Romeo Langford

[jimsorgi]

2 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

This is the first time that Izzo did it. Look where they're at. 8th, 12th, 19th, and 31st....and they're ranked second! Pretty simple really. Stock up talent and you win. Not 55-155 players That's all I'm asking for. I went back to 2006 and he hasn't had a single top 10 guy outside of Jackson. 

And he's made three Final Fours in that time. Plus four additional Sweet 16s. So maybe it isn't all about recruiting rankings?

[IU Scott]

5 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

This is the first time that Izzo did it. Look where they're at. 8th, 12th, 19th, and 31st....and they're ranked second! Pretty simple really. Stock up talent and you win. Not 55-155 players That's all I'm asking for. I went back to 2006 and he hasn't had a single top 10 guy outside of Jackson. 

 Just look at last years final four and I bet there were not very many if any at all in last years final four. Between Gonzaga, South Carolina and Oregon there were no top 10 players.  Even UNC the last few years were not getting top 10 one and done players.  Bradley was a one and done but was not a top 10 player.

[BGleas]

I actually think that if UCLA really was 2nd for Garland, then it minimizes this entire narrative that Garland and Langford really want to play together. Obviously playing together is a thought for them, or Langford wouldn't even have Vandy in his three, but UCLA being #2 for Garland tells me it's not as big a driver as we might think. It's an option, but not near the top of their lists of reasons to go to a school. It's a 'nice to have'. 

[ADegenerate]

Just now, jimsorgi said:

And he's made three Final Fours in that time. Plus four additional Sweet 16s. So maybe it isn't all about recruiting rankings?

That might be how you see it. I see a team that can't beat three straight elite 8 teams that are more talented than his roster. Same with Wisconsin, Michigan, and IU in 2002. There's a 6 team sample size. Passes my eye test and an ok sample size. This team actually has elite talent. 

[Hoosier987]

Just now, BGleas said:

I actually think that if UCLA really was 2nd for Garland, then it minimizes this entire narrative that Garland and Langford really want to play together. Obviously playing together is a thought for them, or Langford wouldn't even have Vandy in his three, but UCLA being #2 for Garland tells me it's not as big a driver as we might think. It's an option, but not near the top of their lists of reasons to go to a school. It's a 'nice to have'. 

Good point. 

[ADegenerate]

Just now, IU Scott said:

 Just look at last years final four and I bet there were not very many if any at all in last years final four. Between Gonzaga, South Carolina and Oregon there were no top 10 players.  Even UNC the last few years were not getting top 10 one and done players.  Bradley was a one and done but was not a top 10 player.

UNC won the title easily. Dopey teams like Butler, MSU, Gonzaga, Wisc, and Michigan can make it all they want but 9/10 they'll get spanked. The outsiders being that Nova team that should have lost and the Uconn team with Napier. I'm not asking for a UK style system, just loads of players in the 10-30 range. 75 and up won't get it done. (of course there's a 100-1 shot every year a 4 seed plus wins it but GL with that).

I really don't want to talk smack about the players we have because I respect and appreciate everyone wearing the jersey but they aren't good enough to be at blue blood schools with eyes on a title. Sure Green, Durham, Morgan and Hartman type players are good players but not good enough for me.  

[IU Scott]

2 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

UNC won the title easily. Dopey teams like Butler, MSU, Gonzaga, Wisc, and Michigan can make it all they want but 9/10 they'll get spanked. The outsiders being that Nova team that should have lost and the Uconn team with Napier. I'm not asking for a UK style system, just loads of players in the 10-30 range. 75 and up won't get it done. (of course there's a 100-1 shot every year a 4 seed plus wins it but GL with that).

I really don't want to talk smack about the players we have because I respect and appreciate everyone wearing the jersey but they aren't good enough to be at blue blood schools with eyes on a title. Sure Green, Durham, Morgan and Hartman type players are good players but not good enough for me.  

