Does Iowa accept visits from other verbal commits?

GotTimDodge

Well-Known Member
This has been asked a few places, still haven't seen an answer.
Does Iowa accept visits from kids who have verbally committed elsewhere?
 
Excellent question.......

lx024lu.jpg
 
The recruit who will be looked at for replacing Eno will be the RB from muscatine. Who is a 2 star (maybe 3, I don't remember and rivals isn't showing it). I only bring this up because he is now committed to South Sakota. So we pulled Eno's scholarship due to fear of him Being poached by a bigger school, and replacing him with a kid we poached from
a "lesser" school.


Iowa Hawkeyes are Black and Gold. Kirk Ferentz is yellow.
 
The recruit who will be looked at for replacing Eno will be the RB from muscatine. Who is a 2 star (maybe 3, I don't remember and rivals isn't showing it). I only bring this up because he is now committed to South Sakota. So we pulled Eno's scholarship due to fear of him Being poached by a bigger school, and replacing him with a kid we poached from
a "lesser" school.


Iowa Hawkeyes are Black and Gold. Kirk Ferentz is yellow.
If not him, someone else that's already committed to another school. Kirk's a great guy though...
 
I really hate it when people display logic and common sense about these types of issues. Damn you GotTimDodge. I prefer the dumpster fire that this site will display after recent events.
 
The recruit who will be looked at for replacing Eno will be the RB from muscatine. Who is a 2 star (maybe 3, I don't remember and rivals isn't showing it). I only bring this up because he is now committed to South Sakota. So we pulled Eno's scholarship due to fear of him Being poached by a bigger school, and replacing him with a kid we poached from
a "lesser" school.


Iowa Hawkeyes are Black and Gold. Kirk Ferentz is yellow.

Jordan Rowell is another possibility but I agree that if they take another RB that Soko will be on the short list.
 
Bit of a breakdown in logic on some posts here. We have always continued to recruit kids who have verbally committed to other schools. We are fully aware that a kid who verbally commits to Iowa could decide to go elsewhere if he receives an offer.

What we do say, and I think rightfully so, is that if you are really convinced you want to come to Iowa and you commit to us, then we do not expect you to go out and start visiting other schools. In effect, if you are not sure, then don't commit to us. The logic of this from Iowa's football program point of view is that we need to do what we can to assure that we have built a recruiting class that meets our needs. That is our job. Period. We made our decision about limitations established for our recruits. If you don't agree, then don't commit to us. Fair enough.

If you are of the opinion that we should not have this position in the first place, I respect your view. If you say we are not being consistent, I would argue your logic.
 
KF apologists in 1.2.3...

Oh, hey, sorry I'm late. Yeah, there is a bit of pride and arrogance that goes into that apparent hypocrisy by Kirk yet I don't think Kirk cares about appearances. He feels this is the University of Iowa football, not Miami of Ohio. It's OK to de-commit from M of O but it's not OK to do so from Iowa because we're on a higher level than them.

Coach Jimmy Johnson used to give special privileges to Michael Irvin, Emmit Smith and Troy Aikman that he didn't give to the rest of the Cowboys. And he didn't care what people thought about it.

Course, he also won two Super Bowls....
 
It just amazes me that our staff is against players that commit to Iowa but visit (whether window shopping or just going to have a good time) other programs yet we're willing to accept players that can commit to another coach/program and then de-commit from them once were interested again. Is it not the same thing?

Can someone please dumb this down so it remotely makes sense.
 
Bit of a breakdown in logic on some posts here. We have always continued to recruit kids who have verbally committed to other schools. We are fully aware that a kid who verbally commits to Iowa could decide to go elsewhere if he receives an offer.

What we do say, and I think rightfully so, is that if you are really convinced you want to come to Iowa and you commit to us, then we do not expect you to go out and start visiting other schools. In effect, if you are not sure, then don't commit to us. The logic of this from Iowa's football program point of view is that we need to do what we can to assure that we have built a recruiting class that meets our needs. That is our job. Period. We made our decision about limitations established for our recruits. If you don't agree, then don't commit to us. Fair enough.

If you are of the opinion that we should not have this position in the first place, I respect your view. If you say we are not being consistent, I would argue your logic.


Uh, you're the one with a breakdown in logic. The "reason" and I emphasize the quotes, for the policy is that if you're committed you're committed is a mark of integrity. Kids who are committed and look elsewhere get their offer pulled. So what are we doing recruiting kids who are committed? If they school they committed to acted like Iowa we'd be costing them an offer if they visit. Don't you think that's a crappy situation to put a kid in? It's also hypocritical which it appears 99% of the people in this thread clearly understand. Not sure why you do not.
 
If I'm in charge of recruiting at another school, and I see Iowa with a verbal from any solid recruit, I'm out there doing everything in my power to get them to come visit my school.

Seems like Beilema knew as much with the Calloway situation. Well, at least everyone knows now, so it's a fair playing field to poach Iowa recruits!
 

Latest posts

Top