I wouldn't think about replacing a coach that is getting to the NCAA tournament every year because my belief is that you get to the Final Four by giving yourself as many opportunities as possible. There's much luck involved in a single-elimination tournament like that. If you keep putting yourself in position then things are bound to go your way eventually. Recruiting class rankings matter absolutely zero to me. All I care is that a coach wins with what he recruits.
By your reasoning, how much longer should we keep Shondell as volleyball coach? He has been at Purdue for 12 seasons. He has yet to win the Big Ten. He has yet to go to the Final Four. He didn't make the NCAA tournament 2 years ago. Yet I and everyone I talk to think he is an excellent coach. But he falls short by most of the standards you set for Painter. Do you think it's reasonable to replace Shondell too?
So, are you saying Purdue has been unlucky for 36 years (our last FF was 1980......)?
While recruiting class rankings may not matter to you, there's a direct correlation to having highly ranked recruiting class and having success in the tourney. It's not 'luck' as you would believe. Eventually talent wins out, especially when you get deep in the tourney and you're playing teams with 2-3 NBA prospects.
Do you think iu's fans and administration's goals are just to sign Top 30 recruiting classes and win enough to make the tourney? Of course not. They expect FFs and shots at NCs. Why should Purdue's fans expectations be any different?
My sense is that you're afraid of change because something bad could happen. Well, I'm a 'glass half full' type and look at the potential of another coach coming in and making Purdue a perennial FF and NC contender.
Bone, you seem more like a "glass half empty" type to me.Well, I'm a 'glass half full' type and look at the potential of another coach coming in and making Purdue a perennial FF and NC contender.
Bravo. Well done.Obviously not all 36 years but there have been some big spots where we have been that potentially cost us Final Fours. Those have been the injuries to Big Dog (played through but hampered him in Elite 8 game) and Hummel (out for 2 tournaments). Another one that doesn't get talked about as much is the Cornell injury in 1998 where we lost to Stanford in the Sweet Sixteen (who then went on to the Final Four). Cornell played but the difference in his game before and after the injury was very noticeable if I recall correctly.
First, I never said it was all luck but if you don't believe that luck is a factor then you are a fool.
Second, we can't control recruiting. This isn't a professional sport where everyone has equal access to players through a draft. Go look around at the teams that just "talent" their ways to the Final Four every so often and see if we want to compete recruiting like they do? UNC, Louisville, Michigan State, and there are many more that we haven't heard about. It's not a level field and a Final Four isn't worth selling your soul for. Our opportunities will be more limited because we're not going to sign a Baby Boilers class every other year. A McDonald's AA like Swanigan isn't going to end up at Purdue as often as Kentucky. What I care about is that we have a coach that can win with what he can get.
Why is Crean still there then? 8 seasons and plenty of talent and still hasn't got past the Sweet 16. And when did IU fans become a model for our behavior anyway?
My sense is that you are a blowhard fool who won't be happy until we are waiting out a bad contract on the basketball coach we tried just for the sake of change just like we are on the football coach. Then you can shrug your shoulders and say "Oh, well... We tried!!!" while ignoring the consequences of that action (in the case of the football program it is lack of interest and embarrassingly empty stadiums). So yes, I do recognize that there are some potentially serious negative consequences of switching coaches. You may be able to walk away from the team when they are terrible (like most have in football) but the athletic department still has to operate and live with the consequences of that decision.
Obviously not all 36 years but there have been some big spots where we have been that potentially cost us Final Fours. Those have been the injuries to Big Dog (played through but hampered him in Elite 8 game) and Hummel (out for 2 tournaments). Another one that doesn't get talked about as much is the Cornell injury in 1998 where we lost to Stanford in the Sweet Sixteen (who then went on to the Final Four). Cornell played but the difference in his game before and after the injury was very noticeable if I recall correctly.
First, I never said it was all luck but if you don't believe that luck is a factor then you are a fool.
Second, we can't control recruiting. This isn't a professional sport where everyone has equal access to players through a draft. Go look around at the teams that just "talent" their ways to the Final Four every so often and see if we want to compete recruiting like they do? UNC, Louisville, Michigan State, and there are many more that we haven't heard about. It's not a level field and a Final Four isn't worth selling your soul for. Our opportunities will be more limited because we're not going to sign a Baby Boilers class every other year. A McDonald's AA like Swanigan isn't going to end up at Purdue as often as Kentucky. What I care about is that we have a coach that can win with what he can get.