UNC did not have top 10 talent yet they were able to still win the championship.  I guess the difference is that you must can't see a season as successful unless you win the championship.  If this is your thought process then you will be disappointed most of your life.  IU has won 5 championships in 78 years of the NCAAA tournament so you must have felt disappointed most of your life.

 

Also it appears to me you might need to take a break from IU and college basketball because it seems to make you miserable.  it is just a basketball game and if you can't find enjoyment from it then why put yourself through it.

[jimsorgi]

8 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

That might be how you see it. I see a team that can't beat three straight elite 8 teams that are more talented than his roster. Same with Wisconsin, Michigan, and IU in 2002. There's a 6 team sample size. Passes my eye test and an ok sample size. This team actually has elite talent. 

Wait, your argument is that Michigan State under Izzo is a disappointment?

OK, then. Here we go.

Kentucky has had more talent than its opponent in every tournament in the last 8 years - but they've only won one title. They've reached the Final Four and failed against less talented teams.

Duke has had more talent than its opponent in every tournament in the last 7 years - but they've only won one title. They've lost to less talented teams every other year. So that's 2/15 from teams that don't just have a couple top 10 recruits but are dominantly stacked with them. Much better sample size and passes my eye test.

Unconvinced? OK. UNC won the title last year with either one or zero top 10 recruits (Justin Jackson was very borderline). 

2016: Villanova had none in the top 20, let alone top 10.

2014: UConn had no 5 stars.

2013: Louisville had no 5 stars.

[jimsorgi]

16 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

UNC won the title easily. Dopey teams like Butler, MSU, Gonzaga, Wisc, and Michigan can make it all they want but 9/10 they'll get spanked.

Dopey teams like Duke, Kentucky can make it all they want but 9/10 they'll get spanked.

[ADegenerate]

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

UNC did not have top 10 talent yet they were able to still win the championship.  I guess the difference is that you must can't see a season as successful unless you win the championship.  If this is your thought process then you will be disappointed most of your life.  IU has won 5 championships in 78 years of the NCAAA tournament so you must have felt disappointed most of your life.

 

Also it appears to me you might need to take a break from IU and college basketball because it seems to make you miserable.  it is just a basketball game and if you can't find enjoyment from it then why put yourself through it.

Yes they did. Justin Jackson was a top 10 player and arguably the best player in that final game. Pinson, Bradley, and Hicks were 5 star players too. What really irks me is how passive and content our fan base is with mediocrity. I just hate losing and feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. We need better players. End of story for me. 

It does make me miserable most of the time but I also enjoy watching our boys play. 

 

 

[KDB]

51 minutes ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

Again..... Why wouldn't he announce it now then???

He would. 

Every team in Romeo's top 3 is on equal ground as of now it seems. 

I think Archie will be able to keep him in-state and play for the Hoosiers, will not be shocked if it goes a different route though. 

[jimsorgi]

1 minute ago, ADegenerate said:

Yes they did. Justin Jackson was a top 10 player and arguably the best player in that final game. Pinson, Bradley, and Hicks were 5 star players too. What really irks me is how passive and content our fan base is with mediocrity. I just hate losing and feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. We need better players. End of story for me. 

It does make me miserable most of the time but I also enjoy watching our boys play. 

 

 

I think it's just a matter of the fanbase wanting to win on the court, not in the recruiting rankings. Sure, getting talent is an important aspect of it. But recruiting rankings are not the same thing as on-court success.

Our fanbase is interested in the latter more than the former. I think you're more frustrated by it (and see our fanbase as complacent) because you place undue weight on recruiting rankings as a predictive indicator for team success.

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

Yes they did. Justin Jackson was a top 10 player and arguably the best player in that final game. Pinson, Bradley, and Hicks were 5 star players too. What really irks me is how passive and content our fan base is with mediocrity. I just hate losing and feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. We need better players. End of story for me. 

It does make me miserable most of the time but I also enjoy watching our boys play. 

