Maybe you should compare Painter to Coach K since Coach K has been upset before. Both of their first names start with M, so there is also that.
At least Purdue lost to Michigan State today.
- Thread starter McNutt76
- Start date
So Cletus... is this your weekday PUke girlfriend... one of the ones that wear the XXL old urine and black candy stripes that are all the rage these days in the painter pool, or your Friday night girlfriend you wait in line for at the sheep barn?
Baa-aaa-aa-aaa
I mean, I could. I can compare Painter to anyone. I haven't compared him to anyone in this thread yet though and don't really feel like I need to.
Izzo just tied BK for all time B1G coaching wins yesterday. Guess who is 5th all time at only 51 years old and a couple of years from being 4th all time behind only Izzo, Knight and Keady after he passes Lou Henson? Yeah, that guy IU would have fired 15 years ago if he had coached there according to the posters on the forum for not making Final Fours. Maybe that helps explain IU basketball over the past 20 years or more. He would be top 10 nationally on any list for the upper echelon jobs if he even showed an inkling for wanting to pursue another job. He is also recruiting better than ever, using his leverage from USA basketball, and is evolving into an offensive coach not just a defensive one as this year is showing for better or for worse. Reality sucks.
Lose game...run to IU board to sob about no respect for coach.
Are you arguing that Painter is comparable to Izzo or Knight or even Lou Henson? PU hasn't been to a FF since 1980, reality does suck for you. Painter is 0-18: that would get you fired at any "upper echelon job". Do you know how many coaches in Big Ten history have been to Final Fours?
Let me know when Matt has been to multiple FF's and has 800 wins: then, you can compare him to Lou Henson. Let me know when Matt has been to 8 FF's and won a national championship: then, you can compare him to Tom Izzo. Let me know when Matt has 3 national championships, 5 Final Fours, over 900 wins, and has only lost 1 game in 2 years: then, you can compare him to Bob Knight.
Reality is you roughly have another Tom Crean minus the FF appearance. Good enough for PU, not for any other "upper echelon job".
Last edited:
The only one comparing Painter to anyone is you. You insistence to ignore conversation to instead prove a point is hilarious. Or you struggle to follow the conversation. Not sure which. What's even more funny is you keep saying I can't compare Painter to these guys. I can compare Painter to anyone I want and it proves it's own point. Just be sure you compare, you use all the stats. Not cherry pick for your argument. I'm sure you get that though since you are the only one comparing coaches.
I am not the one putting Matt Painter into the same sentence as Lou Henson, Bob Knight, and Tom Izzo. Two PU fans in this thread have now done this, and the topics of the sentences were total Big Ten wins and winning percentage. If the purpose is not to compare Painter to these coaches, then what is the point?
I'm certain this is an effort to rationalize Matt Painter's record. I've seen PU fans do this with Gene for as long as I can remember. If you want to just admit it, go ahead and we will move on. If you want to argue Matt is a good coach, I would roughly agree with that. If you want to argue he is a great coach, I would disagree and you probably need to wait until he does something great first.
Last edited:
I used knight and izzo when I cited his win percentage. I don't see the issue with using them as a comparison in the way I did. If got a list of questions you haven't answered. Maybe you can start to tackle them and tell me why using them is an issue?
So, now you are comparing them? I thought you said you were not comparing them. Who is cherry picking and leaving out some pretty important criterion?
Saying that I'm comparing them is apparently the only way to get you to discuss.... because you otherwise ignore me and create your own narrative. What important criterion am I missing though, in regards to the relevant conversation or Matt Painters win %?
Either you are comparing the coaches or you have some unknown point that you won't reveal. Either way, it is kind of impossible to debate you because you won't clarify the point you are trying to make and lack credibility.
My point has been if you are comparing Matt Painter to Lou Henson, Bob Knight, and Tom Izzo, then you are cherry picking and performing the logical fallacy of comparing unlike things to rationalize Matt Painter's record, mainly a lack of consistent postseason success. You are ignoring Final Fours and National Championships. I would also throw in undefeated seasons, only losing one game game in two years, number of wins, number of Big Ten titles, and recruiting. Matt Painter is not as good of a coach as Henson, Knight, or Izzo. I wouldn't take Painter over Matta, Beilein, or Bo Ryan any day of the week.
It's quite simple to follow actually. You said Matt Painter is a choke at the end of the year. You never clarified when asked.
You instead said "Check out Matt's coaching record: he chokes every year like clockwork."
