When did Elite 8's become a thing? I know people over-value the Final Four. I never hear any quote Elite 8 appearances other than local ND fans this year.
Why does Purdue suck in the postseason so much?
- Thread starter Summy1
- Start date
When did Elite 8's become a thing? I know people over-value the Final Four. I never hear any quote Elite 8 appearances other than local ND fans this year.
I think because the final four is unrealistic this year. I think the sweet sixteen should be a goal.
Recruiting is without a doubt part of issue, and if Purdue can't get to final four I have to agree with you here. If this Purdue team can't make the Sweet 16 with Biggie that's pathetic. Problem is the mindset of Purdue's team that's where their sights are. Teams that get to final four came to win it all they didn't come to play they came to win everything. Purdue's goal is to play good enough to get to sweet 16 and then submit. The team that beat Purdue last year exemplifies this. The advantage was so one sided to Purdue that it was like watching the Super Bowl Steelers teams losing to a college team. No excuse for Painter. He took Purdue's best weapons and disarmed them basically.
On future recruiting...Look what Swan did for the team. A player of the year guy, potentially the best player in NCAA this year. I can't imagine where the team would be without him. Can you even say it's talent? Swan had all kinds of adversity and you look at his overweight pictures from his early years he truly self made himself through that. He's a tough kid. That's what we need. I can't tell you how whimpy so many of Painters recruits are. We need a team of Biggie not these whimpering mental weaklings. It's all recruiting. Too many of Purdue's past teams were construction projects. We need horses ready to race like it's the Derby out of the gates.
Not that you deserve a response, but the only teams 'favored' to make a Sweet 16 is a 4 seed or better - which is not a guarantee for Purdue. And it's still a 4/5 game which is basically a toss up. To put faux benchmarks is "pathetic" in reality.
agree with the comments thus far. Sorry for the long post, but this 30+ year fan of Purdue basketball is in the mood.Prize for anyone who actually reads all of this.
We are playing NOT to lose, with the weight of history on our backs and the weight of a fan base that is craving a Final Four like no other fan base.
We need to remember to GO FOR IT! It's not going to happen by being passive. To play for EACH OTHER. To only care what the people in that locker room think. Get in that FOXHOLE with each other and just f'n FIGHT as hard as you can and leave it all out there on the court! Win or lose you can live with that attitude. I think Biggie's attitude is aligned with this and different from boiler past. He isn't meek or afraid. He goes for it. Hopefully, everyone else can follow that lead with their mindset.
It's HOW we lose that hurts more than the actual losing. And today was par for the course. Usually, it's a tough, grind it out game where it's close in the end and anyone's game ... and then we lose in the most stomach wrenching way. To boot, our coaching since 1980 is the EASIEST team to plan against because there is ZERO element of surprise. We might as well just hand over our playbook for the season to the opposition. It's ridiculous. (85 - Auburn, 88 - Kansas St, 90 - Texas, 93 - Rhode Island, 95 - Memphis - roy hairston pulled jersey, 96 - georgia and almost lost in 1st round, 12 - Kansas, Cincy, ARK LR)
And for the love of God, please do NOT wear those throwback jerseys. Let's turn the page on the past PLEASE.
I'm not a fire Painter guy or a total pro "zone" or hater, but I do think that Painter needs to use the full deck. Coach K used zone for a stretch to beat Louisville and he said it helped prevent dribble penetration and keep his bigs out of foul trouble, which is precisely what we need for a few minutes each game.
I'm not saying to play it all the time or that it is the end-all-be-all, but to NEVER play it is ridiculous. It's as if he doesn't know how to coach it, so he won't. Or he is too prideful or stubborn. And some on here think that we are "above" or "too good" to play zone like it's a sign of weakness or something. If Coach K (a Knight man-to-man disciple) can do it from time-to-time, we aren't "above" it.
OK. I'm going to step off my soapbox now. Whew. Now I feel better.
You forgot 84-Memphis, 86-LSU, 87-Florida, 91-Temple, 98-Stanford, 11-VCU: Purdue was the better-seeded team in all of those games as well.
I agree that the mostly predictable nature of Keady and Painter's teams and schemes made/makes the Boilers a relatively easy scout. Many of the players might be difficult to stop, but opposing teams still know what Purdue's M.O. is on both ends of the court.
Last edited:
Benchmarks, like sweet16, Elite8, Final4? Now, the entire basketball world is pathetic. LOL.
But hasn't the whole point of this season, at least since the Iowa and Nebraska losses, been to demonstrate that this Purdue team is BETTER than the national perception?
Making the Sweet 16 is no faux benchmark, and it's not pathetic to expect Purdue to get there this year.
It IS a thing when a program the caliber of Purdue hasn't been there in 17 years.
But nationally, no one cares about conference tournaments, they care about the NCAA and PU sucks in the tourney that matters.
No on
No one said it was ruining their life, but as a fan, you want your team to win and get disappointed when they don't, especially when it matters most.
No offense, but if you go back almost four decades of history, you can find upsets for every program. Again, you're looking at things in tunnel vision - people are talking about the tournament success because of losing to Michigan in the BTT. But Purdue is one of 6 teams that has won the BTT, and Purdue is one of five teams who have been to the championship game something like 3 or more times.
Did you know IU's never been to the BTT Championship game? But judging by your comments, you'd take their program over Purdue's.
We're talking about this right now because of the BTT loss, so you can't say BTT doesn't matter. You think we'd have multiple threads on this subject right now otherwise? Nope.
So let's say Purdue plays Virginia in the second round and Purdue loses. Would you consider that "pathetic"? And I'm asking those words specifically because that's what I responded to someone saying.
Point taken. Indiana has worse fortune/performance than Purdue in the BTT, including that crazy game with Minnesota in the 2008.