 

 

They were 5 star players coming out of high school but was not ranked in the top 10. So there 5 star players who were not top 10 is alright right but players like Zeller, Yogi, and Blackmon does not count even when they were 5 star players.

[IU Scott]

Just now, IU Scott said:

They were 5 star players coming out of high school but was not ranked in the top 10. So there 5 star players who were not top 10 is alright right but players like Zeller, Yogi, and Blackmon does not count even when they were 5 star players.  Again it is only basketball and does not really mean a thing so you might take this way to seriously.  I acted like this when I was young but the older I have gotten the less seriously I take it.

 

[ADegenerate]

1 hour ago, jimsorgi said:

Wait, your argument is that Michigan State under Izzo is a disappointment?

OK, then. Here we go.

Kentucky has had more talent than its opponent in every tournament in the last 8 years - but they've only won one title. They've reached the Final Four and failed against less talented teams.

Duke has had more talent than its opponent in every tournament in the last 7 years - but they've only won one title. They've lost to less talented teams every other year. So that's 2/15 from teams that don't just have a couple top 10 recruits but are dominantly stacked with them. Much better sample size and passes my eye test.

Unconvinced? OK. UNC won the title last year with either one or zero top 10 recruits (Justin Jackson was very borderline). 

2016: Villanova had none in the top 20, let alone top 10.

2014: UConn had no 5 stars.

2013: Louisville had no 5 stars.

It's Duke, UK, Kansas, Arizona, UCLA and UNC VS everyone else. There's a 50% chance one of these teams will win it year in and year out. 

You got me on the Nova game (+3 that game).

Louisville played a 12 in the sweet 16, a 9 in the final four and a 4 seed in the final game. Very lucky.

UConn was lucky to play a young 8th seeded kentucky team in the finals.

Jackson wasn't not borderline to me but that's debateable. He had a good year and the title winning offense was built around him. 

Since my argument is that you have to beat 3 elite teams (which the big ten cannot do) I decided to go back to 2001 and looked.

Zona: 2-6

Duke: 10-2 (3 titles)

Kansas: 8-8 (1 title)

UK: 7-7 (1 title) 

UNC: 12-4 (3 titles)

UCLA: 4-3

Total: 43-30. 59% (8 titles)

Big Ten

Wisc: 3-3 (3)

UM: 2-2 (2) 

MSU: 6-7 (7)

ILL: 2-1 (1)

IU: 2-1 (1)

OSU: 3-3 (3)

Total: 18-17 51%. 18 elite 8 teams. 0 titles. 0-6 in title games.

It's pretty simple. The Big 10 is outclassed. You need top players. What more can I say to point this out? 

[jimsorgi]

4 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

It's Duke, UK, Kansas, Arizona, UCLA and UNC VS everyone else. There's a 50% chance one of these teams will win it year in and year out. 

You got me on the Nova game (+3 that game).

Louisville played a 12 in the sweet 16, a 9 in the final four and a 4 seed in the final game. Very lucky.

UConn was lucky to play a young 8th seeded kentucky team in the finals.

Jackson wasn't not borderline to me but that's debateable. He had a good year and the title winning offense was built around him. 

Since my argument is that you have to beat 3 elite teams (which the big ten cannot do) I decided to go back to 2001 and looked.

Zona: 2-6

Duke: 10-2 (3 titles)

Kansas: 8-8 (1 title)

UK: 7-7 (1 title) 

UNC: 12-4 (3 titles)

UCLA: 4-3

Total: 43-30. 59% (8 titles)

Big Ten

Wisc: 3-2 (3)

UM: 2-2 (2) 

MSU: 6-7 (7)

ILL: 2-1 (1)

IU: 2-1 (1)

OSU: 3-3 (3)

Total: 18-16 53%. 17 elite 8 teams. 0 titles. 0-6 in title games.

It's pretty simple. The Big 10 is outclassed. You need top players. What more can I say to point this out? 

You're picking and choosing based on the results you want.

