Jordan Geronimo (2020) Commits to Indiana

[IUFLA]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

But it has showed lately that teams that wins the championships don't have one and done players on them.  Also if it is just one OAD player that is alright but I don't ever want us to be built around OAD players like UK and Duke.

Good read on OAD players and the NCAA Tourney

Good graphical representation that accounts for minutes played.

One thing that may skew the data is, when a team has freshmen that shine in the tournament, it may spur them to go pro rather than remain in school.

A "strike while the iron is hot" mentality...

Edited September 5, 2019 by IUFLA

[Steubenhoosier]

Not sure why all the hand wringing about this.

CAM is charged with winning games and returning the program to an upper echelon one. 

There has been plenty of complaining on here that we haven't won enough in the last 20 years (legitimate complaint, imo)

As long as there is no cheating or unscrupulous behavior by the AD, coaching staff, players and anyone else associated with the program, are people really going to care how we go about winning?

I would love the program to be at the point where we are discussed as legitimate contenders both for conference championships and on the national scene. When we get to that point, whether it has been accomplished by recruiting one year players or 3-4 year "career players", is anyone on here going to come on and complain?

[IUaic]

15 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Not sure why all the hand wringing about this.

CAM is charged with winning games and returning the program to an upper echelon one. 

There has been plenty of complaining on here that we haven't won enough in the last 20 years (legitimate complaint, imo)

As long as there is no cheating or unscrupulous behavior by the AD, coaching staff, players and anyone else associated with the program, are people really going to care how we go about winning?

I would love the program to be at the point where we are discussed as legitimate contenders both for conference championships and on the national scene. When we get to that point, whether it has been accomplished by recruiting one year players or 3-4 year "career players", is anyone on here going to come on and complain?

Probably so.

[Steubenhoosier]

35 minutes ago, IUaic said:

Probably so.

Unfortunately, I think you are right.

[IU Scott]

If we actually win a championship then I doubt you would see any complaining.  If you try to go all in and do OAD like UK or Duke and not win multiple championships then yes I would come on here and complain.

[BobSaccamanno]

2 hours ago, IUaic said:

And Eric Gordon. I get the hesitation with Vonleh as he didn't seem to buy into IU, but Romeo and EJ certainly did and have continued to do so since.

I agree with your stance.  Overall, I am on board with the view that we should have a nucleus of 3-4 year players.  This requires class balance and experience year after year.  You'd have a lot of players ranked, say, 40-200.  These would be four stars and high three star players.  The three star types would have certain attributes that earn them the IU slot, perhaps it's their motor, makeup, leadership, defense, size, smarts, etc.  Something that makes them "Indiana" players.

However, there are transformative in-state talents like Romeo Langford that you have to try to get.  He is an Indiana legend, and aside from just on the court talent, he's the type of kid you try to land. He transcends the on-the-court product.  And he can be a valuable piece on a good team, if he has veterans who know how to play around him.  Romeo was a team player all the way.  He would have fit in very nicely with a veteran, smart, experienced group.

Edited September 5, 2019 by BobSaccamanno

[BGleas]

I agree with the concept of 'get old, stay old' and building around the types of guys (Phinisee, Leal, Galloway, Geronimo, Hunter, etc.) that Archie is bringing in. I think for IU it's the best way to sustainable success. 

With that said, I have no problem with IU bringing in the occasional, local one and done player. The biggest problem that Eric Gordon and Romeo Langford had is that they came around at the wrong time for IU basketball. It wasn't a 'them problem' it was an IU problem. Obviously we all know the issues Gordon went through with the Sampson team. That wasn't Eric Gordon's fault. For Langford, he came along in Archie's second season while a system was still being implemented, there was very little leadership on the team and the coach was still cleaning up from what was left him. 

If you add either Gordon or Langford to good IU teams, with established cultures and leaders on the team, and they'd be excellent additions. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

I agree with the concept of 'get old, stay old' and building around the types of guys (Phinisee, Leal, Galloway, Geronimo, Hunter, etc.) that Archie is bringing in. I think for IU it's the best way to sustainable success. 

With that said, I have no problem with IU bringing in the occasional, local one and done player. The biggest problem that Eric Gordon and Romeo Langford had is that they came around at the wrong time for IU basketball. It wasn't a 'them problem' it was an IU problem. Obviously we all know the issues Gordon went through with the Sampson team. That wasn't Eric Gordon's fault. For Langford, he came along in Archie's second season while a system was still being implemented, there was very little leadership on the team and the coach was still cleaning up from what was left him. 

