De’Ron Davis will visit Indiana this weekend

  • 09/21/2015 2:15 pm in

One of Indiana’s major recruiting targets will be on campus this coming weekend.

Class of 2016 Overland, Colorado four-star forward De’Ron Davis will visit Bloomington this weekend for his official visit according to his high school coach, Danny Fisher.

Davis is also considering Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Texas and UConn, but no other visit dates have been finalized at this point.

As a junior at Overland, Davis led the school to its first ever state title while averaging 16.3 points, 11.3 rebounds and 5.1 blocks per game.

He’s rated as the No. 38 prospect nationally by the 247Composite.

Indiana recently had an in-home visit with Davis, which went well, according to the 6-foot-8 forward.

“It went good,” he told Inside the Hall. “They told me the same stuff they’ve been telling me for a while. It was really just for them to see my mom for the first time, talk to the coaches, just getting familiar with how they would use me and stuff like that.”

(Photo credit: Kelly Kline/adidas)

Filed to:

  • Jrod

    Come on Davis come to IU big fella!!!

  • calbert40

    You won’t reply to much of what I said, because it is true, and you can’t defend your point…whatever it is. I’m not defending Crean. I’m talking basketball recruiting on an IU blog. Of course I mentioned Crean!! Goodness, OM. You are blinded by your disdain and preconceived biases. I didn’t say it didn’t matter. You called them failures, and I didn’t agree.

    You just don’t like it when someone calls you on your hasty presuppositions. Your routine is old hat. Attack the poster instead of his point. That’s what people do when they can’t defend their opinions. Your responses actually make mine, Tom’s and others who agree with us look better.

    Argue the merits of the discussion. Don’t just say someone is full of baloney. If I am so wrong, prove it. Let’s discuss the issue.

  • Mr. Mitchell

    Bridges will be in Btown not MSU. Says my gut

  • marcusgresham

    I’d like to see OG given a mountain of Bruce Bowen video and hit with the challenge to use his athleticism to be a human spider web on defense.

  • marcusgresham

    Alkins, not Atkins….and why is everyone forgetting about the in-state guys? Gunn & Wilkes are going to be fantastic.

  • marcusgresham

    I think UCLA is the assumed front-runner, but otherwise I think IU is a solid possibility.

  • Ole Man

    I’m having a decent conversation with Tom. Stick the rest of what you said in your ear.
    I think you should look in the mirror and give yourself that little speech.
    No one attacked you. I went at a few of your so-called points. You’re the one who went personal, as you always do.
    You’re consistent in doing exactly what you accuse me of.
    I’m not arguing anything with you. It’s like talking to a child. You NEVER change your mind on anything. You NEVER agree to the merits of any other post if it doesn’t fit your point of view.
    You will defend Crean even when he doesn’t need defending.
    You’re the one who is predictable and the one whose posts are tiresome and trite.
    I’m tired of you. I’m tired of your silly, little boy attitude towards those who disagree with you.
    Unless you can say something about my posts without attacking me personally, DO NOT address me again in the future.
    I hope that is clear enough for you.

  • straight no chaser

    Let’s not be shy here. Good recruiting also means having great vision (on the part of the recruiter), a vision that is realized more often than it isn’t. And I mean here the college-level vision for a player.

  • straight no chaser

    Hallelujah!

  • straight no chaser

    calbert40 I bet you were the star of your debate team. Impeccable arguments that amount to nothing. Castles built on air. I am not attacking you. I am attacking your arguments. I am not attacking the author. I am attacking the implied author, the controlling voice.

  • calbert40

    Your first sentence in response to me was to call my response baloney. You didn’t use any points. You never do, OM. You don’t have to like my opinions, but at least I back them up with objective stats and research. So, when my posts go against your opinions, you can’t argue against the objective points, so you go after the poster. Classic OM. You did it just now again.

    Truthfully, I’ve tried so hard to be respectful to you for years on here. All I get back are personal attacks. It isn’t worth the trouble any more.

    The tenor of your posts, and many others, is constantly negative. It is tiresome.

  • calbert40

    You aren’t attacking my argument, actually. You are being condescending and going after the personality that I exhibit in a post more than my argument. Specifically, what castles am I building on air? What have I said, specifically, that draws so much ire? Neither you nor OM have offered anything above conjecture and/or personal arguments.

