hoosierbgh

Henry had every chance to commit first and waited too long. Besides, it was really Hunter who we took over him not Anderson.

SMH, the goal at IU is more than just making the tourney though no matter how much you want to move the goal posts. I suspect you would be among the foremost of those complaining if Archie made the tournament the next 6 years in a row but lost in the round of 64 twice and never made it past the Sweet 16. Go build a shrine to Painter and Purdue if you want. (Or is it OSU and Holtman now?) Either way it is clear that you are determined not to have a rational conversation so I'm done.

In point of fact Purdue lost in the round of 64 most of those few extra trips to the tourney, which is the very definition of marginal where expectations at IU are concerned. Making the tournament to lose in the first or second round a few times is better, which I acknowledged, but it is not enough better to actually matter which you seemingly can't acknowledge.

What I want is to understand how someone can hold Painter up as "dude that wins" and Purdue as a consistently successful program despite their wins and success being only marginally better than IU's. I'm trying to figure out if it is a complete lack of perspective or more of a recency bias thing. Purdue has been near their ceiling for much of Painter's term and IU has been at their floor for much of the last two decades and yet PU's ceiling is pretty similar to IU's floor.

And you really think that would have kept the calls for Painter to be fired from getting really loud if he'd coached at IU? When I first noticed your signature I assumed you'd lost a bet, now I'm starting to wonder....

Probably not but he was a hell of a coach anyway.

LOL, Painter never made it past the Sweet 16 and won 1 additional BIG championship in 5 extra years.

Yes, and we've changed coaches multiple times leading to the ongoing instability. Crean was fired from IU for accomplishing about what Painter has at PU.

Rick Majerus.

They missed the tourney two years in a row in the middle of those 12 seasons, finishing last in the BIG in 14'.

That certainly would have helped. Unfortunately the best available coach at that time wasn't healthy enough for the job.

Putting aside the fact that Purdue hasn't really been consistently good all that long for a second, it's the stability and lack of major turmoil in the program. Keady handpicked Painter as his successor and Purdue has stuck with him through a few bad seasons and lack of tournament success.

They started out hesitant like so many games this season then got punched in the mouth repeatedly and it took them until the last 5 minutes to recover. Smith often plays soft mentally and physically. He never recovered after being abused on his first two drives, making 2-3 mistakes and being yanked. Morgan was gassed much of the game from trying to hold his position while Wesson slammed him in the chest and shoved him in the back repeatedly. Devonte and Davis were the only ones that really responded with toughness. Foul trouble and the inability of anyone other the Devonte to hit shots most of the game limited Davis' effectiveness.

A significant part of the playing like crap was the abuse they were taking. They'll probably be given raises. BIG has to protect the team that is projected to be in the tournament. Now, tomorrow they will likely protect MSU's tourney seed and OSU won't get those calls.

Some people are just never happy unless they have something to complain about and will grasp at anything no matter how irrelevant. Some of the other bubble teams have really bad RPIs this year too so IU wouldn't have been completely out of the discussion and may not have even ended up with the worst RPI to get in. It is doubtful they would have gotten in under the old system most years but they would have certainly been under consideration and with the quality of bubble teams this year they would have had a much better chance than normal. The goal of the selection process is to get the best 36 at large teams into the field and so far it seems like it has the potential to do that better than the old system did.

Gonzaga might have been able to win the SEC or Big 12 this year but they would certainly have taken far more losses. There's little chance they could have won the ACC and the only way they even finish in the top 4 of the BIG Ten is if they were allowed to have WCC officials call every game. With Big Ten officials they would have more fouls called on them in one game against Wisconsin than they have would have in 3-4 games in the WCC.

Nah, he just turned down $150K from Arizona because he really hates the desert southwest not because he got a better offer from Duke!

And because it is smart to wait if you can.

I like Phinisee and I like what i have seen from him so far. Still it is only one real game, though and there's no need to get too carried away. Phinisee will be a significant contributor in many games but he will also struggle at times and have poor games. We will need both Green and Phinisee to play well.

There is a lot of that too it to be sure but another major part is the constant rush to judgement on a player. It was several games into the season last year and several posters were chomping at the bit to write Morgan off. It wasn't too many games after that when the tune changed dramatically. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that many are already writing Green and Anderson(wth?) off and anointing Phinisee for the entire season after only one game. It's almost like being first with an opinion is more important than being accurate.

No, it sounds like we are wanting officials to make more judgement calls on whether or not players sufficiently disguised their fouls at the end of games.

Yes, if the team can develop the tough, gritty defense that Archie's teams were known for they will have a punchers chance in any game. Then, if a few shots fall at the right time...

The kids on academic scholarship have more reason to complain than those on athletic scholarship. Either way, both types know exactly what they are signing up for and do so voluntarily. A scholarship is the best deal most of them get since the reality is that the supply of raw, unproven potential is high and the demand for it is low. Whining because the market doesn't value their time and effort as much as they do is nothing more than entitlement.

Well, if you insist on being a spoilsport... logically, if a kid felt that way about a coach and a university they wouldn't even consider them in the first place.

What TJD said recently is about as close as you are going to get: "I'm no longer considering Purdue." I think that roughly translates to: "Man that coach stinks worse than I thought and the university is a bigger excrement hole than I ever imagined. What makes them think I would ever go there and waste my time?"