Iowa will not finish 4-8 next season because...............................

[dave3912]

Yeah, but, but... Johnny Football was a freshman QB!

There. I've completely destroyed your point. You may now weep silently in a corner of Casa Miller.

So you're saying that CJ Beathard is the next Johnny Football and he is going to light the world on fire?

Put me down $5,000.00 if Vegas posts odds of that happening. Nice payout on a guarantee.

 

[ohhawk]

New inexperienced QB, 9th in the BIG in total defense, 11th in total offense, last in sacks (by a big margin), last in tackles for a loss, punting avg. last, time of possession 11th, on and on.

Hard for me to see us hitting the .500 level overall with the above in mind as well as other factors.

 

[olddude]

New inexperienced QB, 9th in the BIG in total defense, 11th in total offense, last in sacks (by a big margin), last in tackles for a loss, punting avg. last, time of possession 11th, on and on.

Hard for me to see us hitting the .500 level overall with the above in mind as well as other factors.

Come on you have to know there is far more to it than just that. I dont really care if a team gives up 400 yards per game, as long as they are making them earn those yards and making them put together 80 plus yard drives that result in fg's. If I am not mistaken we did not give up many more ppg than the "get on your knees and praise Meyer" team did. We did that with a whole bunch of new players as well.
I think our D will be fine. I think if BF can get the most out of all his guys 2 deep, we will have a good run game and maybe enough protection for a new qb.
I know I will get hammered for this, but the short routes (5 to 10 yard) and run game is where it is going to be at for Iowa. If we can do what I said above with the D, most games will become a t.o.p and fairly low scoring and that is when Iowa is at it's best. I am not saying we should not be able to have and use a few deep threats, what I am saying is when it becomes a battle, smash mouth, in the trenches game, where t.o.p. and putting together long drives comes into play, we tend to do well. Think MSU this year, nobody but me gave us a chance. One thing with Iowa is if you want to pick a fight and go toe to toe, you had better pack a lunch, cuz it is going to be a long day and that is why we need the "nasty", the "bullies". Now the speedy teams and the ones with rb's who are qb's, they have had some sucess against us, but that is starting to change as well. So we need to be able to go out this year and pick fights and get teams to go toe to toe with us.
Do that and the long ball will come. It will come and be there for a new qb.

 

[MoseSchrute]

That is good and all, coaches need to make a final verdict. They however are not scouts. They have to much to do, and not enough time to scout a kid properly. We all know how it works, but that is not to say it can not or should not be improved upon.

That's why Nebraska pays money to an external recruiting consulting/evaluating service which helps them decide which guys to go after. Iowa does not do this as far as I know.

 

[dave3912]

That's why Nebraska pays money to an external recruiting consulting/evaluating service which helps them decide which guys to go after. Iowa does not do this as far as I know.

Isn't that what Oregon did as well and is in trouble because of the extent of what the "recruiting service" provides?

 

[olddude]

Isn't that what Oregon did as well and is in trouble because of the extent of what the "recruiting service" provides?

Many schools use them, but most of them are a joke. The NCAA said it was the way they used them, not that they used them at all. I think the NCAA gets a little upset when you pay $25,000 for one scouting report. Remember the whole Cam Newton thing? They are thinking Oregon did the same thing.

 

[dave3912]

Many schools use them, but most of them are a joke. The NCAA said it was the way they used them, not that they used them at all. I think the NCAA gets a little upset when you pay $25,000 for one scouting report. Remember the whole Cam Newton thing? They are thinking Oregon did the same thing.

Well it probably all depends on the recruiting service that your school uses, clearly Iowa's way isn't working. Maybe a recruiting service would help, just gotta find one that isn't looking to cheat and cost a ton of money.

 

[olddude]

Well it probably all depends on the recruiting service that your school uses, clearly Iowa's way isn't working. Maybe a recruiting service would help, just gotta find one that isn't looking to cheat and cost a ton of money.