Is your argument that the Big 10 has underperformed or that you have to have top 10 talent? Your argument to date has been that you have to have top 10 talent. 

What are the records you are citing? OSU is 3-3 in what?

Louisville was the #1 team in 2013. How is that lucky?

If you're making an argument that the best programs have the most success, then sure. You're right. If you're making an argument that having more talent is helpful, no one will disagree with that. But to date you've made the argument that you need top 10 talent to win. That's pretty obviously untrue. You need to decide what you think.

[ADegenerate]

4 minutes ago, jimsorgi said:

You're picking and choosing based on the results you want.

Is your argument that the Big 10 has underperformed or that you have to have top 10 talent? Your argument to date has been that you have to have top 10 talent. 

What are the records you are citing? OSU is 3-3 in what?

Louisville was the #1 team in 2013. How is that lucky?

If you're making an argument that the best programs have the most success, then sure. You're right. If you're making an argument that having more talent is helpful, no one will disagree with that. But to date you've made the argument that you need top 10 talent to win. That's pretty obviously untrue. You need to decide what you think.

I'm not picking and choosing I just gave you the results of the teams getting top players and the teams not getting top players (elite recruiting schools + the big 10). The records are for elite 8, final four, and title games. I've posted multiple times that I have no respect for the big 10 in tournaments because they have shit talent compared to everyone else and their results prove that. They are too outclassed to beat three teams with better talent in a row.

 I'm being misconstrued with the top 10 comment. It's more like 4-5 players in the 8-40 range and USUALLY 1 or 2 top ten players. You gave me three examples of oddball teams winning (Nova, UL, and UConn). Of course I know that it's possible. For every 1 Nova there's 20 teams that'll never be good enough, but who look like they're contending (South Carolina, oregon, Baylor, Wich St, msu, osu, mich) when really they don't have a chance. You can say the Big 10 is under performing but I'm sure they were underdogs in every game. 

If you want to hang on to the any team can win it argument by using the UL, Nova, and Uconn example that's fine but you also need to accept that there's about 25 other teams classed in that same category. Xavier, UL, Florida, Wich St, Gonzaga, Baylor, Virginia and Oregon types. We'll just be like the rest of them (if we're lucky) unless we start banging home top 30 players with consistency and I don't think that's possible. If you're content with 23-11 that's fine but I'm not. I don't think reeling in a bunch of solid but not great players is the key to winning anything but that's just me.

 

 

 

[IU Scott]

5 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

I'm not picking and choosing I just gave you the results of the teams getting top players and the teams not getting top players (elite recruiting schools + the big 10). The records are for elite 8, final four, and title games. I've posted multiple times that I have no respect for the big 10 in tournaments because they have shit talent compared to everyone else and their results prove that. They are too outclassed to beat three teams with better talent in a row.

 I'm being misconstrued with the top 10 comment. It's more like 4-5 players in the 8-40 range and USUALLY 1 or 2 top ten players. You gave me three examples of oddball teams winning (Nova, UL, and UConn). Of course I know that it's possible. For every 1 Nova there's 20 teams that'll never be good enough, but who look like they're contending (South Carolina, oregon, Baylor, Wich St, msu, osu, mich) when really they don't have a chance. You can say the Big 10 is under performing but I'm sure they were underdogs in every game. 

If you want to hang on to the any team can win it argument by using the UL, Nova, and Uconn example that's fine but you also need to accept that there's about 25 other teams classed in that same category. Xavier, UL, Florida, Wich St, Gonzaga, Baylor, Virginia and Oregon types. We'll just be like the rest of them (if we're lucky) unless we start banging home top 30 players with consistency and I don't think that's possible. If you're content with 23-11 that's fine but I'm not. I don't think reeling in a bunch of solid but not great players is the key to winning anything but that's just me.

 

 

 

I would be totally content if our next 5 years would be like UW last 5 years and they didn't have top 10 talent.  Yes, I want championships but I just want a constant winning team that represents the program well.

