I kind'a think the same thing. It might scare off some recruits that want to sit around their athletes only dorm and watch TV. Most of those guys gravitate toward North Carolina like schools.
Why are we "Missing the Talent"
- Thread starter RFSNES
- Start date
I disagree 100%. You don't think Michigan, Duke, etc have high academic standards? That's just a weak excuse.
If there's a 5 star player who's a marginal student (at best), they'll find a way to get him here and make sure he's academically eligible to play ball, even if only for 1 or 2 seasons.
Get off your high horse.....When the highest paid employees of the university are the football and basketball coach, don't tell me it's not a business.
You're missing the point, which is: The state was stacked with talent in the '17 class. If there was ever an opportunity to secure top players in your own back yard, this was it.
Could it be the recruits are reading our boards and the attitude toward our coach????
I've already disproven that Purdue academics are tougher and the thing about declaring a major is crap.
http://www.admissions.purdue.edu/majors/liberal-arts/index.php
You can major in:
Acting
African American Studies
Film and video
Interior design
Theatre
and so on and so on, including....
UNDECIDED
So, you still want to make the argument that tough academics have an impact on recruiting? I don't think so...
I wouldn't be surprised if the recruits read the board, but I doubt that impacts their view of a school.
So you don't think that in this world of social media and all things that contain that label, that things posted on it and all it's forms won't have an impact? Man, you are more out of touch with how things work than I thought.
Okay, but do you really think in this "world of social media" that Purdue boards are the only ones filled with ignorant fans, whining about how their team should be better?
No offense meant here, but I would suggest that such a view-point may also be out of touch with the grumblings of the social media scene; I assure you that there is abundant vitriol in all corners of the internet. I haven't seen "better" or "smarter" fans in any of the other big 10 or SEC forums that I read, football or basketball.
There are so many considerations as far as what a prospect & his parents see and potentially care about...
- Caliber of the team on a national level. Purdue's pretty good here, but by no means in the top tier. Historically, we're often top 20, occasionally top 10, but also it was a only a few years back that we were pretty terrible. ALSO, for in-state prospects, there is perception of Purdue vs. IU, Butler, ND... It is a privileged small percentage of Indiana kids who are raised to love the Boilermakers compared with IU and ND, and Butler's success the past decade has raised their profile considerable, even with Stephens now gone.
- Opportunity to play. I think with the '17 class this has hurt, because we have a strong roster currently. My guess is a great player might accept playing behind someone if they are going to a top tier school, but not if they're looking at a school outside the top tier.
- Exposure. Purdue, because they're in the B1G, is solid as far as prime time TV exposure & and opportunity to play in front of scouts, but by no means in the top tier.
- Perception of the Coach. I think Matt Painter is a very good coach, but I DO think he can come across as a bit of a stick in the mud compared with many of his peers. I think he tries, and I personally appreciate his personality & values, but if I look around at what coaches likely make the best in-person impression with prospects, I think about Matta, Izzo, Self, Miller, Smart, even Cuonzo... They just have a little something interpersonally that Matt doesn't have - not Matt's fault, but there is difference there that must be acknowledged.
- Perception of the School Academically & Socially. I think Purdue is acknowledged as a very good academic school. I also think Purdue is pretty good as far as social opportunities - we have our share of parties & cool bars. However, Purdue is not exactly a magnet for attractive people compared with other schools like IU, UK, many of the Cali schools, etc. We have some attractive people, but not like some other places, and it does show on TV.
- Perception of the School Politically. I Purdue is considered to be one of the very most conservative-leaning public universities in the whole USA, and many of us really like that because it aligns with our values. The players themselves likely don't care for the most part, BUT I think some parents might care. Especially when it comes to parents of prospects in the state of Indiana, where there are biases for and against Daniels depending on one's politics, I think this could be making a difference when it comes to recruiting. Please don't accuse me of trying to stir a political pot on the forum here; I'm just pointing out objectively that this is likely a factor in some cases.
- Location. All other things being equal compared with a different school, I'd say Purdue loses more often than it wins as far as location. It's cool that Chicago is an easy drive away, but (now living on the west coast) the state of Indiana is not generally a desirable destination compared with other places.
If I look at all this together, I think about this...
In-state prospects. Caliber of the team vs. other Indiana schools is similar. Perception of coach and of school academically and socially is a mixed bag vs. other schools. Conservative politics could hurt us. Location seems OK to me compared with other Indiana schools, but Bloomington does seems to have a draw that W Laf doesn't.
