's a lot of places you can go study at a good engineering program. Very few people just say "oh, Purdue's good in engineering I'm going there!". They factor in a number of things. And whoever feels like it's the overall best fit...is where the kid chooses.
You can lag in certain areas and still win. But you can't lag in a BUNCH of areas.
For example, I travel to NYC for work all the time. My favorite hotel to stay is in the garment district/Chelsea on a not particularly picturesque street. It's not my favorite location and block in NYC, but it's great for me to get where I need to go, the food is great, and the rooms are my favorite in NYC and it has a great gym. So I'm willing to sacrifice that specific location/block it is on. But if they got rid of their gym -- one thing I may be willing to sacrifice, but when it's 2...I may look at other options, even though it's a great room to stay in.
Last edited:
Agreed, and it also has to do with culture. In Austin, UT sports are basically the "professional teams" given the city's size. I think Barnes kinda ran his team like an NBA team - lots of talent, just never played together or developed. Doesn't really work in college, or at least you need a bit more across the board talent. You look at Painter - he came in and took some of the fundamentals of what the fans were used to and liked and ran with it. While still implementing his own things. It would be hard to come into a place like Purdue Basketball and be more "lax" with fundamentals, etc. -- and get away with it if you aren't producing. A coach like that would have a short leash.
Again, you're missing the point.
If location means something different to every recruit, then location doesn't really matter.
What you're saying is that certain aspects of a location are important to all recruits and that provides and overall inherent advantage in recruiting. That's simply not true because there are no universal benefits that appeal to every, or even most, recruits.
Fundamentals don't matter if you're winning. That's the only thing that matters.
We could implement Nolan Richardson's 40 Minutes of Hell from when he was at Arkansas or Tark's UNLV Runnin Rebs offense if it meant wins and the fans could care less.
Except that it's been proven that it is, unless you are in a vacuum. You ignoring it doesn't change that fact. I mean the article I linked literally showed that in the context your statement, it is part of the equation.
Are you really this pigheaded to just to ignore things just so you can appear "right" on the internet? How sad for you. I mean who cares anyway? You are putting entirely too much eight on forum appearances just so you can try and make an argument.
Last edited:
OK, let's say you're right (which you're not, but we can play your game).
What is the most important factor about a schools location that gives that school an inherent recruiting advantage. Actually, list the top 3 most important factors related to geography and how that helps in recruiting.
Okay let's say I am right (which I am, but you're ignoring facts so we'll play your game). Location in terms of distance from home (in the article) and proximity to other things (in the article) and let's even stretch that and say location in terms of weather (also mentioned in the article I do believe, or could be in google).
There that was actually rather easy to again show you. See your problem is you are too narrow minded when it comes to recruiting and think things are equal and operate in a vacuum. A plethora of things more than likely go in to the decision and location is just one of those things a player might find important. You discounting it as completely as you are just shows now naive you are being even when faced with evidence that you only deemed "worthless" because it doesn't agree with your stance.
Your utter disregard of the notion is akin to a 5th grader yelling "I know you are but what am I".
"Location in terms of distance from home": So, what you're saying is that if a school is located in a hotbed recruiting area, then they have an advantage in recruiting?
But that just means it doesn't matter where they school is, it matters where the player lives. So, location is only relevant to the 'location' of the players home, not the schools geographic location. So, you're wrong on that one.
Weather? How do you explain schools in cold weather climates ability to recruit at a high level?
MSU, UM, OSU, UK, KU, UL, Cuse, in basketball?
UM, OSU, PSU, OU, ND, Oregon, in football? Who the hell wants to live in South Bend Nov-March?
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying: Location is important, whether that means proximity to ones home or their desire to live in the cold/heat. However, no schools have an inherent recruiting advantage based on their location. Why? Because every recruit is different and what's important to one isn't important to another. Nothing about any schools location is important to all recruits.
And according to your 'research', if location is #13 out of 15 in order of importance, it's not important.
You're wasting your time with good ol Lenny. You see he isn't a bad guy, he just won't ever admit to being wrong on here even when faced with mountains of evidence to show he is. He will move the goalposts then disappear for a while then come back after a while when the turmoil dies down. Rinse and repeat.
But as I have said time and time again I don't think he's a bad guy at all, he's certainly a die hard Purdue fan, he just isn't very clear on how all of this works. This isn't the first time he's faltered and it won't be his last. But I still would buy the guy a beer.
I really doubt shaka would say painter is a better coach if you asked considering he's 3-0 against him.
Painter is a better coach than Jay Wright because he beat them the last time they played. In fact he’s much better because he beat them handily. Also, either Painter became a much better coach or Wright a much worse coach than the previous times they had played.
This is fun.
Smart better than Painter based on head to head lmao. Just caught up on this and damn that was a funny take.
I never commented on who I think the better coach is. I commented on what I think shaka's opinion would be. Glad you're having fun by the way.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Jacobsen to compete for spot on U18 USA National team- Latest: Boiler Buck
-
-
-
