I know I would much rather watch a game vs. an Anderson coached team than Painter. That style is just awful to watch.
Matt Painter to Mizzou?
- Thread starter goldmember
- Start date
In my opinion Purdue is the better job. Missouri is also more of a football school, and the state of Missouri is a pro-first state. However, if Missouri is legitimately offering to double his salary (from the sounds of it) then I can easily see why Painter would strongly consider/take the job. Plus, it's not like Missouri's football program has much history so Painter can easily turn that school into a basketball school with Purdue-like success.
Last edited:
MU’s Alden has a coach wish list - KansasCity.com
Report: MU contacts Painter as No. 1 candidate | Campus Corner
Missouri has contacted Painter, but Painter did go on vacation in Florida with his family after the meeting......
Other names other than Painter & Martin to keep an eye on: Steve Alford
,Scott Sutton (Oral Roberts HC), Josh Paster (Memphis HC), & Kim Anderson (Central Missouri HC & former Mizzou player & assistant under Norm Stewart)
Report: MU contacts Painter as No. 1 candidate | Campus Corner
Missouri has contacted Painter, but Painter did go on vacation in Florida with his family after the meeting......
Other names other than Painter & Martin to keep an eye on: Steve Alford
,Scott Sutton (Oral Roberts HC), Josh Paster (Memphis HC), & Kim Anderson (Central Missouri HC & former Mizzou player & assistant under Norm Stewart)
I didn't realize Cuonzo overcame cancer. Mizzou has at least two great candidates to choose from.
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.
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's basketball program is recognized far more nationally than Missouri's. I would disagree that Missouri's bball job is better, and I would especially disagree that it's "not even close". I don't think Purdue's is head and shoulders above Missouri's by any means, but I do think Purdue has the edge.
Historically, maybe (disputable), but that does not mean it is a better job.
MU has better facilities (Wal-Mart money), recruiting base, pays more, less competitors in state.
Purdue has much more history that Missouri. Purdue would be considered the better job by most of the country.
Neither am I.
The logic behind your opinion would make ISU a better job than A$M. Still confident in your logic?
Purdue is not a better job than MU because it has a slightly better history. Unless you are a Big 10 homer, MU is better.
Last edited:
First I would argue with you saying Purdue has a slightly better history. Take a look at Purdue's history all the way back to John Wooden. Money wise I can't say which job pays more, Missouri is in the market and will have to pay big bucks to land a top level coach. As far as recruiting goes Purdue does have more and better competition for recruiting HS players being located in Indiana. That being said, there are far more good players within a three hour drive of Purdue's campus vs Missouri.
Purdue has more history, and is regularly a top 15 team.
The ISU/A&M comparison makes no sense, as ISU is a program that has won just 51 Big 12 conference games since Marcus Fizer left for the NBA. For those who don't feel like doing the math, that's an average of 5.1 conference wins per year.
Tradition alone doesn't make a good job. But tradition and success do, and Purdue is still a VERY good program.
Sure it does. The only thing Purdue has over MU is history. ISU's history is better than A$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.
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.
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.
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?