Out-of-state prospects. Unless a school is top-tier, a location like W Laf, IN is probably a negative. I think perception of school is fairly neutral - it's a large B1G school with a Greek system, yadayada. I do think our team's caliber, exposure, and (in many years) opportunity to play are a positive draw to out-of-staters... remember the year we got several players from Ohio. I think the conservative politics thing is less a factor for out-of-state players' parents generally.
Net: Maybe we should emphasize out-of-state recruiting above in-state, based on what has happened with '17 class and also the out-of-state success we have had in recent years.
- Caliber of the team on a national level. Purdue's pretty good here, but by no means in the top tier. Historically, we're often top 20, occasionally top 10, but also it was a only a few years back that we were pretty terrible. ALSO, for in-state prospects, there is perception of Purdue vs. IU, Butler, ND... It is a privileged small percentage of Indiana kids who are raised to love the Boilermakers compared with IU and ND, and Butler's success the past decade has raised their profile considerable, even with Stephens now gone.
- Opportunity to play. I think with the '17 class this has hurt, because we have a strong roster currently. My guess is a great player might accept playing behind someone if they are going to a top tier school, but not if they're looking at a school outside the top tier.
- Exposure. Purdue, because they're in the B1G, is solid as far as prime time TV exposure & and opportunity to play in front of scouts, but by no means in the top tier.
- Perception of the Coach. I think Matt Painter is a very good coach, but I DO think he can come across as a bit of a stick in the mud compared with many of his peers. I think he tries, and I personally appreciate his personality & values, but if I look around at what coaches likely make the best in-person impression with prospects, I think about Matta, Izzo, Self, Miller, Smart, even Cuonzo... They just have a little something interpersonally that Matt doesn't have - not Matt's fault, but there is difference there that must be acknowledged.
- Perception of the School Academically & Socially. I think Purdue is acknowledged as a very good academic school. I also think Purdue is pretty good as far as social opportunities - we have our share of parties & cool bars. However, Purdue is not exactly a magnet for attractive people compared with other schools like IU, UK, many of the Cali schools, etc. We have some attractive people, but not like some other places, and it does show on TV.
- Perception of the School Politically. I Purdue is considered to be one of the very most conservative-leaning public universities in the whole USA, and many of us really like that because it aligns with our values. The players themselves likely don't care for the most part, BUT I think some parents might care. Especially when it comes to parents of prospects in the state of Indiana, where there are biases for and against Daniels depending on one's politics, I think this could be making a difference when it comes to recruiting. Please don't accuse me of trying to stir a political pot on the forum here; I'm just pointing out objectively that this is likely a factor in some cases.
- Location. All other things being equal compared with a different school, I'd say Purdue loses more often than it wins as far as location. It's cool that Chicago is an easy drive away, but (now living on the west coast) the state of Indiana is not generally a desirable destination compared with other places.
If I look at all this together, I think about this...
In-state prospects. Caliber of the team vs. other Indiana schools is similar. Perception of coach and of school academically and socially is a mixed bag vs. other schools. Conservative politics could hurt us. Location seems OK to me compared with other Indiana schools, but Bloomington does seems to have a draw that W Laf doesn't.
Out-of-state prospects. Unless a school is top-tier, a location like W Laf, IN is probably a negative. I think perception of school is fairly neutral - it's a large B1G school with a Greek system, yadayada. I do think our team's caliber, exposure, and (in many years) opportunity to play are a positive draw to out-of-staters... remember the year we got several players from Ohio. I think the conservative politics thing is less a factor for out-of-state players' parents generally.
Net: Maybe we should emphasize out-of-state recruiting above in-state, based on what has happened with '17 class and also the out-of-state success we have had in recent years.
I don't think who the kid grew up following and cheering for has anything to do with recruiting. You think Wilkes grew up a L'ville fan? You think JJJ grew up a MSU fan? Very doubtful.
Perception of the school academically and socially: Come on man. Is P a good school, sure. But all the Big 10 are good schools. And as far as the social aspect....there's 40,000 students on campus, there's plenty of good looking girls, etc for players to hang out with.
Politics: has absolutely nothing to do with recruiting. On the list of 100 things a player considers, campus politics doesn't even make the list. You think the Univ of WI has a recruiting advantage because it's in ultra liberal Madison?
Location: nothing to do with it. Ever been to East Lansing? Ever been to Lawrence, KS? If location mattered, Miami would be a basketball and football power. So would Northwestern. Players go to school to play ball, not to hang out in clubs partying.