    My issues with OM have just finally backed up on me. He is disrespectful and spiteful continually, and while I should ignore him, I just can’t some days. But if you’d like to discuss the merits of the issue at hand, let’s do it. I’m always up for logical and reasonable debate with those whom I disagree.

  • straight no chaser

    You flaunt the word “objectivity” as if it were a religion. There’s a whole critique of “objectivity” out there that you seem oblivious to. It’s the same as the outdated concept of “truth”. All the relevant and substantive critical literature in the various intellectual realms … anthropology, history, historiography, english lit, etc. etc. has abandoned such notions in favor of post-structuralist, post-modern critical methodologies that scoff at such high-schoolish notions of “objectivity” and “truth”. How can one begin to argue with you if you insist on setting the terms of argumentation according to your preconceived notion of objectivity as a normative measure. Your notion of objectivity only has value in arguments where your opponent agrees to the same terms; Ole Man doesn’t, and I don’t. The same applies to your notion of “proof”. Read Foucault, and read about the discursive formation of “regimes of truth”. It’s all there in the literature, and great minds have spent their lives dismantling the mythologies you flaunt as truths.

  • calbert40

    I don’t care to have a philosophical discussion with you about Truth on an IU basketball blog.

    The “objectivity” I am referencing is one of the two main types of arguments: subjective or objective.

    Objective arguments are better, because they are more logical. Subjective arguments tend to appeal to emotional bases and/or biases. I’m a stats nerd. I like to use stats. They are an objective appeal in an argument. the stats don’t always backup my opinion, so I have to decide whether it is time to change my opinion or dig deeper into the data. That’s the objectivity I am referencing.

  • straight no chaser

    You say you “don’t care to have a philosophical discussion”. I am not having a philosophical discussion. I never referenced philosophy. You claim you are making an argument. I am saying that you are not only making an argument; you are setting the terms of argumentation itself. You are presenting us with a foregone conclusion, because you have decided on what qualifies as a valid basis for argumentation. You want to be a “stats nerd”, great. Don’t lessen your opponent and put him down for not agreeing with you on the terms of argument. You don’t get to define what constitutes an “IU basketball blog”. I wouldn’t be here at 1:20 in the morning saying what I have to say if I didn’t think it is relevant to basketball blogging. IU basketball to me is much more than discussions about statistics.

  • straight no chaser

    I will continue this discussion with you, but only after I get some sleep. I do appreciate your insistence on dialogue, but at some point you are going to have to realize that your apparent “politeness” (as well-intentioned as it might be) from the perspective of your opponent is not a hand reaching out but a weapon firing in force, ha.

  • calbert40

    Okay. Go back to my response that caused the stir. I argued that recruiting is more art than science, offered minimal statistical evidence that backed my assertion (it was more anecdotal than anything, tbh), gave my reasons for such, and then disagreed with the notion that some recruits were failures.

    I fail to see how I was putting anyone down. I disagreed. Also, offering statistical evidence is not changing the definition of an argument. It is providing proof of a point. if someone says that Player X turns the ball over nonstop, I check the stats to see if he’s right or not. I don’t see the issue here.

    OM and I have long had a love hate relationship. He is an intelligent and well-read IU basketball fan, but he doesn’t like to have his opinions challenged with stats. I find this annoying…and we go round and round. 🙂

  • calbert40

    Fair enough, Straight. Good night/morning!

  • straight no chaser

    Because his paradigm of thinking in its essence does not value statistics in the same way that you do, and for sound methodological reasons. There are quantitative methodologies, and there are qualitative methodologies. Qualitative thinkers have very rigorous and sound arguments against quantitative paradigms. We could take this up at another hour!

  • straight no chaser

    I’m sure it is exactly what Crean has in mind for him. He worships the deflection. He loved Vic for it. Vic was the deflection king, and one of Crean’s first comments about O.G. was that he sees something of Vic in him. In one of my past lives on ITH I said O.G. is going to be one of the IU greats. I have always felt it, and you gotta trust a piano man when he feels it. ha.