[IU Scott]

7 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

I'm not picking and choosing I just gave you the results of the teams getting top players and the teams not getting top players (elite recruiting schools + the big 10). The records are for elite 8, final four, and title games. I've posted multiple times that I have no respect for the big 10 in tournaments because they have shit talent compared to everyone else and their results prove that. They are too outclassed to beat three teams with better talent in a row.

 I'm being misconstrued with the top 10 comment. It's more like 4-5 players in the 8-40 range and USUALLY 1 or 2 top ten players. You gave me three examples of oddball teams winning (Nova, UL, and UConn). Of course I know that it's possible. For every 1 Nova there's 20 teams that'll never be good enough, but who look like they're contending (South Carolina, oregon, Baylor, Wich St, msu, osu, mich) when really they don't have a chance. You can say the Big 10 is under performing but I'm sure they were underdogs in every game. 

If you want to hang on to the any team can win it argument by using the UL, Nova, and Uconn example that's fine but you also need to accept that there's about 25 other teams classed in that same category. Xavier, UL, Florida, Wich St, Gonzaga, Baylor, Virginia and Oregon types. We'll just be like the rest of them (if we're lucky) unless we start banging home top 30 players with consistency and I don't think that's possible. If you're content with 23-11 that's fine but I'm not. I don't think reeling in a bunch of solid but not great players is the key to winning anything but that's just me.

 

 

 

You have to be the most negative and pestimistic person on this board.  Why do you bother coming o here and being a fan if you already know we have no shot in the future.  Might as well go root for UK or Duke since most of the top 10 players go there anyways.

[dbmhoosier]

The B1G has done fine.  Since 2002 IU, Illinois, OSU, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Michigan have all played in the title game.  How many other conferences have 6 schools in that time period?  And none were loaded with 5 stars except for that OSU team and those guys would've been at IU had we had a competent coach.

[jimsorgi]

5 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

I'm not picking and choosing I just gave you the results of the teams getting top players and the teams not getting top players (elite recruiting schools + the big 10). The records are for elite 8, final four, and title games. I've posted multiple times that I have no respect for the big 10 in tournaments because they have shit talent compared to everyone else and their results prove that. They are too outclassed to beat three teams with better talent in a row.

 I'm being misconstrued with the top 10 comment. It's more like 4-5 players in the 8-40 range and USUALLY 1 or 2 top ten players. You gave me three examples of oddball teams winning (Nova, UL, and UConn). Of course I know that it's possible. For every 1 Nova there's 20 teams that'll never be good enough, but who look like they're contending (South Carolina, oregon, Baylor, Wich St, msu, osu, mich) when really they don't have a chance. You can say the Big 10 is under performing but I'm sure they were underdogs in every game. 

If you want to hang on to the any team can win it argument by using the UL, Nova, and Uconn example that's fine but you also need to accept that there's about 25 other teams classed in that same category. Xavier, UL, Florida, Wich St, Gonzaga, Baylor, Virginia and Oregon types. We'll just be like the rest of them (if we're lucky) unless we start banging home top 30 players with consistency and I don't think that's possible. If you're content with 23-11 that's fine but I'm not. I don't think reeling in a bunch of solid but not great players is the key to winning anything but that's just me.

 

 

 

A far better measure for your argument would be your talented team's record in the tournament compared to expected wins for their seed. The numbers you threw out are pretty meaningless. What about when Duke loses early despite having more talent? Right now, that's a positive in your analysis. 

I gave you three examples... in the last 6 years. And 13 examples of Duke and Kentucky failing to win despite being stacked with far more talent in recent years. 

Again, if your argument is that the best teams are the best teams, then sure. No one will disagree that teams that won the national title had good records in the Elite Eight and Final Four. And, obviously, you're right that only 1 out of 4 Final Four teams wins the title each year. 

Nowhere am I saying that any team can win. The best teams are most likely to win. Having the best talent is part of becoming the best team - but not, as you imply, the only part.

