Does Iowa accept visits from other verbal commits?

[FanOHawk]

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

Coach Ferentz has always stated when a recruit calls to tell of a verbal commitment to another school Iowa asks if the committed recruit would like Iowa to stay in touch. Answer is yes Iowa continues to recruit answer is no, Iowa wishes the best and moves on.

 

[hoffahawk]

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.

That isn't the case but carry on. It's about communication. I won't bother going into details because clearly people don't care about those in this case.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

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.

huck, that is an okay strategy when you are recruiting walk-ons, 2 and 3 star kids. they probably have few alternatives better than Iowa. but when you start recruiting the high level, high caliber kids, it doesn't float.

Eno is the 7th rated rb in the country, by some. that is a different level than what we're used to and, particularly, in today's world, these kids want to take their visits. I think it shows an unwillingness to deal with the mindset of these kinds of athletes, today. we don't have another 7th rated player, at any position, beating down our door to commit. we just got a lot less athletic. and is having to continually recruit this kid through his visits to other schools, really such a heavy price to pay if your goal is to increase the talent level of your program?

 

[HuckFinn]

huck, that is an okay strategy when you are recruiting walk-ons, 2 and 3 star kids. they probably have few alternatives better than Iowa. but when you start recruiting the high level, high caliber kids, it doesn't float.

Eno is the 7th rated rb in the country, by some. that is a different level than what we're used to and, particularly, in today's world, these kids want to take their visits. I think it shows an unwillingness to deal with the mindset of these kinds of athletes, today. we don't have another 7th rated player, at any position, beating down our door to commit. we just got a lot less athletic. and is having to continually recruit this kid through his visits to other schools, really such a heavy price to pay if your goal is to increase the talent level of your program?

You make a good point. I would not rule out the wisdom of changing our approach. But, how do you protect us, optimally, from not building a recruiting class in the most efficient manner possible? I suppose you just deal with the reality that kids can de-commit regardless of whatever regulations you may have and be done with it.

 

[cornfedcowboy]

So evidently "honesty" and "integrity" are traits not high on our list of priorities, despite what we are told.
LOL

Iowa backs up a verbal offer with a guarantee the kid will receive a four year scholarship regardless of the outcome of the recruits senior year. Keep in mind this is before signing. This is a big deal. In turn Iowa asks for the recruit's commitment to Iowa. A two-way street here. It wouldn't be prudent to guarantee a kid a full ride while he is shopping around. Wish the recruit well and move on. Happens all the time.

 

[HuckFinn]

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.

Nope. I may be wrong, but my logic is not at fault. A kid can de-commit at any time, even after he has signed a letter of intent. If Eno had simply called KF and said, I am going to de-commit, I would have said, fine! We have nothing in our letter that says you cannot de-commit, simply because that would be a violation of NCAA rules. But, you can certainly have a regulation that says you will put our offer in jeopardy if you go out and start taking other visits. That is what happened. Eno knowingly violated his agreement with Iowa. He signed an agreement and unless he cannot read, he knew he violated. His choice. He is gone. You should be able to ascertain the difference.

 

[SpiderRico]

On the "policy" side of things, I think it's dumb in this day and age to restrict kids in visiting other schools once they've committed. If you believe in your school, culture, coaches, facilities, and ability to coach up and send kids to the league, then who cares if he visits others? Better to let them look and be sure and possibly lose them before signing day, than sign a kid who's unsure, spend a year or two investing in his development, only to see him leave.

However, in this case, I agree with parting ways. From what I understand, the coaches found out he visited others and when confronted by them on two different occassions (once after MO visit and once after ASU visit), he lied both times. You don't want a guy on your team who doesn't respect you enough that he lies to your face. That doesn't make for a good teammate or facilitate trust.

 

[Tvismylif]

huck, that is an okay strategy when you are recruiting walk-ons, 2 and 3 star kids. they probably have few alternatives better than Iowa. but when you start recruiting the high level, high caliber kids, it doesn't float.