That is correct. As much if not more info, for less than it cost to obtain said info yourself. Kind of like having an intern.
To try and curb paying one person a large amount for one "report" like they did with Cam and like they think Oregon did, you now have to be approved as a scout by the NCAA and you actually have to do your job and prove you are doing your job. You have to make the info available to any school at the same price, but the scouting service sets the price and the schools decide if they want to pay it.

 

[Billso]

Many schools use them, but most of them are a joke. The NCAA said it was the way they used them, not that they used them at all. I think the NCAA gets a little upset when you pay $25,000 for one scouting report. Remember the whole Cam Newton thing? They are thinking Oregon did the same thing.

Especially a scouting report that was a full year out of date. E.g., useless.

Although they're not "recruiting services", when I was with Rivals and Scout nearly every D-1 school in the country had subscriptions. Including Iowa. Sometimes just one coach, sometimes the whole staff. Some disguised it more than others. To my knowledge none relied on star ratings, it was more a cross-check to ensure they didn't miss someone, and also a way to quickly detect offers. The videos used to be a big draw but YouTube has made that less important. And there were (and are) evaluators employed by both companies whose opinions were already known and respected in the coaching community, so their writeups do get read by D-1 staffs. Randy Taylor (now independent), Bobby Burton (now with 24/7), Bob Lichtenfels, Dave Telep etc. I've always said the writeups are the real value in those sites, the stars are primarily for entertainment.

D-1 schools still find their recruits primarily through personal contacts with HS coaches and camps and good old fashion legwork and film/video evals. And they form their own opinions on player potential. Technology supplements but doesn't supplant that.

 

[Eda]

Hello, small minority here...
Iowa will do well next year. And by that I mean winning 7-8 games (with possibly a 9th in a bowl game).
The D- line will be improved, greatly. Another year in the gym for these guys. Plus a couple other guys coming off redshirts to help with depth. The tackles will be good, and the ends should be adequate. This will help to keep the LBers cleaner. Morris has shown growth every year, and hopefully this will be his best year yet. Hitchens and Kirksey are solid in both run support and pass coverage. The secondary will be a question mark.
The o-line will be the bullies. The receivers/tightends have playmakers, but will need to hang onto the ball (something that hasn't been the greatest these last few years). Without a doubt, the RBs will be the strength of the offensive side of the ball. Weismann and Bullock will be a terrific 1-2. And Hill looked solid before his injury. Add Canzeri in there... And POW!
Obviously the big question mark will be the QB. For the first few games his instruction will be to hand it off.

Well, I hope you all enjoyed this read.

 

[Eda]

Especially a scouting report that was a full year out of date. E.g., useless.

Although they're not "recruiting services", when I was with Rivals and Scout nearly every D-1 school in the country had subscriptions. Including Iowa. Sometimes just one coach, sometimes the whole staff. Some disguised it more than others. To my knowledge none relied on star ratings, it was more a cross-check to ensure they didn't miss someone, and also a way to quickly detect offers. The videos used to be a big draw but YouTube has made that less important. And there were (and are) evaluators employed by both companies whose opinions were already known and respected in the coaching community, so their writeups do get read by D-1 staffs. Randy Taylor (now independent), Bobby Burton (now with 24/7), Bob Lichtenfels, Dave Telep etc. I've always said the writeups are the real value in those sites, the stars are primarily for entertainment.

D-1 schools still find their recruits primarily through personal contacts with HS coaches and camps and good old fashion legwork and film/video evals. And they form their own opinions on player potential. Technology supplements but doesn't supplant that.

Real good insight. Thx.

 

[nationalchamps]

Iowa will not finish 4-8 next season because Kurt switches over to Hubba Bubba.

 

[olddude]

Especially a scouting report that was a full year out of date. E.g., useless.

