Hypothetical question in regards to recruiting

H

Hawkfnntn

Well-Known Member
We haven't had this type of scenario come up yet with Fran but I'd be curious to know what his line of thinking is towards recruiting one and done type kids. For example take these two Ricky Davis and Devyn Marble and say he could get one of them which would you take? Knowing ahead of time Davis would be averaging about 15 pts a game and be 1 and done. And knowing Marble would take till his jr year to develop into a go to guy that he did. I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as some of us might think. Most of us would say Marble hands down cause you have a great kid and 2 really really good years from him. But it's hard to turn down the talent of a kid like say Davis had cause most coaches may think they can catch lightning in a bottle and have a great year with him then recruit another stud the following year and keep churning them out like Calipari does. I only wish Fran would have this "problem" sometime...
 
HawkeyeMike23 said:
Coaches who say they don't one and done kids are just coaches who can't land one and done type talent. It's a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
I do too. I don't see coaches taking a kid that's not as highly rated basically just because of that. I see it being a bigger issue here then say the KYs of the world just because of the rarity of it. It'd be an interesting question to run by Fran to see what he thinks cause weather your coaching at Iowa or a school like KY would factor into it.
 
The thing is...how many one and dones are there per year in all of college basketball...7-10? In the big ten alone there's what....Russell and MAYBE Trimble?

How many one and dones have Bo Ryan, Beilein and Izzo recruited in their tenures? they seem to have been doing just fine all these years without those type of players.
 
mopkins said:
The thing is...how many one and dones are there per year in all of college basketball...7-10? In the big ten alone there's what....Russell and MAYBE Trimble?

How many one and dones have Bo Ryan, Beilein and Izzo recruited in their tenures? they seem to have been doing just fine all these years without those type of players.
Click to expand...
If we were getting the players they get this question wouldn't be posted on Hawkeye Nation.
 
I say get the best players you can possibly get. If they're good enough to go pro after 1 year, so be it.. The bigger problem seems to be getting interest from those types of players in the first place, and getting them come to Iowa instead of programs like UK, Duke, KU, etc.

As mopkins said, there's nothing wrong with good 4 years players though, either. I would think there's definitely more continuity that way with a group that plays together for several years. If we sign players that stick around for 4 years (or even 3) and score 1500+ points in their career, I can certainly live with that scenario, too.

Or, there's the Hoiberg route - clean up on good transfers.

Bottom line: As long as Iowa is good, makes the NCAA Tournament and can win a game or two (or more), I'll be happy, regardless of how we get there.
 
Last edited:
Coaches jobs are on the line yearly. You take the best player unless he's a complete headcase.
 
I'm totally fine with it either way too. I think we fans connect more with players that stick around longer. Hence why BJ Armstrong walks on water in Iowa City among other players. And since it's such a rare thing for Iowa to even come across they'll always go for the best player they can get in on.

I will say I'm not crazy about the way Hoiberg has turned ISU into transfer U. I'm not a fan of that so much. But it's working for them for now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top