When people post comments on concerns about recruiting, people like to jump at the examples of success of some of Iowa's 2 and 3 star recruits. With a 4 and 5 star recruit, there is a greater chance of a successful player.
We hear the same excuses about why Iowa City can't get more talent: cold weather, city not big enough, too pasty of a population, etc. A football player on an full-ride doesn't have much free time outside of football and academics to do much else. Iowa City is a great college town with great fans.
IMO, the glaring weakness of Kirk is that he's a very poor, public salesman of the program.
The majority of being a college coach is recruiting.
I like Jim Delaney's push for academic consistency (and academic integrity) across the major conferences.
We see those successes at Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, and now, Duke.
I wish that the NCAA had a rule that when a school recruits and signs a high school athlete on scholarship, that that scholarship is for 4-years, whether they don't graduate, quit school or enter the NFL draft, early.
Schools, like Alabama, would no longer be able to over-sign, and coaching would actually be more important than recruiting.
It's make no sense that a successful coach is more based on his recruiting abilities than his coaching abilities.
Remember, George Raveling was able to recruit, and I don't recall anything close to NCAA violations.