This has been discussed to death in several other locations. The UNDECIDED is not a major and does not fulfill the NCAA requirement as a major. It can get a student through the first year, but the NCAA requires a major to be declared after that. PLUS acceptable progress must be made in that major for every semester after number 2. Not just an overall GPA, but a C GPA in the declared major and the correct number of credit hours toward that degree. General Studies is a major at most other schools. PU does not offer it. Every student must take a math class and two language classes, comm 114 and some others. None of which have instructors who care one bit for athletes. MATH 159 was designed to help athletes ... it is new and yet to proven whether it does or not. If you take a look at the majors you have listed, you will see that there are some pretty challenging courses required. African American Studies is not an easy curriculum. Org Mgt is definitely not an easy major.
Now, does this influence recruits? My experience says it has more impact when athletes learn that they can't declare a GS major here like their friends are at other schools. This is usually after they are already here.
OLS may not be easy like Greg odens osu basketweaving, but I think there's a reason most players pick it.
Friends who were in OLS had nowhere near the rigors of engr, cs, or even mgmt.
(In the end it's how an individual translates it to a job anyway)
Friends who were in OLS had nowhere near the rigors of engr, cs, or even mgmt.
(In the end it's how an individual translates it to a job anyway)
I'm definitely not going to lie and say I had a more rigorous experience because I was an education major because it wasn't...however, Purdue is not a liberal arts school. Ball State has a much more rigorous education program because they are a liberal arts school.
You did not "disprove" this. It is a real issue, but I would say a minor one in recruiting. Let's just say we don't offer the types of classes North Carolina or Ohio State offers. I think you and I could agree to that perspective.
Not claiming to have it all figured out - just brainstorming. I think engrained perceptions of state colleges probably does count more for in-state prospects. Less so for out of state. And what I said about politics was to a prospects' parents, the political leaning of an institution could matter in a way that influenced the prospect's decision. To use your example, would conservative parents be more likely to encourage their child to go to Purdue or Madison if they had offers from each? I think for some parents it matters if a school has a strong political leaning diametrically opposed to their own. You argued against location mattering using East Lansing & Lawrence, but you seem to have missed that the very top consideration on my list was caliber of the team nationally, and clearly Michigan State and Kansas are in the top tier such that they overcome their less-than-ideal locations. For non top tier, I do think location matters. Part of my point was actually that the coach does matter, but to a given recruit there are a lot of possible things that matter, and patterns for in-state and out-of-state likely vary because there is much more engrained perception of a recruit's in-state options.
You did not "disprove" this. It is a real issue, but I would say a minor one in recruiting. Let's just say we don't offer the types of classes North Carolina or Ohio State offers. I think you and I could agree to that perspective.
Not every 'student athlete' is a student. And that's fine with me. Do any of us really believe Big Dog came to Purdue to earn his degree? No, and not a single Purdue fan would trade the Big Dog experience because he didn't intend to graduate.
That's the reality of big time programs that recruit the big time players: some of the players aren't there for school, they're there to earn a degree in NBA.
The bottom line is, there are majors that athletes can go into that they really, really have to try hard to fail in. The coaches, counselors, tutors, etc are all there to make sure the athletes stay eligible and at least meet the minimum requirements.
Do you really think the basketball players at Duke have the same academic experience as the general student population?
The head coach are the number 1, 2 and 3 reasons a player chooses a school. Can the coach maximize the players talents and help get him to the next level. Period.
I don't think politics has anything to do with it and I would doubt that parents would try to influence their child on their college decision, the most important decision of their life to that point, based on their own political leanings.
I think location has less of an impact than many people want to believe. After all, for the top players, they're looking at being in school 2, maybe 2 years. Most of their time is in the gym or athletic facility, not hanging out around town.
This is fair. I agree with you that at most, if not all, schools the academic experience is different for athletes versus general population. I'm not sure about Ivy league schools but I imagine even there the athletes are given some help that other students don't get.
Forgetting about the majors for a minute, just the tutoring and the individual attention they are given is a huge difference. Yes, I would like to believe that PU is different, and maybe we are from some "basketball factories" but for the most part I don't see our academic requirements as a disadvantage CMP has to overcome.
I did some athletic tutoring way back when I was at PU (football). The guys that I helped would have had to try not to pass. They were given every opportunity to succeed in each class. Even though that was a long time ago I doubt it has changed.