Why is Crean still there then? 8 seasons and plenty of talent and still hasn't got past the Sweet 16. And when did IU fans become a model for our behavior anyway?
My sense is that you are a blowhard fool who won't be happy until we are waiting out a bad contract on the basketball coach we tried just for the sake of change just like we are on the football coach. Then you can shrug your shoulders and say "Oh, well... We tried!!!" while ignoring the consequences of that action (in the case of the football program it is lack of interest and embarrassingly empty stadiums). So yes, I do recognize that there are some potentially serious negative consequences of switching coaches. You may be able to walk away from the team when they are terrible (like most have in football) but the athletic department still has to operate and live with the consequences of that decision.
Well done!Ladies and Gentlemen:
In the Black Corner......weighing in at ***, you knew him as Lenny.....taking the side for change.......he's now Back in Black and better than ever.......the Bonefishhhhhhh!
and in the Gold Corner.......weighing in at ***, ......taking the side for the administration.....TC "the Golden Boy" 4threeeeeeeeeeeeee!
(all rights reserved)
So, I'll sum it up for you: You're OK with your programs being average/good, because that's the best you think they can do.
You're just too risk averse to take that shot.
Keep buying those bonds.....
You are on a rollRisks should be calculated. They shouldn't be, "Oh my internet ego is bruised because we lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament so I'm going to whine and cry about seasons 3 and 4 years down the road because we lost one recruit to Louisville. Let's burn it all down and start from scratch."
That's not buying stocks instead of bonds. That's buying a lottery ticket as your retirement plan. Just plain stupid.
You are on a roll
I don't know lets get that clear. But I think Painter knows he needs to succeed to,stay. IIRC that extension came with a lower buyout indicating he has more years but can be more easily bought out if we go into another slide.As long as Mackey is mostly full, he's not getting fired. That's the long and short of it.
Oh I get it, since you haven't been able to refute anything he said your next tactic is to lash out at others. Pretty predictably too there Lenny.Nice circle jerk going on between you two. Why don't you invite Kessleshmeide and Purdue4sore to complete the quartet.
Nice circle jerk going on between you two. Why don't you invite Kessleshmeide and Purdue4sore to complete the quartet.
So, I'll sum it up for you: You're OK with your programs being average/good, because that's the best you think they can do. There's no reason to expect more because there's too many disadvantages (weather, location, academics, etc) and too many other program simply get the talent. You're afraid of change because you're afraid that you can go from average/good to average/bad instead of potentially becoming very good/great. You're just too risk averse to take that shot.
Keep buying those bonds.....
Have you seen that anywhere other than the speculation on this board? I thought I read in an article that the full contract terms are yet to be released until it's ratified by the BOT later this month.I don't know lets get that clear. But I think Painter knows he needs to succeed to,stay. IIRC that extension came with a lower buyout indicating he has more years but can be more easily bought out if we go into another slide.
Shouldn't you be running back to your IU board now? Do you honestly thing people hear still think you're a Purdue fan?Why are we still on the subject of these two who cares they're not coming to Purdue
High risk comes with high reward. So far the reward as been all risk.Maybe we are overlooking a factor that PB hit upon. "since hiring Groce and every good recruit he gets seems to flame out and cause more harm than good to them in the long run." Not to mention the anti Purdue barrage which everyone south of Lafayette experiences every day of their life in our fine state. Maybe the slightly less talented but not such a diva players is good. If Painter or (insert name here) can get solid people in the 50-100 range regularly, that's probably as good as it gets with an occasional 5 star thrown in.
High risk comes with high reward. So far the reward as been all risk.
You are obviously not a gambler.High risk doesn't guarantee high reward. Also the reward for risk is never risk.
There was a question earlier about painter beating better seeds as compared to losing to worse seeds.
07 - beat better seed of Florida
09 - beat better seed Washington
11 - lost to worse seed vcu
12 - beat better seed st Mary's
16 - lost to worse seed Arkansas
So he's 3-2 against your made up, arbitrary metric.
now that's impressive
There are many choices that are high risk with little reward. There are low risk choices with strong rewards. One does not automatically follow the other.You are obviously not a gambler.
