We moved up another spot in the NET rankings. Just keep losing apparently 
*Official* B1G In-Season Thread
- Thread starter boilerzz
- Start date
I'd agree and disagree. I agree in the sense that Izzo and Beilein bring in better talent, which is important to going far in the tournament. I'd disagree because nobody in conference has done more with less talent.
NBC Sports has Winston 1st team AA, Edwards 3rd team and Matt Painter Co-National COY.
https://collegebasketball.nbcsports...n-teams-player-of-the-year-coach-of-the-year/
https://collegebasketball.nbcsports...n-teams-player-of-the-year-coach-of-the-year/
We have the best possible draw from a match up standpoint, but we are playing so bad it probably won't matter
I agree Painter does a lot with less talent. He’s a good coach. However, overall, it really isn’t close. Izzo and Beilein aren’t just good recruiters. They’re two of the best in game coaches and developers of talent in the country along with being really good recruiters. I mean, it’s not even debatable. Painter isn’t in that category. And again, that’s not debatable.
Last edited:
It sure seems defensive to me. SNU says something most people believe to be true and you come back with a gilligan like post trying to argue with him.
Last edited:
Yup. So why’d you make a point of saying I didn’t ask for Purdue’s last sweet 16 win?
It's almost like he's programmed to just take the opposite stance on anything I say. Apparently I've rustled him to the max where he can't even concede that Izzo and Beilein are hands down the best two coaches in the B10 and the country. That is a thought that pretty much 99.9% of college basketball fans believe. That 0.01% are the delusional Purdue fans like him...
I don’t think they are the two best coaches in the country, but 2 best in the conference yes. Purdue being one of six teams to make back to back sweet 16s the past two years doesn’t change that considering painter has never made it further than that.
Painter has faults in recruiting but put him at a big name, sexy state school with loads of resources and I guarantee he'd have better recruiting results than what he does now. That's a factor.
Even if he continues the strategy of being straight up and not guaranteeing anything to the players and that they will have to play defense?
That is the usual excuse given like Painter is the only one to do such things.
Lets see what he does in the tournament. Other wise he'll just be Matt Painter of the sweet16 chapel
It's a factor, sure, but he's still not as good of an in game coach as Izzo or Beilein. Again, not really debatable. Izzo and Beilein are two of the best in the country at all three aspects in game coaching, recruiting and developing talent. Painter isn't in that same category.
Remember when Steve Spurier called Tennesssee the Citrus Bowl champs. Well, that is Purdue
Um......
If 95% of the information given here is unasked for, why are you so concerned with whether I asked or not? You're not very good at this. You should probably stick to trying to troll Indiana fans and bragging about losing in back to back Sweet 16s.
Here's a better question. Who would you rather have coach a team with multiple 5* and 4* players in the NCAA Tournament? Beilein, Izzo or Painter?
Given history, I'd rank them:
1. Izzo
2. Beilein
3. Painter
Given the recent results, I may be inclined to take Beilein over Izzo. Tough call at this point.
Given history, I'd rank them:
1. Izzo
2. Beilein
3. Painter
Given the recent results, I may be inclined to take Beilein over Izzo. Tough call at this point.
What's funny is not once did I say Painter was as good as Beilein or Izzo, yet Hail and Snu did what they do best.
Excuse? It's simply a fact.
And I mean I feel like the things you listed above are things that a lot of good/great coaches tell their guys in recruiting. It's just at places like Purdue you have to make guarantees to those great players and Painter isn't in the business of doing that. For better or for worse.
No player needs guaranteed anything if they get to play Duke or Kentucky. Just being at those schools is good enough.
Seeing as if Painter has never had the luxury of a team full of 4 or 5 stars, I'd love to see him give it a go.
He's proven he can win Big Ten titles and make it to the Sweet 16 with a bunch of 3 stars, so I'd love to see what he could get out of a team with a bunch of 4's & 5's.
You defended a guy that SNU called out for having Painter on the same tier as Izzo/Beilein. You could have:
A: Said nothing and moved on.
B: Said that guy is being a bit of a homer and moved on.
C: Make a gilligan-esque post about losing in back to back Sweet 16s and listing conference wins in defense of the guy and saying the only real difference between the three is in recruiting.
You picked C. Don't blame us.
It might be fun for you to see him give it a go, but if your life depended on the team reaching the Elite 8 you'd be picking Izzo or Beilein.
When has he ever gotten to the Sweet Sixteen without 4 or 5*'s on his team? When has he ever had a team of just 3* players?
Lol what?
Izzo has a National Title, and 7 Final Fours. Hasn't missed the tournament in 2 decades.
Beiling has 2 Final Fours, and started coaching literally 20 years before Izzo took over for MSU.
Izzo and Beilein have a bunch of 4 and 5 stars?
I'm pretty sure Langford is the only 5-star on either team, and his season ended 2 months ago.
I don't know why this is so hard for them to admit. I mean, I think Archie is a good coach. He's made it further in the tournament with a team (assuming more 3*s than Painter has had - guessing here - could be wrong) from Dayton. But I'm not here trying to say he's better than or on the same level as Izzo and Beilein because that would be stupid. Just like saying Painter is better than or on the same level as Izzo or Beilein is stupid.
Similar threads
