Matt Painter to Mizzou?

**vortex** · 03-27-2011, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by isuno1fan

Anyone that thinks Purdue is a better MBB job than Mizzou is smoking crack. It's not even close.

Also...to the person above that said Mizzou is a FB school? You must be a young guy because I can assure you that Mizzou is a BBall school and has been for a long, long time.

Purdue has much more history that Missouri. Purdue would be considered the better job by most of the country.

**swarthmoreCY** · 03-27-2011, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by vortex

Purdue has much more history that Missouri. Purdue would be considered the better job by most of the country.

ISU has more history than A$M, are we the better job?

**vortex** · 03-27-2011, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

ISU has more history than A$M, are we the better job?

Not talking about ISU or A&M. IMHO Purdue job > Missouri.

**swarthmoreCY** · 03-27-2011, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by vortex

Not talking about ISU or A&M. IMHO Purdue job > Missouri.

Neither am I.
The logic behind your opinion would make ISU a better job than A$M. Still confident in your logic?
Purdue is not a better job than MU because it has a slightly better history. Unless you are a Big 10 homer, MU is better.

**vortex** · 03-27-2011, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

Neither am I.
The logic behind your opinion would make ISU a better job than A$M. Still confident in your logic?
Purdue is not a better job than MU because it has a slightly better history.

First I would argue with you saying Purdue has a slightly better history. Take a look at Purdue's history all the way back to John Wooden. Money wise I can't say which job pays more, Missouri is in the market and will have to pay big bucks to land a top level coach. As far as recruiting goes Purdue does have more and better competition for recruiting HS players being located in Indiana. That being said, there are far more good players within a three hour drive of Purdue's campus vs Missouri.

**tm3308** · 03-27-2011, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

ISU has more history than A$M, are we the better job?

Purdue has more history, and is regularly a top 15 team.

The ISU/A&M comparison makes no sense, as ISU is a program that has won just 51 Big 12 conference games since Marcus Fizer left for the NBA. For those who don't feel like doing the math, that's an average of 5.1 conference wins per year.

Tradition alone doesn't make a good job. But tradition and success do, and Purdue is still a VERY good program.

**swarthmoreCY** · 03-27-2011, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by tm3308

Purdue has more history, and is regularly a top 15 team.

The ISU/A&M comparison makes no sense, as ISU is a program that has won just 51 Big 12 conference games since Marcus Fizer left for the NBA. For those who don't feel like doing the math, that's an average of 5.1 conference wins per year.

Tradition alone doesn't make a good job. But tradition and success do, and Purdue is still a VERY good program.

Sure it does. The only thing Purdue has over MU is history. ISU's history is better than A$Ms.
Is Butler a better job than Iowa? They have a much better recent history.

Again, removing your Big 10 homersim, MU is a better job than Purdue.

**isuno1fan** · 03-27-2011, 03:16 PM

I just don't see how anyone can make the argument for Purdue. Purdue is a nice program w/ a decent history, but it doesn't have all the built in advantages Mizzou does.

**tm3308** · 03-27-2011, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

Sure it does. The only thing Purdue has over MU is history. ISU's history is better than A$Ms.
Is Butler a better job than Iowa? They have a much better recent history.

Again, removing your Big 10 homersim, MU is a better job than Purdue.

Purdue has more fertile recruiting ground, as well. Which is also part of the reason why, yes, Butler is a better job than Iowa right now.

Purdue does have more history. But it's not like Purdue is the Minnesota football of college basketball. Minnesota has tons of history, but haven't done much in over 30 years. Purdue is still one of the top programs in the nation.

**Tre4ISU** · 03-27-2011, 03:27 PM

I don't really know a lot about either program but unless the money at Mizzou is better, I have to think that Purdue is a better job. Better recruiting ground, more history. I mean really what does Mizzou have? What did they have before Anderson? Didn't he really make them relevant?

**swarthmoreCY** · 03-27-2011, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by yaman3

I don't really know a lot about either program but unless the money at Mizzou is better, I have to think that Purdue is a better job. Better recruiting ground, more history. I mean really what does Mizzou have? What did they have before Anderson? Didn't he really make them relevant?

MU has better recruiting ground, and is easier to recruit to. Remember Purdue has many more programs competing for local players.

**tm3308** · 03-27-2011, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

MU has better recruiting ground, and is easier to recruit to. Remember Purdue has many more programs competing for local players.

How on earth does Mizzou have a better recruiting ground? In what world does that statement make sense?

Here's a look at each state's high school talent over the past 10 classes (including '11) according to Rivals:

Indiana
5-stars: 9
4-stars: 24
3-stars: 56
2-stars: 42

Missouri
5-stars: 4
4-stars: 7
3-stars: 47
2-stars: 29

And you're telling me that Missouri is a better recruiting ground?

**Jarrods79** · 03-27-2011, 04:21 PM

I really don't think the middle of Missouri is a better recruiting ground than Indiana, and thereabouts. That would make the Purdue job better IMO.

**swarthmoreCY** · 03-27-2011, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by tm3308

How on earth does Mizzou have a better recruiting ground? In what world does that statement make sense?

Here's a look at each state's high school talent over the past 10 classes (including '11) according to Rivals:

Indiana
5-stars: 9
4-stars: 24
3-stars: 56
2-stars: 42

Missouri
5-stars: 4
4-stars: 7
3-stars: 47
2-stars: 29

And you're telling me that Missouri is a better recruiting ground?

In the world that sees 4 Indiana teams in the NCAA tournament, not including Indiana. How many D1 programs are in Indiana compared to MO?

**tm3308** · 03-27-2011, 04:36 PM

Also, you mentioned that it's easier for Mizzou to recruit in-state than it is for Purdue to recruit in Indiana. That isn't the case, either.

Neither have landed an in-state 5-star player in the last 10 years.

Purdue is 7 for 24 in 4-star players from Indiana. Mizzou is 1 for 7.

They are pretty equal in their percentage of 3-stars landed (7 for 56 for Purdue, 6 for 47 for Mizzou).

Purdue has signed just 1 of the 42 2-star players from Indiana. But Mizzou has signed 0 of 29.

So, in terms of their success at getting the in-state talent, Purdue is either better than or equal to Mizzou. Now if that's the case, wouldn't it be better to be in the state with the deeper talent pool?

Seriously, basketball is to Indiana as football is to Texas.