  • TomJameson

    I have that same feeling, based on no fact at all except what I hear about his attitude, work ethic, and (like you said) what CTC has said. I feel better about the defense also, because I’ve heard OG, as well as some of the other committed recruits, have said how they like to play defense. I am soooooo ready for some real games!

  • TomJameson

    Really, we agree, I’m just separating the two “phases” and you’re combining them. To me …..

    Phase 1 — is the recruiting process starting from a younger age (different for all players). It involves evaluating their skill sets, ideologies & personalities (to ensure a “fit” at IU and other players), and scholastic aptitudes. I’m sure there’s much more, but you get the idea. This is where the coaching staff, and IU fans, either love them or leave them. The player is either a highly ranked player considered a great recruit … or not.

    Phase 2 — is the period after the commit and when the recruit starts coming to IU to train, work out, practice, get to know the other players, get adjusted to college life (the biggest distraction IMO), and more.

    Phase 2 is where things go wrong, and IMO it’s because the environment has changed a thousand TONS. The kid goes from HS to a major college BB program, becomes a celebrity on campus, everybody loves him and it is really easy to get a date, or a drink, or an invite to a party …. PLUS, his changed values might start clashing with other players, he might be unhappy with how he is being played because things changed, there are many chances for him to become unhappy with where he is, and many chances for the player and coaching staff to butt heads.

    Phase 2 is where you and I agree on what is happening, but not on the why. I just can’t bring everything to bear on the coach, and I think you do. I think there is culpability on both sides.
    The student is the one who has the MAJOR change going from HS to College, both in the environment, and probably attitude. I would image that it’s hard to be humble when you become a super-star when you step on campus.
    The student is the one who has the MAJOR change going from HS to College, both in the environment, and probably attitude. I would image that it’s hard to be humble when you become a super-star when you step on campus.

  • Ole Man

    Good thoughts, Tom. I can get on board with them.
    I’m not quite as willing to contribute as much weight/responsibility to the coach as you might think. That means I agree that a lot of the success after the recruit arrives is due directly to the young man himself. And you addressed the temptations/distractions very well. You can have an Oladipo recruit or a (Pick a name) recruit. Those are extremes and most settle somewhere in the middle.
    Honestly, I don’t know how coaches can evaluate in this day and age. It goes far beyond talent. You almost have to be a shrink!

  • TomJameson

    Thanks Ole Man. We probably agree on more things than not. I know we’ve errr … ummm … “hashed” out some differences before, but I’ve started to catch on to your true passion for IU BB, and just can’t argue about that. I know all true fans are just wrestling with a deep wanting for IU BB to be great again, but it’s really tough to get through seasons like we’ve been having.

    Like I said somewhere on the paid forum … I’m just going to try to mellow out, relax, and just enjoy whatever success the team has. I have absolutely no hand in any of the outcome, can’t change a thing, so just going to sit back and enjoy the ride. And like any good roller coaster, I expect some ups and downs, and spirals, and sudden stops and starts … LOL

  • TomJameson

    Hahahahaha … that is true irony … because that is EXACTLY what lots of folks say about most of your posts!
    lol … jk skrong, don’t go all Rambo on me.

  • calbert40

    Hope you had a good night’s sleep, Straight!

    Qualitative methodologies aren’t void of statistical research. They just aren’t typically useful on a variety of subject matter. Quantitative methodologies have empirical data that helps support the point…sometimes the qualitative data is then supported by the quantitative. But overall, I concede the point.

    If we went out on a corner of campus and asked 100 random students, “What is the best hamburger in Bloomington?” we would get a variety of responses. Once they gave an answer, we could then ask them “Why is that the best?” We’d get answers like “it was so juicy,” or “it was grilled perfectly,” or “the bun was amazing,” etc. Then we would compile the results. This would be qualitative research. Equally, all the answers would be subjective. The answers given would be based on the subject: the individual and the burger. This wouldn’t mean that the people who answered in a minority on the question were wrong, because the question is subjective. They like the burger they like and they like it for their own reasons.

    However, when we are discussing the vastly more important subject and sub-subjects of IU and B1G basketball, we don’t have to rely solely on subjective and qualitative measurements. We have data…quantitative data. Data that can back up a position.