Although they're not "recruiting services", when I was with Rivals and Scout nearly every D-1 school in the country had subscriptions. Including Iowa. Sometimes just one coach, sometimes the whole staff. Some disguised it more than others. To my knowledge none relied on star ratings, it was more a cross-check to ensure they didn't miss someone, and also a way to quickly detect offers. The videos used to be a big draw but YouTube has made that less important. And there were (and are) evaluators employed by both companies whose opinions were already known and respected in the coaching community, so their writeups do get read by D-1 staffs. Randy Taylor (now independent), Bobby Burton (now with 24/7), Bob Lichtenfels, Dave Telep etc. I've always said the writeups are the real value in those sites, the stars are primarily for entertainment.

D-1 schools still find their recruits primarily through personal contacts with HS coaches and camps and good old fashion legwork and film/video evals. And they form their own opinions on player potential. Technology supplements but doesn't supplant that.

I think those ARE recruiting services under the new by laws. Unless they changed the way they did things.
But you are correct, most of it is just recycled BS. I mean I could put up a site, look up some kids stats, then subscribe to some other site and read and rephrase. As you said the vids are almost a thing of the past, except all you ever get to see is "the greatest hits" and not the whoops.
That is not doing the coaches or the kids any good. Like I said to do a good job of scouting, it is much more than a full time job, except you dont get OT pay.

 

[dave3912]

Iowa will not finish 4-8 next season because Kurt switches over to Hubba Bubba.

What is the success rate of coaches who switched to Hubba Bubba?

Are we talking Nick Saban like records or Dan McCarney like records?

 

[Billso]

I think those ARE recruiting services under the new by laws. Unless they changed the way they did things.

The NCAA has tried pulling this with Scout and Rivals, and has failed, and will continue to fail. Recruiting coverage, available to the general public, is not a recruiting service. Recruiting coverage has the same protections as any other kind of journalism. You can't say "Scout and Rivals aren't allowed to talk to our coaches or recruits" and not also block the WSJ, NYT, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today, Parade, ESPN, etc. all of whom have begun covering recruiting extensively since the early 2000's.

They tried this around 2005-2006 and colleges started blacklisting our people even before the measure was voted on, fearful of post-facto violations. Scout's attorneys (along with Rivals') smacked them hard; the NCAA backed down quickly when we pointed out this was courting a 1st Amendment injunction and lawsuit, but also "well, ESPN will be disappointed to learn they no longer have access to college football programs either, since they're also a recruiting service under your definition". Maybe they're trying again, Jon may know, I'm pretty out of the game nowadays.

Part of the problem was the NCAA legal team, at least then, was not exactly cream of the crop (the NFL and MLB are another story). Look no further than their incompetence and outright misconduct in the Rick Neuheisel debacle in Seattle.

 

[NCHawker]

 

[olddude]

The NCAA has tried pulling this with Scout and Rivals, and has failed, and will continue to fail. Recruiting coverage, available to the general public, is not a recruiting service. Recruiting coverage has the same protections as any other kind of journalism. You can't say "Scout and Rivals aren't allowed to talk to our coaches or recruits" and not also block the WSJ, NYT, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today, Parade, ESPN, etc. all of whom have begun covering recruiting extensively since the early 2000's.

They tried this around 2005-2006 and colleges started blacklisting our people even before the measure was voted on, fearful of post-facto violations. Scout's attorneys (along with Rivals') smacked them hard; the NCAA backed down quickly when we pointed out this was courting a 1st Amendment injunction and lawsuit, but also "well, ESPN will be disappointed to learn they no longer have access to college football programs either, since they're also a recruiting service under your definition". Maybe they're trying again, Jon may know, I'm pretty out of the game nowadays.

Part of the problem was the NCAA legal team, at least then, was not exactly cream of the crop (the NFL and MLB are another story). Look no further than their incompetence and outright misconduct in the Rick Neuheisel debacle in Seattle.

I am sure it has passed, I was thinking about vids of other than regular season and charging for the vids. Pretty sure that is what it was about.
My question is why not just say fine we are a service, why spend so much on lawyers?