So again I asked you to define choke then gave his win % as a coach and also listed izzo and knights. You continued to beat around the bush and fail to answer questions because you told me I can't compare the win percentage of Painter, a college basketball coach, to the win percentages of izzo and knight, also college basketball coaches.
The point has been very clear from the start on my end. The issue is you won't clarify anything and then got upset because I compared college basketball coaches win percentage since you wanted to discuss record. You brought up record, then accused me of cherry picking stats. Any other questions?
Postseason play occurs at the end of the year, including and especially the NCAA Tournament: is this the clarification you want? I was saying Matt chokes at the end of the year, especially postseason tournaments like the NCAA's. Matt doesn't have much success at the end of the year and has never been to a Final Four.
You somehow thought that overall winning percentage is relevant to end of the year results, which it isn't. You proceeded to include Izzo and Knight in the same sentence as Painter regarding overall winning percentage, either to compare Painter to said coaches or for an unknown reason that you won't clarify.
Regarding the topic of end of the year results, especially the NCAA tournament, Painter is not a good comparison to Izzo and Knight because Izzo and Knight have considerable postseason success and Painter does not.
If you want to start a new topic about comparing Painter to Knight and Izzo, do it on GBI. I've got better things to do.
Last edited:
I'm not sure Painter chokes so much as he plays to his seed and never above. Big difference.
And I did actually clarify. Multiple times actually. It was to provide a point of reference.
He hasn't been to a Final Four in 18 years! Call it lack of postseason success if you want. Mike Davis and Tom Crean have been to Final Fours! You are rationalizing mediocrity.
You wanted to start a new topic of comparing Matt Painter overall to Bob Knight and Tom Izzo, which is a sorry ass debate. You would have to include NCAA success as a criteria, anyways, and that isn't good for Matt. Bob Knight lost 1 game in 2 years: let's move on.
Rationalizing Matt Painter is a topic that belongs in the Twilight Zone of the GBI board. If you want to argue that Tom Crean results are ok, I'm pretty sure you are going to have a hard time finding sympathizers on this board.
No. I used them as references. I never once tried to compare him to them and say he was as good. Don't add words to my chat. If I wanted to say he was as good, I'd have picked a different stat. The stat I chose said he isn't as good as them. No where have I said that except your brain.
Matt's overall winning percentage has nothing to do with measuring postseason success, and Matt Painter is not as good of a coach as Tom Izzo and Bob Knight. Anything else?
I didn’t compare Painter to Izzo, Knight, or any others except in regards to fifth all time in B1G wins at age 51. That is not too shabby. But since you did, let’s be honest. MSU is currently considered a blue blood because of Izzo. Indiana was once considered a blue blooded because of Knight. Purdue has never been a blue blood in the Keady or Painter years because of lack of post season national success as you state. Will MSU be a blue blood post Izzo - we will have to wait and see. We already know the answer for IU. I like Painter/Purdue’s chances of national success post his age of 51 better than IU. We will see.
You hit the nail on the head. Apparently our stats and comparisons were taken way out of proportion. Oh well. I think Painter has learned and grown a lot as a coach and is just now getting to where most coaches get high profile jobs. He also has admin support as opposed to being hampered by admin.
True, you don't want to compare Painter to Knight, Izzo, or even Henson in any other category, especially Izzo and Knight. Yet, the effort continues: WTF. It is like saying Jesus and Hitler are similar because they both have mustaches.
It doesn't take 18 years to reach the FF. Gene never went to a FF, and Matt is on the exact same path. How many times do you have to see it?
Painter is fifth all time in wins. No comparison - it is math. No extra credit for Final Fours or NCs. It is # of wins, no speculation, no spin.
And yeah Izzo and Knight are the best in 50 years, literally, in the Big 10, Big 14 whatever we are today. So “second” best, ok? I know I would take Keady and Painter over the Lou-doo (Henson) Final Four or not. Ask any other fan base in the B1G who they would want as a coach, including my MSU friends as they watch the last years of Izzo, who would you want as your head coach for the next ten years or more?
And, if there would be a true national search for an open Kansas or Duke or Kentucky or North Carolina or UCLA job or any other true blue blood job - with no coaching tree/legacy, etc stipulations, all things are equal including all potential head coach candidates would be interested - Painter is at least top 10 on any serious list at age 51. But I know, nobody on this forum would be interested - that is ok
The false equivalence fallacy continues! Jesus and Hitler are the same because they both have mustaches.Painter is fifth all time in wins. No comparison - it is math. No extra credit for Final Fours or NCs. It is # of wins, no speculation, no spin.
