MU has better recruiting ground, and is easier to recruit to. Remember Purdue has many more programs competing for local players.
Matt Painter to Mizzou?
- Thread starter goldmember
- Start date
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Considering how many D-I schools are in each state, I'd say you just made your case for Missouri having an advantage for in-state talent. Purdue has to battle Indiana, Notre Dame, Butler, among others for top talent. Mizzou is THE school in their state.
How is that anything other than a testament to how deep the talent pool is in Indiana? Butler often gets the sloppy thirds of in-state prospects, and they're still good enough to make back-to-back Final Fours.
For being the only school in Missouri, they sure don't do a very good job of recruiting the best high school talent.
It is a testament to how poor MU has done recruiting in-state, yet they have been a solid program. More growth potential at MU, more pay, easier school and conference to recruit to.
By that logic, the 1st and 2nd servings of Indiana talent are not good enough, what does that say?
Yes, Mizzou has done a poor job of recruiting in-state. Purdue has done a better job in a state where it would not be crazy for 5 schools to make the NCAA tournament (and 4 did so this year).
Purdue is a better program even though it's competing for top talent with 4 other in-state schools. Mizzou just isn't nearly as attractive of a program. Not the same level of in-state talent, not the same level of prestige.
That comes down to matchups and coaching. It's the NCAA tournament, anything can happen on a given night. Butler is a very good team, but they aren't loaded with a ton of talent.
Again, only if you are from Indiana....
Wait, no Painter is from Indiana. In fact he is a Purdue alum.
Only if you are an Iowa fan desperate to prop up the Big 10.
Yeah, exactly why "Butler often gets the sloppy thirds of in-state prospects, and they're still good enough to make back-to-back Final Fours." is no testament.
That's right, ignore the facts regarding recruiting in each state, and just label me a Big Ten homer. There's no refuting THAT argument
They've got talent, but not on the same level as a North Carolina, Duke, etc. Hayward was an in-state 3-star recruit that ended up a top-10 draft pick.
But going to 2-straight Final Fours takes more than just luck of the draw and coaching.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
It takes a convenient lineup of Big Ten teams in their bracket.
Wait, what? They beat teams from other conferences?
Well, OK. They're just plain good, and Brad Stevens is an incredible coach.
That's right, ignore the facts regarding recruiting in each state, and just label me a Big Ten homer. There's no refuting THAT argument
I have addressed why PU has a recruiting disadvantage. MU has no competition in the state, PU has ND and IU. That erases the numbers advantage, further MU is easier to recruit to.
It's not that simple at all. Kansas City is much close to KU than Missouri. St. Louis is about as close to Campaign as it is to Columbia. Just because Illinois and Kansas aren't in state teams, doesn't mean Missouri doesn't have to compete with them.
Indiana is also surrounded by talent rich states in Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. Where as Missouri has Illinois, Iowa, Arkansas and Kansas around it. I don't see how you can argue that Mizzou is in a better recruiting area.