Eno is the 7th rated rb in the country, by some. that is a different level than what we're used to and, particularly, in today's world, these kids want to take their visits. I think it shows an unwillingness to deal with the mindset of these kinds of athletes, today. we don't have another 7th rated player, at any position, beating down our door to commit. we just got a lot less athletic. and is having to continually recruit this kid through his visits to other schools, really such a heavy price to pay if your goal is to increase the talent level of your program?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are saying there needs to be two sets of rules. One for the "walk-ons, 2 and 3 star kids" and another for the 4 star kids. Is that correct?

I'm not happy about the Benjamin situation either, but after reading the form that each student athlete gets once they commit, it lays it out very clearly what the rules are, and what is expected of each commit. And, just like I would expect the University to honor their end of the deal, even if the kid gets hurt, and can't play, I also expect the commit to abide by the rules laid out for them. No matter what their star rating is.

And no way would I accept a coach who had two sets of rules for kids. In fact, I would be very interested in what coaches do not treat their players equally, and what the public concept is of them. Are they in the SEC where many of the coaches are thought to be rather sleazy. Maybe I am just naive and they are actually in our own conference. But if they are, I sure don't hear about them that much.

Just my humble, old school opinion.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are saying there needs to be two sets of rules. One for the "walk-ons, 2 and 3 star kids" and another for the 4 star kids. Is that correct?

I'm not happy about the Benjamin situation either, but after reading the form that each student athlete gets once they commit, it lays it out very clearly what the rules are, and what is expected of each commit. And, just like I would expect the University to honor their end of the deal, even if the kid gets hurt, and can't play, I also expect the commit to abide by the rules laid out for them. No matter what their star rating is.

And no way would I accept a coach who had two sets of rules for kids. In fact, I would be very interested in what coaches do not treat their players equally, and what the public concept is of them. Are they in the SEC where many of the coaches are thought to be rather sleazy. Maybe I am just naive and they are actually in our own conference. But if they are, I sure don't hear about them that much.

Just my humble, old school opinion.

I'm saying two sets of rules already exist. When you are a more valuable commodity, you inherently have more options. You can either position yourself as an option and play the string out, or you remove yourself as an option. That is today's recruiting.

 

[hawkeye23]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are saying there needs to be two sets of rules. One for the "walk-ons, 2 and 3 star kids" and another for the 4 star kids. Is that correct?

I'm not happy about the Benjamin situation either, but after reading the form that each student athlete gets once they commit, it lays it out very clearly what the rules are, and what is expected of each commit. And, just like I would expect the University to honor their end of the deal, even if the kid gets hurt, and can't play, I also expect the commit to abide by the rules laid out for them. No matter what their star rating is.

And no way would I accept a coach who had two sets of rules for kids. In fact, I would be very interested in what coaches do not treat their players equally, and what the public concept is of them. Are they in the SEC where many of the coaches are thought to be rather sleazy. Maybe I am just naive and they are actually in our own conference. But if they are, I sure don't hear about them that much.

Just my humble, old school opinion.

In the recruiting process, yes 4-5* athletes are treated differently. Now once they step on campus you have to level the playing field a bit but I'm sure there is still preferential treatment. The reality is that people are not treated equally. It's a cute cliche that is overly used but rarely followed. You don't have to look any further than probably the place you work. Those that are better than others at their jobs get promoted. People get paid differently for doing the same position. Managers overlook some issues with a certain person that they don't for others. Happens ALL THE TIME. Doesn't make it right but it's no doubt there.

 

[CJHawkeye]

The irritating thing is that everyone keeps trying to ascribe to Iowa some kind of moral high ground. Listen to Jon's podcast with Rob. Iowa has pulled offers from kids multiple times for reasons as simple as having a poor senior year. So Iowa is not some lily white institution with no black marks. I think this particular situation is getting overblown a bit but fans are just sick of all this BS in totality. Kirk is known to be stubborn so its not a stretch for fans to imagine the decided to be a martyr with Eno.

 

[FranklinHawk]

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.

I'll try. Your girlfriend is banging some other single guy, do you blame her or him?

 

[CJHawkeye]

I'll try. Your girlfriend is banging some other single guy, do you blame her or him?

This is more like business, not a marriage. This straw man analogy is exactly the problem. Kirk wants to marry these kids? I don't think so. Its playing football.

 

[FranklinHawk]

This is more like business, not a marriage. This straw man analogy is exactly the problem. Kirk wants to marry these kids? I don't think so. Its playing football.