Probably not pathetic but certainly another March disappointment.
In order for Purdue to go from a good to great program it has to shatter the glass ceiling in the NCAA Tournament. That means exceeding the most basic expectations.
Why can't this be the year? Purdue has talent and experience. And now it should have a chip on its shoulder from the early exit in DC.
In order for Purdue to go from a good to great program it has to shatter the glass ceiling in the NCAA Tournament. That means exceeding the most basic expectations.
Why can't this be the year? Purdue has talent and experience. And now it should have a chip on its shoulder from the early exit in DC.
I never said it couldn't, I'd love to go far!
I was simply responding to a post that said if we didn't make a deep run, that Purdue is "pathetic".
Someone please research: since 1980, our last FF appearance, how many times has Purdue beat a higher seed and how many times was Purdue upset as the higher seed.
Would be interesting to compare that with a program like MSU where Izzo is considered a great tourney coach.
Because Purdue lacks very good talent at the most important position on the floor which is PG.
I like PJ, but 5'10 PGs who barber good athletes, can't create, can't finish, can't score on the break and can't get their own shot at crucial times will eventually come back to haunt you.
And don't give me the assist to TO ratio. That's mostly a function of him never driving and just dumping it in on the block
Ok, Lenny....here you go.....broken down for Coaches Keady and Painter.
Under Keady, Purdue was upset (lost as the higher seed) on 12 occasions:
'84, '85, '86, '87, '88, '90, '91, '94, '95, '96, '98, and '00
Four times, Purdue won as the lower seed:
'99 (twice), '00, and '03
_______________________________________________
Under Painter, Purdue has been upset on two occasions:
'11, '16
Three times, Purdue won as the lower seed:
'07, '09, and '12
So overall, it's seven times knocking off a higher seed, and 14 times losing to a lower seed.
'83, '97, '08, '10, '15 - neither happened.
Someone, please check my work....been a tough weekend.
Last edited:
I mean, there's no one way to look at this. Do you look at who they beat along the way, do you look at just who they eventually lose to, etc.
Since 2006, Izzo's Michigan State exits in the tournament have come from 5 lower (worse) seeds, 5 higher (better) seeds, and one same. He's had 2 first round exits (as a #2 seed and a #6 seed).
Since Painter arrived, Purdue exits in the tournament have come from 2 lower (worse) seeds and 6 higher (better) seeds, with 2 first round exits (as a #5 seed and a #9 seed).
Both teams had 1 of their upsets be against a cinderella Final Four team - Purdue vs. VCU and Michigan State vs. George Mason.
So looking at this, Purdue's actually been "upset" to exit to the tournament much less often than Michigan State. However, you also have to consider your starting seed. However, 6 of the 11 years Michigan State started as a #5 or lower seed, so it's not as if MSU has been a #1-3 seed every year and all of their losses to a worse seed was to a #2 or #3 seed.
Additionally, obviously MSU has also reached a couple Final Fours in that time span, which can obviously make one forget about being upset in the tournament.
Ironically, MSU has actually had some of their best runs as an average seed - their last 3 Elite 8 or Final Four runs were as #4, #5 and #7 seeds. Their last 3 #1-3 seeds have resulted in losses in the Sweet 16 or earlier.
And going to one of my other points - some of it depends on the luck of the draw. When they were a #5 seed and made the Final Four, they only played 1 team along the way that was a better seed - and that was a #4 seed.
Overall, MSU unquestionably has a better resume and has had some great runs - and unexpected runs. But the fact remains that these "elite" teams DO get upset and have disappointing years. And yes, MSU is in the Big Ten so it's easy to want to compare, but Izzo is also a hall of fame coach that is not exactly easy to replicate.
I wouldn't say Purdue has underperformed in the NCAA Tournament (or Big Ten) - it has overwhelmingly lost to seeds higher than itself and has played very competitively against some very high seeds, several of which went on to a Final Four or even national championship.
I think I would more likely describe it as Purdue has not overperformed. It should absolutely be noted that we've won some very hard games - it's not like the only wins we have are against easy teams we were heavily favored over. And some of that has to do with how you go in to the tournament - the #7-10 seed makes it very difficult to advance assuming you play the #1/2 seed. But like I said, MSU has not been high seeds every year at all either.
Also, as a comparison.....on a cursory review, it looks like Izzo teams have beaten a higher seed 13 times and lost to a lower seed (including once in the FF) 6 times ('01, '04, 06, '12, '14, and '16).
Let me add to an irony...different but similar. Many on here (me included) think that Crean does not have enough discipline and that with the talent he has, they are very inconsistent and underachieve for the talent level he has to work with.
The reason for the inconsistency (world beaters one night and losing to Fort Wayne another) is his loosey-goosey approach to shot selection and I too share that opinion. However, "some" of those that feel Matt plays to not lose and his players are too tense are in many cases the same ones that would be against Creans loosey-goosey style and it causes the head to spin. FWIW, Gene's teams were sometimes uptight, but Matt has never shown that. a month ago or so I posted whether people would want a coach to play the odds or go with the gut and there is no correct answer...but I think understanding "why" a person may hold a view of being uptight and not going with the gut helps understand the position held.
People talk about Lee Rose, but all of Lee's decisions (situations) were made before the game was played so that he would make sound decisions without the heat of the moment. I can understand all positions, but how we handle data may be a difference in our outlook...
Insightful and we'll argued.
I hope that this year's Purdue team can break the ice on a deep tournament run. Purdue last made the Final Four as a 6 seed. Why not this year as a 4 or 5? I really think that getting to April would lift a major monkey off the program's back.
I think this year, there could be so much parity that match-ups matter even more. You can't just overcome teams on skill.
