An interesting discussion. My take. You can talk about recruiting all day long if you say great things and keep it positive. But if you dare to criticize it, you will be labeled a troll by "old people".
The same goes for posters with under 100 posts. They must be troll unless 99% of their posts praise Purdue. If you are not a rah rah person, you must be a troll. You MUST never offer objective or constructive commentary or discussion to this board. If you try, you MUST be a troll.
And then once you are labeled as a troll, you are placed on ignore, but they take you off ignore only to dis and attack you, and when you try to respond to their personal attacks, you are called out as being a troll and they encourage others to also place you on ignore.
Am I right?
I followed Carsen's recruitment. When Painter first started recruiting him, he was a quality unheralded 3star player. He was good, but was under the radar as far as national rankings go. When Painter first started recruited him, Purdue was by far the best offer he had received. After narrowing his choices, his ranking also significantly increased his Senior year. His ranking may have even climbed to be a 4star by the day he signed. But the reality is that he was a 3 star when Painter first targeted him and first started recruiting him. Should we give Painter credit for recruiting a 4 star player which he eventually became? Or should we admit He was a 3 star player when Painter first recruited him?
If IT becomes a 4 star player by the end of his senior year, do we give Painter credit for recruiting him as an elite 4 star player? Or do we admit he was a 3 star player when Painter recruited him and sold him on coming to Purdue?
You should not mix recruiting with development or accomplishments at Purdue. What a player accomplishes at Purdue should be reflected against a coach's coaching skills, not his recruiting ability. Coach Painter is a great coach at developing talent. It's very obvious. Carsen became an All American, because he developed into one, not because he was an all American before he arrived at Purdue.
I believe Painter's recruiting has become very consistent. Before the year starts, you could take a Rivals 300 list, and say with somewhat success and predict these are the 20-30 players he will target to recruit. They all seem to fit a mold. That's not bad or good, but is rather predictable. However, the same could be said about U.K., Duke and Kansas, and to some degree MSU and UCLA. My question is why doesn't Painter recruit the same players Duke and U.K. And Kansas recruits? Very rarely when I look at Duke's targeted players, do I see an offer also made by Purdue. When I was on the AAU circuit watching my son play, I saw all the BIG name coaches watching the elite athletes play. So I have to believe both Calipari and Painter were watching the same players. Yet those elite players would receive offers from U.K. But not Purdue. I never understood that.
And that remains the biggest question in my mind. While we curse at other programs like MSU, the reality is the NCAA believes they run a clean program. The same is true for Kansas, Duke, UCLA, and U.K. So why doesn't Painter recruit the same players they do? Painter recruits a certain type of player to fit his style and his system. I can accept that. What I can't understand is that he rarely targets or even tries to recruit the any of the top 25 players in the nation. I know he watches them play, but he never goes after them. Is it because he knows they won't fit into that square peg he has already created? To me Painter is more about finding players to fit his system, rather that adapting his system to match the talents of potential players. Who was Biggie's real recruiter? Painter or Barnes? Why doesn't Painter try to recruit more MCDonalds all Americans? You can't tell me he doesn't know who they are. But at times, it appears he doesn't even try, and instead sets his sites on the next tier of players and then tries to develop them.
Painter is a tremendous coach and developer of talent. However, I doubt we will ever see what he could do if he ever recruited the level of talent Duke recruits. Is Coach K a great coach? Or is he just a great recruiter? The same could be asked of Calipari. I've never really watched U.K. play, so I don't know if he actually coaches his players, or just lets the players coach themselves.
The one thing Painter is, is consistent. Whether he signs a player or not, they all fit a certain mold. Sometimes I wish he'd change that mold and change his style and go after different types of players. But I've learned to accept that he won't and the players he signs are the players he wants. I never expected Romeo to be the type of player Painter would recruit or the type of player who would want to play for Painter. The same could be said for the trio of players who signed to play for Duke. I can understand losing to Duke in a recruiting war. But I can't understand. Why Painter didn't at least try and make an offer to them. In the past 10 years, how many top 10 high school players has Painter even given an offer?
And I realize there are always reasons, and it's a two way street. Many top players don't want to come to Purdue or play for Painter. And for those players, I ask, what can we do to change that? Even if Painter wins an NCAA championship, I seriously doubt he would change the type of player he recruits, or that any top 10 athlete would change their mind about wanting to play at Purdue.
I'm not sad, mad or frustrated. I've come to the realization that it is what it is with very little change forthcoming. The same could be said about Keady and Knight. They were consistent and found players they wanted to fit their style of play. Who was the better coach? Was Keady a bad coach because his teams never reached the final 4? Was Michigan's and UW and Butler and Loyola's coach a great coach because they did?
