Peck Chooses Purdue

A week ago, boilerdowd wrote about Cathedral alum (and now Cornell alum) Errick Peck potentially transferring to Purdue to play his fourth year of college eligibility. It became official yesterday, as Peck will sign on to do some grad school in West Lafayette and play a year of ball for our Boilermakers.

This works out due to NCAA rules that allow Peck to play a year at a place like Purdue as a result of the fact that he'll have graduated from Cornell but only played three years of basketball there because of a knee injury that cost him a full season. So on that front, Peck fits right in to the pantheon of knees.

One thing B-dowd did mention in passing in his column about this was the face that Peck and Barlow knew one another in high school, but that he didn't think Painter should let that be an issue. It sounds like Matt Painter did indeed look past such potential influences, because Peck even mentioned Kelsey when announcing his decision to choose Purdue:

“In the end, I think Purdue fit me just a bit better. Plus, with (former Boilermaker) Kelsey Barlow and I having played together in high school, I always watched them in the tournament and kind of followed them from afar. But when I was at Cornell, I really focused more on myself and my studies. That took enough time in and of itself.”

I'm not sure if we should be concerned. I don't think we should. This is a guy who played for Cornell seemingly without incident. In addition, he's graduating from Cornell which, yeah, I know athletes do get something of an easier road most likely, but it's not like the easy road we know it could be at some D-1 programs.

Jeff Washburn's column for the J&C quotes 2009 Indiana All-Star boys basketball team coach David Wood of West Lafayette as saying that Errick Peck is "the guy you win with." Wood also calls Peck a "first class human being" and "a really, really good young man." Wood also mentions that:

"From a basketball standpoint, he will bring versatility. He can go out on the floor, and he can bang down low. He also will bring physical strength. He is a guy who can guard a power forward or a small forward. He can make an 18-foot shot, which is good, because this is a Purdue team that can use guys who put the ball in the basket."

Yes, David, we know.

Given the preponderance of underclassmen on the 2013-14 basketball roster, a guy with experience, leadership qualities and, oh yeah, talent is something that is very welcome. He obviously won't have enough time in God's country to become a fan favorite the way four and five year players have. However, can he fill the role of recent leaders like Rob Hummel, Ryne Smith, Chris Kramer and others in terms of leading by example and putting in the work so that others take notice? We hope so and look forward to seeing Errick in Black and Old Gold.

Choo choo.

[We'll return you to your regularly scheduled coveraging of Formula 1 racing shortly.]

To Be Fair...

There's a term that many Purdue fans use when talking about IU's scholarship issues and its handling of said issues: Creaning.

Creaning: Creen-ing
noun (slang) 1. The act of forcing a player out of IU's basketball program due to oversigning 2. Cleaning out the old rusty guys on the roster to make room for newer, shinier models 

If it's in the BS dictionary, it must be a word...if it's on the interwebnet, it must be true; so be it.  Let's be honest (IU fans)- if it happened once, we might call it a fluke or isolated event...but each and every year, Coach Forehead has to come up with new and sometimes creative ways of eliminating players that want to play for IU.  These guys all seem to openly want to play for IU...but they can't because their coach loves shiny new things so much that he can't seem to follow the rules.

IU seems to have 14 or 15 players on their roster for the next Spring each season...but the NCAA only allows 13. Thus, something must happen to rectify the situation. Clappy believes the best thing for those players, that are unlucky enough not be the apple of his eye, is to leave that God-foresaken place in the bowels of Indiana; they should thank him...they seldom do.

Capobianco, Roth, Patterson, most-recently, Abell and others have all been Creaned...and as Purdue fans, we point this out to our IU pals. It really isn't right to make a guy leave who has committed to the program; committed to a coach, who is a good kid and whose only crime is that they're not very good and still have eligibility remaining...

So...

When I read this from Purdue's Coach in the wake of Sandi's departure, my antennae arose, and I knew I had to say something about it.

"John Hart's situation was different (than Marcius')...John did not voluntarily leave our team and he did not quit our team."

We're nothing if we're not fair...and while I like Coach Painter a lot, I disagree with his handling of John Hart.  And I'll stick by my statement yesterday, that I agree with the way Purdue has handled Sandi Marcius.

Sure, the moving parts in IU's situations and Purdue's situation are different.  In one, it's a chronic disease that neither the coach, fans nor media will admit is an issue...and because of this, it will continue to happen. IU's God-fearing, ethical, all-around great guy of a coach will continue to treat the guys (that he recruited, by the way) like pawns in a game he's created. It's simply not right; everyone knows it even if they're not willing to admit it.

On the other side of things, Purdue had no scholarship issue in '12/'13...Hart could have stayed.  He would have probably been on the bench a lot...and both he and Painter knew that; Hell, everyone could see that during his fourth year on campus.  But if he wanted to stay, I feel like he should have been able to stay.

He and Painter agreed that a redshirt season was the right thing to do for Hart out of HS.  Hart didn't received no BCS conference offers other than Purdue...and if you remember back that far, you remember his offer/commitment as a shock to about everyone.

Hart could score, but was a pretty incomplete player...when he was on the court at Purdue, we could all see it.  His defense was pretty lousy and he made some poor decisions with the ball...and he didn't progress a whole lot during his time in God's country.  BUT, it wasn't his fault that Matt Painter recruited, offered and signed him.

"There's the door, John."

If you believe Painter is generally a good guy (like I do), and you like him being Purdue's head coach (like I do), you should see this Hart episode as an incongruity that needs to be called out (like I do). If we don't do so as a fanbase, we're no better than IU's lemmings who treat the shiny forehead like an unworthy idol.

I'm glad Painter is a straight-forward guy, not a politician.  He told everyone what happened with Hart...and while he might have thought it'd be best for Hart to move onto a new place, Hart didn't agree. Just like it was a mutual decision for Hart to redshirt, it should have been a mutual decision for him to stay.

Now, if there was an attitude or disciplinary issue that we don't know about, that changes everything...but other than Hart being pals with Barlow, I heard nor seen nothing that points to this.

Before you tell me that Purdue doesn't owe a fifth year guy a scholarship, I obviously know that...but if it was a mostly-coaching decision to not let a player play during his first season on campus, that same coach needs allow an upper classman who sweated and bled for a program to stay if he wants to.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's ethical.

Does Painter's treatment of Hart warrant a pun-based label for him? Probably not...but if IU fans want to take umbrage with Purdue's treatment of a player, they shouldn't be bringing up Sandi, but might want to point to Hart.  If they do, Purdue fans, keep the names "Capobianco" and "Roth" handy for quick usage.