’18 Football Recruiting Big Board 1.0
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
RobHowe
Administrator
Thank you. AJ could help in the STL area, especially because he'll play right away. It's incredibly loaded down there.
RobHowe
Administrator
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
Here we go again! 
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
Is Waggoner a legacy?
Marinehawk
Well-Known Member
Does Iowa State offer everybody we offer or what?
Stanzi
Well-Known Member
It sure seems that way. I chuckle at some of the players they've offered.
SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
When Beils was at Wisky, he did that ALL the time. He'd wait to see who we offered and then he'd offer almost immediately afterwards. It's why the staff moved to slow-playing some of the "diamonds in the rough" they'd find...they got tired of him recruiting over them.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Iowa tells the kids they will get offers once Iowa offers. Bell told that to Brandon Smith, and sure enough schools came for him, but he told them he was committed.
AJ said the same thing when he was on with Rob. He said Michigan and Bama came calling and he told them his recruiting was shut down, so they left him alone. This is the big reason Iowa wants kids to be certain they are committed when they commit. When other schools come calling, Iowa knows, that if the kid cracks the door even a half inch, opposition schools will push and push and push until that door is open. It is exactly what Iowa does, and the only way schools give up is if the kid says enough, I'm not interested.
AJ said the same thing when he was on with Rob. He said Michigan and Bama came calling and he told them his recruiting was shut down, so they left him alone. This is the big reason Iowa wants kids to be certain they are committed when they commit. When other schools come calling, Iowa knows, that if the kid cracks the door even a half inch, opposition schools will push and push and push until that door is open. It is exactly what Iowa does, and the only way schools give up is if the kid says enough, I'm not interested.
RobHowe
Administrator
Exactly. If you understand Iowa's policy, there is no hypocrisy in it. The staff needs to contact committed recruits just like other programs contact its committed recruits. It's a game everyone must play. There is no gentlemen's agreement like there used to be in the B1G.
If the Hawkeyes contact a kid committed to Rutgers or Minnesota and he says he's not interested, they move on. If he is interested, they engage and try to get him on campus. If he visits Iowa, then it's up to Rutgers and Minnesota how they want to handle it. They can continue to recruit the kid or pull his offer.
If another school contacts an Iowa commitment and he decides to visit that program, it's then on Iowa to decide what it wants to do. Its policy is to pull the offer.
Now, you can say that the policy is out-dated and Iowa needs to be more flexible with the current high school player. But it's not hypocrisy.
In this age of committing to a school just to secure a spot while you shop around for something better, the policy actually makes more sense to have than it used to. The problem with it is you won't get many early commits and you will end up scrambling to fill the class right before signing day.
It seems like the point of he policy is to know exactly where you stand with recruits, but it will probably have the exact opposite effect. At least when they're committed you have a pretty good idea where they stand. If they are afraid to even commit, the staff will have even less of an idea where they stand. I would think it would be easier to lock up as many kids as you can early, have less open spots to concentrate on, and worry about a couple decomits when they happen, then to have hardly any early commits and have a lot bigger net cast out there to deal with.
It seems like the point of he policy is to know exactly where you stand with recruits, but it will probably have the exact opposite effect. At least when they're committed you have a pretty good idea where they stand. If they are afraid to even commit, the staff will have even less of an idea where they stand. I would think it would be easier to lock up as many kids as you can early, have less open spots to concentrate on, and worry about a couple decomits when they happen, then to have hardly any early commits and have a lot bigger net cast out there to deal with.
If you can tell me how many Iowa verbals would have eventually departed prior to signing if they had the liberty to take additional visits w/o any penalty then I can tell you how effective the no visit policy has been for Iowa.
There's some pretty good salesmen out there that can likely persuade many an 18 year old into changing their minds. Unless you are one of the more noted programs that can flip top talent later in the race then I'm not sure you want to be going into the last quarter mile with a lot of uncertainty as to who is staying aboard as one of your verbals and who isn't.
I will be surprised if Kirk changes his no visit approach.
There's some pretty good salesmen out there that can likely persuade many an 18 year old into changing their minds. Unless you are one of the more noted programs that can flip top talent later in the race then I'm not sure you want to be going into the last quarter mile with a lot of uncertainty as to who is staying aboard as one of your verbals and who isn't.
I will be surprised if Kirk changes his no visit approach.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
The policy also led to problem early enough that Iowa wasn't able to secure actual recruits that have a shot at replacing the kids who didn't come here. No Graham for Higdon situation where you basically get zero RB. We got Bryant who is a top notch recruit. We got Marsette who is a good recruit. We got Creamer, who is a good recruit.
We had plenty of time to get in on other kids to replace them, instead of holding a bag of nothing at the end.