Hey! That will be enough of that using facts to support an opinion. How is a guy supposed to support his agenda with you doing that kind of thing?High risk doesn't guarantee high reward. Also the reward for risk is never risk.
There was a question earlier about painter beating better seeds as compared to losing to worse seeds.
07 - beat better seed of Florida
09 - beat better seed Washington
11 - lost to worse seed vcu
12 - beat better seed st Mary's
16 - lost to worse seed Arkansas
So he's 3-2 against your made up, arbitrary metric.
ya, still 3 upset wins vs 2 upset losses, 8-8 overall.Whoops, meant zona
ya, still 3 upset wins vs 2 upset losses, 8-8 overall.
of the 3 upset wins - one was an 8/9 game, one a 4/5 game, and one 7/10 st mary's.
of the 2 upset losses - game seeding was 3/11, 5/12.
so while having 1 more upset win, i think the seed disparity is why some fans will feel the pain of the losses more than the excitement of those wins.
High risk comes with high reward. So far the reward as been all risk.
Your going to have explain this one for me.High risk comes with high reward. So far the reward as been all risk.
In your opinion, How would you like the NCAA to crown a champ in basketball and most other sports?But I don't believe the point of the ncaa tourney is to crown the best team. Rather it is to maximize revenue.
.
Personally, I really don't care if they do.In your opinion, How would you like the NCAA to crown a champ in basketball and most other sports?
That's fair, but fives beat twelves with surprising regularity. In the last 5 years, 12 seeds have a 10-10 record against five seeds and there have been 46 5/12 upsets since the field expanded to 64. I believe that the reason is that the pressure is all on the 5 seeds and the twelve seeds are teams good enough to win an at large bid.ya, still 3 upset wins vs 2 upset losses, 8-8 overall.
of the 3 upset wins - one was an 8/9 game, one a 4/5 game, and one 7/10 st mary's.
of the 2 upset losses - game seeding was 3/11, 5/12.
so while having 1 more upset win, i think the seed disparity is why some fans will feel the pain of the losses more than the excitement of those wins.
If you are willing to gamble for high stakes you have a greater reward if you win. If you lose, the loss is more also. A really great player can make you or hurt you if they are a bust especially when you toss a lot of eggs into one basket.Your going to have explain this one for me.
That is true. My comment was meant as if you put a lot of time and resources into a recruit then he is a bust of you lose him it costs. Scruggs has no interest in anything Purdue. Wilkes I think is being kind to out recruitment. Chasing him could be high reward or high risk by losing other recruits because of his recruitment.There are many choices that are high risk with little reward. There are low risk choices with strong rewards. One does not automatically follow the other.
Wilkes is national and Painter will be just one of many who didn't get him back if he goes elsewhere. Scruggs is from a IU and Ky part of Indiana.That is true. My comment was meant as if you put a lot of time and resources into a recruit then he is a bust of you lose him it costs. Scruggs has no interest in anything Purdue. Wilkes I think is being kind to out recruitment. Chasing him could be high reward or high risk by losing other recruits because of his recruitment.
That's fair, but fives beat twelves with surprising regularity. In the last 5 years, 12 seeds have a 10-10 record against five seeds and there have been 46 5/12 upsets since the field expanded to 64. I believe that the reason is that the pressure is all on the 5 seeds and the twelve seeds are teams good enough to win an at large bid.
What made the Little Rock loss so tough to swallow is how Purdue lost. The pressure got to the team. There are issues there that need to be addressed. I think that the players will come back mentally tougher this season, but I won't know for sure until the end of the season.
Also, Painter could have instructed P.J. Thompson to foul Josh Hagins before/instead of letting him shoot the 3PT in the final seconds of regulation. I don't remember if they were over-the-limit or not, but if not, foul and then foul again before he shoots it and force him to the FT line.
My fault. That wasn't my intent, though.Yes, in retrospect this would have been the way to go. In reality we forced hagins into a really tough shot that he unfortunately made. Sometimes that's just the way it goes. It sucks, but I don't see why we are still rehashing all this.