Cool. You offer some guy a job, he tells you I'll take it and I start in 2 weeks. You tell other candidates who would have likely accepted the position it is filled and then find out the guy you think you hired has had 2 more interviews elsewhere since he accepted. Is the problem with the candidate or the other companies that are interviewing him?

By the way, after each interview you hear about it and ask the candidate and he says "nope, I didn't do that and we're cool".

 

[kicker22]

I'll try. Your girlfriend is banging some other single guy, do you blame her or him?

How about this one. Why date a "10" when there is a possibility it may not work out, when you can settle for someone else's "4".

No one knows how seriously he was looking at other programs or if he was simply in it to have a good time and enjoy a weekend. IMO it's like someone accepting a position at McDonald's and being told they can never step foot in any other fast food restaurant the remainder of their lives simply because there was a time when a fry cook accepted a position and ended working at Arbys after accepting the position.

Just my two cents but a tight leash and idiotic policies are no way to bring in program changers. That said, it may be a great way to bring in other guys that simply don't have any better offers or don't like the idea of seeing other facilities or experiencing games at other facilities. By no means was this a shot at any of our current commitments I'm just pissed and not shaking it off very well.

 

[kicker22]

Cool. You offer some guy a job, he tells you I'll take it and I start in 2 weeks. You tell other candidates who would have likely accepted the position it is filled and then find out the guy you think you hired has had 2 more interviews elsewhere since he accepted. Is the problem with the candidate or the other companies that are interviewing him?

See this type of thing quite a bit actually. I see it as something that's a part of the business world. While as frustrating as it may be, at that point there is still no guarantee that he isn't going to come work for you.

 

[FranklinHawk]

How about this one. Why date a "10" when there is a possibility it may not work out, when you can settle for someone else's "4".

No one knows how seriously he was looking at other programs or if he was simply in it to have a good time and enjoy a weekend. IMO it's like someone accepting a position at McDonald's and being told they can never step foot in any other fast food restaurant the remainder of their lives simply because there was a time when a fry cook accepted a position and ended working at Arbys after accepting the position.

Just my two cents but a tight leash and idiotic policies are no way to bring in program changers. That said, it may be a great way to bring in other guys that simply don't have any better offers or don't like the idea of seeing other facilities or experiencing games at other facilities. By no means was this a shot at any of our current commitments I'm just pissed and not shaking it off very well.

So many people can't seem to get that it wasn't the visits themselves, but the way he went about it (taking them without talking to the coaches and then denying it when confronted). We have had multiple recruits visit other schools and they're still Hawkeyes.

 

[CJHawkeye]

Cool. You offer some guy a job, he tells you I'll take it and I start in 2 weeks. You tell other candidates who would have likely accepted the position it is filled and then find out the guy you think you hired has had 2 more interviews elsewhere since he accepted. Is the problem with the candidate or the other companies that are interviewing him?

By the way, after each interview you hear about it and ask the candidate and he says "nope, I didn't do that and we're cool".

Red herring. You're insinuating that Eno lied but you don't know that. As far as the rest of your analogy, yep, it happens. And you know what, no company says "this job offer is contingent on you not interviewing further." You know why, because that is fucking stupid.

 

[FranklinHawk]

See this type of thing quite a bit actually. I see it as something that's a part of the business world. While as frustrating as it may be, at that point there is still no guarantee that he isn't going to come work for you.

I don't disagree with this at all, but in response to it you're going to do 1 of 2 things. You're either going to continue recruiting others until the guy signs on the dotted line (which means you may hire someone else and leave guy #1 out in the cold), or you're going to decide that you really don't want employees that aren't honest and committed anyway and move on.

Either strategy could be a perfectly legitimate argument, and to call someone an idiot for either is crazy.

 

[FranklinHawk]

Red herring. You're insinuating that Eno lied but you don't know that. As far as the rest of your analogy, yep, it happens. And you know what, no company says "this job offer is contingent on you not interviewing further." You know why, because that is fucking stupid.

LOLOLOL. You're insinuating that Eno's offer was pulled, but you don't know that for fact since Kirk or any of the Iowa coaches are prohibited from talking about it.