BOZICH | Serious question: What's the big deal about Matt Haarms? | Sports

LOUISVILLE, Ind. (WDRB) — Somebody help me. Please. I need an explanation.

I watch a ton of Big Ten basketball. I've done that for decades. I'm familiar with the superb work Matt Painter has done at Purdue. I watched the Boilermakers wobble to the finish line this season.

John Garrett. Russell Cross. Joe Barry Carroll. Jim Rowinski. Brad Miller. JaJuan Johnson. A. J. Hammonds. Caleb Swanigan.

I've seen plenty of Purdue big men. Matt Haarms does not belong in that group.

So, I don’t know what the big deal is about Haarms turning down the opportunity to play for John Calipari and Kentucky for the chance to play for Mark Pope at Brigham Young, a decision he made official Thursday.

Instead of stepping forward to Kentucky or taking the challenge of competing for Chris Beard at Texas Tech, Haarms decided to step down from Purdue and the Big Ten for West Coast Conference basketball.

I do suspect this was a classic, exaggerated case of supply and demand. Haarms is 7 feet 3 inches tall, 250 pounds and was developed over 3-1/2 seasons by Painter and his coaching staff at Purdue. The recruit and transfer market has been picked through like the bargain bin on Christmas Eve.

I do know that development is a signature quality of Painter and his guys. The Boilermakers do not recruit at the Prada/Vuitton recruiting shops where Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina and Kansas find their players.

I do know that when Haarms arrived at Purdue in the middle of the 2016-17 season, he was ranked the No. 413 prospect in the nation by Daniels’ recruiting site and that Haarms did not earn any stars from Rivals, another recruiting group.

I do know he earned two starts during his redshirt freshman season for a Purdue team that won 30 games and featured the muscular Issac Haas inside.

I do know Haarms improved to more than 9 points and 5 rebounds per game as a sophomore for a Purdue squad that won 26 games.

I do remember that Purdue had Virginia beaten for a trip to the 2019 Final Four until Haarms and his teammates failed to rebound Ty Jerome’s missed free throw and the Cavaliers’ Mamadi Diakite stuck the game-tying field goal in Haarms’ face at the buzzer.

I do know that at least one preseason magazine (Lindy’s) projected Haarms to be a third-team all Big Ten player this season. He was ranked right next to Luka Garza of Iowa, the guy who actually improved into the consensus Big Ten player of the year.

I do know that with Carsen Edwards and Ryan Cline gone from Painter’s roster, Haarms and Nojel Eastern were expected to step forward for a Purdue team projected to finish no worse than fourth in the Big Ten by the Athlon, Lindy’s and Street & Smith’s pre-season yearbooks.

I do know the Boilermakers finished tied for 10th in the Big Ten with Indiana, losing 15 games overall and 11 of 20 in the Big Ten.

I do know that unless Purdue rallied mightily in the Big Ten Tournament, the Boilermakers were ticketed for the National Invitation Tournament, not the NCAA.

I do know that Haarms was not picked on the Big Ten first-, second- or third-team all-league squads at the conclusion of the season.

I do know that Haarms started the season with gusto, scoring in double figures in eight of Purdue’s first dozen games, hanging 16 points on Florida State and 26 on Minnesota.

I do know three days after Christmas, Painter, who is not known for making impulsive moves, began the process of replacing Haarms in the starting lineup with the smaller but more powerful Trevion Williams, a sophomore who was a three-star recruit not ranked in the Top 150 of his class when Painter started to develop him.

I do know that after starting Purdue’s first 10 games, Haarms started five of the Boilermakers’ final 21.

I do know that in Purdue’s final 10 games, Haarms averaged 6.4 points and 3.9 rebounds, while earning more than 20 minutes once — in the Boilermakers’ season-ending homecourt loss to Rutgers.

I do know that Haarms had a bizarre love affair with his three-point shot, averaging nearly one attempt per game and missing the last eight he launched. Haarms was 4 for 20 from distance in Big Ten play.

I do know the initial word around college basketball was the Purdue coaching staff was shocked when Haarms announced he was leaving. Most guys fulfill their commitment to Painter and Purdue.

I know that Purdue understands when there was serious work to be done around the glass, that Trevion Williams, not Matt Haarms was the guy likely to do it.

I do know that if Haarms had picked Kentucky, he would have ranked behind Daniel Orton, Josh Harrellson, Dakari Johnson and Skal Labissiere among the best big men to play for the Wildcats in the John Calipari Era. There is no reason to mention the other former Calipari bigs.

So, I’ll say it one more time, I don’t know why everybody has been fussing about Matt Haarms.