 

[NCHawker]

The NCAA has tried pulling this with Scout and Rivals, and has failed, and will continue to fail. Recruiting coverage, available to the general public, is not a recruiting service. Recruiting coverage has the same protections as any other kind of journalism. You can't say "Scout and Rivals aren't allowed to talk to our coaches or recruits" and not also block the WSJ, NYT, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today, Parade, ESPN, etc. all of whom have begun covering recruiting extensively since the early 2000's.

They tried this around 2005-2006 and colleges started blacklisting our people even before the measure was voted on, fearful of post-facto violations. Scout's attorneys (along with Rivals') smacked them hard; the NCAA backed down quickly when we pointed out this was courting a 1st Amendment injunction and lawsuit, but also "well, ESPN will be disappointed to learn they no longer have access to college football programs either, since they're also a recruiting service under your definition". Maybe they're trying again, Jon may know, I'm pretty out of the game nowadays.

Part of the problem was the NCAA legal team, at least then, was not exactly cream of the crop (the NFL and MLB are another story). Look no further than their incompetence and outright misconduct in the Rick Neuheisel debacle in Seattle.

who is "our people", who are you with?

 

[Billso]

I am sure it has passed, I was thinking about vids of other than regular season and charging for the vids. Pretty sure that is what it was about. My question is why not just say fine we are a service, why spend so much on lawyers?

"Why not just say fine" - Scout/Rivals/247 would be out of business instantly if their employees (and more importantly the site publishers and their writers) lost their media credentials and were blocked from talking to coaches, players and recruits.

We spent exactly zero dollars on lawyers on this issue. Our GM was an attorney experienced with sports business who'd worked for years with the NCAA, NFL & MLB. A couple sternly-worded letters took care of the problem. Never had to involve outside counsel.

If you're "pretty sure it's passed", whatever "it" is, send me a link. These are typically up on NCAA's site. If anything has "passed" it clearly has a carveout for media entities, because I still see recruiting coverage on Scout, Rivals and ESPN including interviews with players, coaches and recruits.

who is "our people", who are you with?

Self-employed now, technology unrelated to sports. Scout.com back then. Left in 2007.

 

[olddude]

"Why not just say fine" - Scout/Rivals/247 would be out of business instantly if their employees (and more importantly the site publishers and their writers) lost their media credentials and were blocked from talking to coaches, players and recruits.

We spent exactly zero dollars on lawyers on this issue. Our GM was an attorney experienced with sports business who'd worked for years with the NCAA, NFL & MLB. A couple sternly-worded letters took care of the problem. Never had to involve outside counsel.

If you're "pretty sure it's passed", whatever "it" is, send me a link. These are typically up on NCAA's site. If anything has "passed" it clearly has a carveout for media entities, because I still see recruiting coverage on Scout, Rivals and ESPN including interviews with players, coaches and recruits.



Self-employed now, technology unrelated to sports. Scout.com back then. Left in 2007.

Hey bud, first off, back off a bit ok? Second.
Rivals Decision Reveals Deeper Issues in Recruiting Rules
and

NCAA classifies Rivals as a recruiting service - CBSSports.com

I was in no way saying your past employer had done anything wrong, so relax. Then again if you want to pull the media card, lets talk. Maybe my mag cost $1000 per year, but I am media. OR are you saying EVERYTHING on scout and rivals was free? Heck maybe my mag cost $5000 per year.
I know what they did and dont think you, your ex employer or some a hole taking $25000 from oregon can talk down to me. Rules are rules, and it is not my fault somebody wants to skim and not put in the work.
Then again, you are talking to someone who hates cheaters. I hate the fact that HS's "recruit" (coached on both side of that) and I hate a holes who scam kids or their families out of rent money for "services". Ya feel me?
Sorry, hot topic with me. Some people give others a bad name. Not saying you, just saying the whole subject gets me a little wound up.