    If we now asked those same 100 students, “Who is the best player to play at IU in the past 10 years?” we would get a variety of responses again. Some might say Vic, or Cody, or Vonleh, or CWat, etc. Once we asked them “Why?” we would begin to see if the person valued qualitative or quantitative data. “I think Vic was the best player, because he improved more than any other player during that era, and he was great at D.” That is a solid point, but it is qualitative and subjective. Sure, Vic improved a great deal, and his D was fantastic, but compared to what? But another student may say that “Cody was the best, because he had the highest PER index over his two years at IU than anyone has had in the last 10 years.” Quantitative and objective. Yes, still the answer is subjective insofar as the person answering has subjectively determined THAT is the statistic that should be used to determine the answer to this question.

    I don’t expect everyone to discuss the issues the way I do; however, I do believe that it is juvenile to dismiss the stats the way some posters do. Typically, those who act like that have made up their minds and they won’t change them no matter what. Back to the “who is the best player” discussion, we actually had that one on here this summer. I initially said Vic, but once I read what some other posters suggested, I did some research, and concluded my initial response of Vic needed to be switched to Cody. Some posters made qualitative arguments for Cody, but some made quantitative ones. I took both, did my own research and found that I agreed with them more than my initial argument. It didn’t mean those who still said Vic were “wrong,” but those who are more willing to look at stats in an objective manner are more likely to see things that those who don’t refuse to see.

  • calbert40

    OM, I reread my post to you, and you’re right. I was out of line. I’m sorry.

    We are both very passionate about IUBB, and it shows in our arguing styles…disparate as they are. We rarely see things the same way, yet are both very convinced in our own arguments. It may surprise you to find out, but I can be a little stubborn! I still don’t fully agree with your point here, but after reading some of your other responses, I don’t think we are as far off as initially suspected.

    Until our next argument, OM.

  • IUMIKE1

    I think our team defense will be better also, but at the same time it really has no where to go but up. I have heard a lot of the same things that you reference, but (there’s that damn three letter word again lol) I think players, especially freshmen, tend to echo whatever it is that their coach is saying. I will reserve further comment on our defense for the upcoming season until it is put on full display against a noncupcake team. When it comes to team defense, rankings wise anyway, I think we will have a ranking that is a whooole lot better than it was last year. Where we are in that respect, and where we need to be to be able to accomplish the things that most think this team is capable of, may very well turn out to be two totally different places.

    Now, if TC can get us from where we were last year, team defensively wise, to where we need to be to legitimately call it a successful year, will go a long way in me deciding if he should be retained or let go. I think, as our team defense, so goes the number of wins and losses.

  • IUMIKE1

    I think this particular year it is even harder than usual. With all the talent there is in this upcoming class of recruits a lot of players that are ranked outside the top 50 could very well be considered to be in the top 25 or even higher most any other year and along that line a lot of players ranked in the bottom fourth of the top 100 would be considered to be top 50 or higher recruits. Hard for this bball fan to remember when there was this much talent with as much promise as they seem to have in a single recruiting class, and this bball fan has been around for more than just a few seasons. lol

  • IUMIKE1

    My gut says your gut is wrong. Here’s to my gut being wrong and your gut being right though. lol

  • Ole Man

    Thanks, Cal. Much of it is two passionate IU fans who both desire the same outcome for the team.
    Nothing wrong with that.

  • Outoftheloop

    What is needed for a top 20 program year after year is 10 really good players on the roster and ready to play as a team every November! That can be accomplished in many different combinations, including having a previously non-producing kid really contribute in his junior or senior years!

  • Outoftheloop

    Not in chemistry! They both address a specific unknown substance (recruiting in college basketball), one addresses the question does it have this compound in it? (a great college player in the recruiting class); the other addresses the question how much of this good stuff does it have in it (the number of high quality minutes the class will provide in each of the next 4 years). The approaches do not argue with each other, they compliment each other by providing answers to different questions that are related to each other.

  • Outoftheloop

    Not really. Everyone who ever tasted Hinkles would say Hinkles!

  • Outoftheloop

    Demps was always pretty good when I saw him play, a Nick Z type of talent! I don’t get your point?

  • IU Hoosiers # 34, 1979-83

    If you can’t figure it out on your own then I can’t help you.