We're almost in a better recruiting position than Missouri in regards to geography being closer to Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Chicago.
Matt Painter to Mizzou?
- Thread starter goldmember
- Start date
We're almost in a better recruiting position than Missouri in regards to geography being closer to Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Chicago.
I agree it is not that simple- there are also a lot more programs competing with Purdue than MU does for its instate recruits. Further, MU is easier to recruit to (from out-of-state).
An alum considering going leave Purdue is quite the endorsement for MU being a better job (money is part of what makes jobs better).
Or it's quite the endorsement that he can't stand Purdue's current AD. Going from Purdue to Missouri is a lateral move, at best.
How so? You say this like it's a fact. Columbia isn't exactly Austin or Miami or anything like that.
Wouldn't a poor AD reason why MU is a better job?
An AD that does not believe in supporting their coach with the market rate is not a plus.
I can see lateral, at best, if you are one to place a lot of value on the antiquated.
According to hawk fans, West Lafayette apparently is a real determent in recruiting, as is the conference's tough admission requirements.
I would add conference affiliation comes into play as well.
A personal issue between Painter and the AD might make the Mizzou job slightly better FOR HIM. But for most objective observers, Purdue would be the better job. Let's just say that Bill Self was having similar personal issues with Kansas' AD and wanted to go to, say Texas (we'll pretend that Barnes left for this hypothetical). Would you say that Texas was a better job than Kansas? I highly doubt it, and you would be widely ridiculed if you did.
Like I said earlier, Purdue isn't like Minnesota (or Notre Dame, or Army/Navy) in football. They still have a very good program. They aren't some average program clinging to past glory like a liferaft (like ND, Nebraska, etc. fans do in football). They are still very good.
As is MU, but the Tigers have more growth potential.
If Purdue was of the quality of KU, I would not say MU was the better job.
Last edited:
Mizzou's program isn't as good as Purdue's. And Mizzou has more room to grow, but that doesn't mean that their chances of actually making that progression are good, nor does it mean that their max potential is better than Purdue's max potential. Iowa has tons of room to grow right now, but will they ever actually do it? Who knows?
We are not talking about programs, but jobs.
MU is a better job and comparable program.
Purdue has not been to a final four since 1980. Where their basketball program is at right now is very similar to where Nebraska's football program is, they both are good but not great teams. Both are in the top 15-20 programs in the country now.
So you're saying that Mizzou is as good of a job as Texas? That's quite a laugher, too.
That's true. Like I said, for almost anyone, Purdue would be the better job with the tradition and recruiting ground. Objectively, it's the better job. Painter has a personal issue with the AD which may make the Mizzou job better for him. That is subjective.
No, that was your analogy, which is as humorous as glamoring over a FF 30+ years ago.
Both MU and Purdue have made 24 appearances and comparable recent success. MU currently pays more and has more AD support, will always be the flagship program locally, has Wal-Mart checkbook, and reportedly is in a better location and easier admission requirements.
I'm not sure he ever slept to be honest.
Purdue is a better basketball program. More recruits to chose from. Don't give me the number of schools competing argument either. That's part of the potential for growth. I would rather be around every school they are than be around Kansas. With Hummel this year Purdue would have been even better and perhaps they challenge for a title. Missouri wasn't close all year.
I said comparing Purdue to Mizzou is like comparing Kansas to Texas. Purdue and Texas are pretty equal right now. But then you make it sound like I was saying Purdue was as good as Kansas, which I never did.
And how much does it say to be the flagship program in Missouri? That says about as much as saying Minnesota is the flagship program in Minnesota. When you're the only game in town, it doesn't say much. Mizzou is the only school in the state, but Kansas might as well be in-state, because they as someone mentioned, they are closer to one of Missouri's two major talent centers than Columbia is.
Like I said, you are too biased. History, recruiting, money, exposure, location, weather- Purdue is inferior to Texas.
It does not say it is much of an accomplishment, but it does suggest advantages.
Lol, not even close. Texas has incredible resources at its disposal. Purdue does not. If anything Texas is a sleeping giant just waiting for a stellar coach.