Find the relationship between recruiting rankings and overperformance/underperformance in the tournament. No one doubts that talent is a part of team success. But if you're going to make an argument that there's a magic threshold below which it is far more difficult to compete, you need to do more than cherrypick a stat or two to defend that. 

[jimsorgi]

12 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I would be totally content if our next 5 years would be like UW last 5 years and they didn't have top 10 talent.  Yes, I want championships but I just want a constant winning team that represents the program well.

Being a consistently good team is far, far more predictive of eventual championship success than recruiting rankings.

 

Edit: my last post on the subject - I apologizing for getting so off track on the Romeo thread!

[KoB2011]

5 hours ago, rico said:

Just curious, has anybody here visited Vandy in the past?

I have. My sister used to live very close to campus. 

[ADegenerate]

12 minutes ago, jimsorgi said:

A far better measure for your argument would be your talented team's record in the tournament compared to expected wins for their seed. The numbers you threw out are pretty meaningless. What about when Duke loses early despite having more talent? Right now, that's a positive in your analysis. 

I gave you three examples... in the last 6 years. And 13 examples of Duke and Kentucky failing to win despite being stacked with far more talent in recent years. 

Again, if your argument is that the best teams are the best teams, then sure. No one will disagree that teams that won the national title had good records in the Elite Eight and Final Four. And, obviously, you're right that only 1 out of 4 Final Four teams wins the title each year. 

Nowhere am I saying that any team can win. The best teams are most likely to win. Having the best talent is part of becoming the best team - but not, as you imply, the only part.

Find the relationship between recruiting rankings and overperformance/underperformance in the tournament. No one doubts that talent is a part of team success. But if you're going to make an argument that there's a magic threshold below which it is far more difficult to compete, you need to do more than cherrypick a stat or two to defend that. 

Sloppy posts on my part but I'm multi-tasking here so sorry for that. I think the one thing that you're leaving out is that they are consistently stacked year in and year out. UK, Duke, Zona, Kansas, and UNC have amazing squads every 2-3 years. I don't think that will be possible though for us. There's too many schools to contend with for great players. This was a perfect chance to start sliding into that category and that's why I'm so wound up. I don't think people really understand just how big these two guys would be to get. Sure, we can make an elite 8 run maybe in year three or four but we could have done it in year two and kept that trend going. 

That is why the Big 10 can't win. Each team might stack up a good team once a decade but then run into one of the buzzsaws that make the elite 8 every other year and have to beat two or three of them. Yes, randomly one of the will win like Uconn or Nova. Yes, a team stacked up with players like durham + green + Phinese MIGHT be good enough but that's a whole 3-4 year cycle. 

That's the whole gist of my argument really. We're stuck in a loop here. We realllly need Romeo, Brooks, and Davis :-/. Gotta keep churning the top talent in. 

Let me prove the point I'm trying to make here pefectly. Imagine that IU squad but with a PG better than Jordy Hulls. You can build up teams like that but you need to bang home that key piece to complete the squad.

[Hoosier987]

Who are the favorites between IU, Vandy and Kansas?

After doing some thinking - I still think we should be considered THE FAVORITE to land Romeo. This is not to say that we should take Vandy lightly - obviously they are a player here. 

However, I've been thinking about this possible" package" deal. Before, Archie was hired and before the whole FBI investigation, Rick Pitino and Louisville were considered heavy favorites ( a lot of it due to proximity) for Langford. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but did Louisville ever offer Garland? I don't think Pitino ever seriously considered Garland, and if this is the case then Romeo isn't just gonna make his decision off of Garland - again, I think we need to take Vandy seriously, especially now with Garland, but hell - proximity is on our side 😉.

Lastly, I don't know much about Shittu who will be a freshman, but assuming he commits to Vandy - I would much rather have Langford and a Junior in Deron Davis over those two. Lets also not forget Jerome Hunter, this man is going to be a stud. 

In the long run we will be fine!

Thoughts?