And yeah Izzo and Knight are the best in 50 years, literally, in the Big 10, Big 14 whatever we are today. So “second” best, ok? I know I would take Keady and Painter over the Lou-doo (Henson) Final Four or not. Ask any other fan base in the B1G who they would want as a coach, including my MSU friends as they watch the last years of Izzo, who would you want as your head coach for the next ten years or more?
And, if there would be a true national search for an open Kansas or Duke or Kentucky or North Carolina or UCLA job or any other true blue blood job - with no coaching tree/legacy, etc stipulations, all things are equal including all potential head coach candidates would be interested - Painter is at least top 10 on any serious list at age 51. But I know, nobody on this forum would be interested - that is ok
Do you know how many coaches in Big Ten history have gone to Final Fours? It is like 25-30. Do you really think Painter is a better coach than a Lute Olson just because he has coached longer in the Big Ten? Give me a break. Let me know when Gene and Matt can do what 25-30 other coaches in BT history have done. If you would take Painter over Bo Ryan, Matta, or Beilein, then you are insane.
If Painter really was a great coach, a better program would have hired him by now. Same goes for national success. If Matt was going to have consistent national success, it would have happened by now. IU could have kept Crean if they wanted Painter results.
I think Painter has made it abundantly clear post the Mizzou play many years ago, due to Morgan Burke nickels and dimes budget, that he is a Purdue lifer. Who knows - maybe he changes his mind if he does win at the national level? I tried to find the exact quote, but he was asked what it would mean if he was no longer Purdue coach and his answer was, and I paraphrase, “I would no longer have the opportunity and satisfaction to walk out of Assembly Hall with a win”. Five straight times he did that. I am sure that is not a popular quote here ha.
And yes Lute Olson and others have left and done wonderful things elsewhere otherwise might being top 5 or higher all time. But you choose Lute really? His only FF with Iowa was 1980 of all years and yes, he lost to Purdue in the, now long defunct, 3rd place game.
And age and health is kind of a factor so yeah, I take Painter over a retired Bo Ryan, a (very) aged Beilein, and a guy (Matta) who had to prematurely retire due to health but call me crazy and insane. If Matta was healthy enough, IU would have hired him or is IU also insane ?
I watched Mike Davis own PU. What goes around, comes around.
I'm talking results, not right now, lol. Painter's results are not close to being as good as Bo Ryan, Beilein, or Matta. I don't care how many games Painter has coached at PU.
There are coaches like Bill Self and Lute Olson that are way better coaches than Painter, but didn't coach in the conference for as long. If you are saying Painter is in their league because he coached more games in the BT Conference, then you would be insane.
Cherry picking stats does not a good coach make. But, I understand it is a necessity to prop up Gene and Matt.
I live in the present. Is Lute still alive ? I hope so, but I am pretty sure he isn’t a 1A head coach candidate any time soon. Who is available NOW? And Self - well, if you are ok with cheating - go for it. And that is a whole other discussion on the top 10 coaches - who is clean? Not sure what your are thinking, but I am focused on Jay Wright, Beard, Tony Bennett - guys low to mid 50s max in age and proven national winners. When that very short list ends, Painter is in that next group. And that list is not very long either.
You live in the present because Beilein, Matta, and Bo Ryan are all retired and way better than Paniter, lol. The mental gymnastics and cherry picking is pretty impressive.
Once again, you are comparing Matt to coaches that have achieved success at the national level. Wright, Beard and Bennett have all been to Final Fours. Matt isn't in their league.
Matt will never be in the same league as Lute Olson or Bill Self.
The premise, I think ?, of this discussion was what coaches are available now. I would like to bring John Wooden back to life and place him at his alma mater and fire Painter tomorrow, but I don’t think that is on the table, is it ?! Lol.
No doubt, the legacy of Painter is yet to be determined compared to any coach you wish to cherry pick. But to compare him to Crean, and say IU would have fired him because he didn’t / doesn’t win enough is kind of ludicrous. I am pretty confident that Mizzou would be in a much better position with Matt today (and I love Cuonzo) and Matt wouldn’t have Georgia at 6-23 in year 4 or however long Cream has been there. I think even IU fans under a lie detector would agree with that ha. How is 6-23 even possible for a Power 5?!!
where are you from Nutt? seems like who is hated most depends on what part of the state you live in, Kentucky is hated way more in southern Indiana
Similar threads