If you add either Gordon or Langford to good IU teams, with established cultures and leaders on the team, and they'd be excellent additions. 

Nailed it. 

Of course you want a Romeo or EJ. Both would absolutely have killed it on built teams or developed teams with program consistency. 

The only thing i’d add is that it doesn’t have to be a local one and done (which is always good for ongoing recruiting)

[zerawkid]

3 hours ago, IUaic said:

Probably so.

Yeah, the problem with not winning enough is everyone comes up with their own theory on WHY it is we aren’t winning enough. Truth is, there are more reasons that we can count since the mid-90’s.

[dbmhoosier]

3 hours ago, BobSaccamanno said:

I agree with your stance.  Overall, I am on board with the view that we should have a nucleus of 3-4 year players.  This requires class balance and experience year after year.  You'd have a lot of players ranked, say, 40-200.  These would be four stars and high three star players.  The three star types would have certain attributes that earn them the IU slot, perhaps it's their motor, makeup, leadership, defense, size, smarts, etc.  Something that makes them "Indiana" players.

However, there are transformative in-state talents like Romeo Langford that you have to try to get.  He is an Indiana legend, and aside from just on the court talent, he's the type of kid you try to land. He transcends the on-the-court product.  And he can be a valuable piece on a good team, if he has veterans who know how to play around him.  Romeo was a team player all the way.  He would have fit in very nicely with a veteran, smart, experienced group.

Do we know officially what caused the chemistry problem last season?  I thought maybe Devonte or Justin but both are still here.  An supposed insider on the other site said we had a cancer last season and he is now gone.  I assume he wasn't talking about Juwan or Zach.

[cybergates]

2 hours ago, BGleas said:

I agree with the concept of 'get old, stay old' and building around the types of guys (Phinisee, Leal, Galloway, Geronimo, Hunter, etc.) that Archie is bringing in. I think for IU it's the best way to sustainable success. 

With that said, I have no problem with IU bringing in the occasional, local one and done player. The biggest problem that Eric Gordon and Romeo Langford had is that they came around at the wrong time for IU basketball. It wasn't a 'them problem' it was an IU problem. Obviously we all know the issues Gordon went through with the Sampson team. That wasn't Eric Gordon's fault. For Langford, he came along in Archie's second season while a system was still being implemented, there was very little leadership on the team and the coach was still cleaning up from what was left him. 

If you add either Gordon or Langford to good IU teams, with established cultures and leaders on the team, and they'd be excellent additions. 

I think they were excellent additions regardless of the timing. 

Gordon's team was final four caliber prior to his injury and Sampson's exit.

Romeo's team was at a minimum going to the tournament prior his (and other's) injuries. They missed the tourney by one game after losing 12 of 13 (or whatever it was). I don't think they lose all those game or miss the tourney if Romeo was 100%.

I do see the point your trying to make, but I think too many people are diminishing Romeo's contributions to the team in his lone season at IU (and maybe Gordon's to a lesser extent). 

[5fouls]

5 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

Do we know officially what caused the chemistry problem last season?  I thought maybe Devonte or Justin but both are still here.  An supposed insider on the other site said we had a cancer last season and he is now gone.  I assume he wasn't talking about Juwan or Zach.

I am an insider and I say the cancer was not Romeo.

See how that works.

[68Hoosier]

55 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I am an insider and I say the cancer was not Romeo.

See how that works.

So was there a cancer on the team or is that just people guessing?

[5fouls]

Just now, 68Hoosier said:

So was there a cancer on the team or is that just people guessing?

People guessing or intentionally trying to stir things up.

[FKIM01]

26 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

People guessing or intentionally trying to stir things up.

Yeah...I think that "insider" knows about what I do...which is very little.

A cancer doesn't come back to Bloomington last weekend to recruit and play video games with Geronimo.  That's about as credible as some of the goofy crap I see on the GBI forum about anything connected to IU.  There's an even more ridiculous rumor over there about how Romeo injured his hand.  It all seems to be spread by some pretty low-IQ people.  Not surprising on the Purdue forums, but I would hope IU insiders would be a tad more credible.

[IowaHoosierFan]

We should go after the best candidates for the team, regardless of rank or state.  If the best 5 who fit our team are 5 stars, go after them, and the next 5 who fit the team and then the 5 after that.  You don't have to only have Indiana kids or 3-4 year kids or one and done kids.  Its all about who is the best for your type of play and who buys into your plan and who fits the school.  Winning cures everything.  No one will care if every player on the team was from New Zealand if we won a NC with them.

Edited September 5, 2019 by IowaHoosierFan

[bluegrassIU]

5 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

We should go after the best candidates for the team, regardless of rank or state.  If the best 5 who fit our team are 5 stars, go after them, and the next 5 who fit the team and then the 5 after that.  You don't have to only have Indiana kids or 3-4 year kids or one and done kids.  Its all about who is the best for your type of play and who buys into your plan and who fits the school.  Winning cures everything.  No one will care if every player on the team was from New Zealand if we won a NC with them.

Just win baby!

[BGleas]

1 hour ago, cybergates said:

I think they were excellent additions regardless of the timing. 

Gordon's team was final four caliber prior to his injury and Sampson's exit.

Romeo's team was at a minimum going to the tournament prior his (and other's) injuries. They missed the tourney by one game after losing 12 of 13 (or whatever it was). I don't think they lose all those game or miss the tourney if Romeo was 100%.

I do see the point your trying to make, but I think too many people are diminishing Romeo's contributions to the team in his lone season at IU (and maybe Gordon's to a lesser extent). 

Completely agree. I was more just debating the "I don't want any OAD's after the seasons we had in EJ and Langford's years". I also agree with you that injuries are the primary reason IU did not have a better season last year. I've been pretty vocal that IMO if you take away some of the key injuries (Phinisee, Langford, Davis) that IU walks into the NCAA Tournament last year. 

[BGleas]

3 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Nailed it. 

Of course you want a Romeo or EJ. Both would absolutely have killed it on built teams or developed teams with program consistency. 

The only thing i’d add is that it doesn’t have to be a local one and done (which is always good for ongoing recruiting)

Agree with your last sentence. I debated whether to say 'local' or not. I've actually defended Vonleh on here, so I'm definitely not opposed to going out of the market for a one and done. 

[bluegrassIU]

5 hours ago, BobSaccamanno said:

I agree with your stance.  Overall, I am on board with the view that we should have a nucleus of 3-4 year players.  This requires class balance and experience year after year.  You'd have a lot of players ranked, say, 40-200.  These would be four stars and high three star players.  The three star types would have certain attributes that earn them the IU slot, perhaps it's their motor, makeup, leadership, defense, size, smarts, etc.  Something that makes them "Indiana" players.

However, there are transformative in-state talents like Romeo Langford that you have to try to get.  He is an Indiana legend, and aside from just on the court talent, he's the type of kid you try to land. He transcends the on-the-court product.  And he can be a valuable piece on a good team, if he has veterans who know how to play around him.  Romeo was a team player all the way.  He would have fit in very nicely with a veteran, smart, experienced group.

Winner winner chicken dinner. Great post Bob!

[dbmhoosier]

2 hours ago, 5fouls said:

People guessing or intentionally trying to stir things up.

Not implying anything bad about Romeo.  But were the reported chemistry issues true or not?  If so what caused them?

What did 0708 mean when he said that the chemistry issues were ones the staff could not easily deal with?  And he then said not to expect Archie to recruit anymore OADs.  I wonder what he meant.

Edited September 5, 2019 by dbmhoosier

[KDB]

https://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/news/three-point-play-terrence-clarke-michael-foster-recent-commits

[Zlinedavid]

12 hours ago, IUaic said:

To all of the OAD haters, you wouldn't take Dawson Garcia for 1 year if it meant winning a National Championship?

[IU878176]

13 hours ago, IU Scott said:

But it has showed lately that teams that wins the championships don't have one and done players on them.  Also if it is just one OAD player that is alright but I don't ever want us to be built around OAD players like UK and Duke.

 

I’m also not a fan of the one and done rule and agree with you in that I don’t want us to be built around one and dones.

That being said, however, in regards to the statement “it has showed lately that teams that win the championships don’t have one and done players on them”.....actually 4 of the last 8 champions have had at least one, or more, one and dones which means teams with a “one and done” have won proportionally more recent championships (because most teams do not have a OAD) than those without. 

[dgambill]

7 hours ago, dbmhoosier said:

Do we know officially what caused the chemistry problem last season?  I thought maybe Devonte or Justin but both are still here.  An supposed insider on the other site said we had a cancer last season and he is now gone.  I assume he wasn't talking about Juwan or Zach.

That site is full of crap. Please don’t bring it over here. You would be better off never going over there again. It’s like diarrhea of the mouth over there.

Plus even if your premise was true and they are gone we had two kids transfer plus an assistant coach get fired as well. It’s futile to try to pin this on Romeo. Even so it could be a kid on our current team still is the one that had a problem but it was with someone that is gone (but not that persons fault).

Edited September 6, 2019 by dgambill