Nice Job Fran and Co.

If Woodbury signs, it's a great class for that reason. On the other hand, face the facts that if he doesn't, Iowa has 3 signees whose offers include East Carolina, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Mercer, Creighton, Drake, Iowa State, Nebraska, UNI, Stanford, Utah, Northern Illinois, Southern Illinois, and St. Louis.

Other teams in the B1G are recruiting at higher levels than Iowa, and unless Woodbury signs, this class is still underwhelming when looking long-term against other B1G teams. Say what you will about Iowa's coaches recognizing talent early, but by now if other teams were going to offer, they'd have done so. Without Woodbury, we're looking at another Matt Gatens and company class. Sorry if that's too negative.
 
Newton, if I could quote on mobile I would, but I disagree. Ingram is very athletic and plays great defense, a team need. MG fills a point slot, a team need. Meyer fills a post slot, a team need. People are raving of Meyer, and he's going to be much better than he is right now. Remember, these kids have another year to play before they get to college. Its not that late to where offers wouldn't come.
 
I agree that it's necessary to add role players, which is why if the staff signs a star (Gessell doesn't do it for me), then this class is a success. If they don't, it's another year of BC-types making all conference honorable mention on a bottom feeder team.
 
newtonavenue said:
I agree that it's necessary to add role players, which is why if the staff signs a star (Gessell doesn't do it for me), then this class is a success. If they don't, it's another year of BC-types making all conference honorable mention on a bottom feeder team.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think Newton might have a point. Reading most of these posts reminds me of the way Democrats rally around Obama and defend him no matter what happens or Republicans rallying around Bush in the same way. Just sounds like wishful thinking instead of making a serious consideration of facts.

Even if they sign Woodbury, this shouldn't be a top 25 class. Maybe top 50 but not top 25. Other schools are bringing in talent as well and, in a lot of cases, are bringing in more talent than Iowa. We hear about how Ingram is an "up and comer who's starting to get interest from other bigger-time schools". But don't we hear that about every player who only seems to be recruited by mid-majors?

I'm open minded to give this class a chance and Fran might just have the same ability that KF has in being able to spot diamonds in the rough. I'm open and hopeful to that possibility. I've never even see a second of video on Ingram so am not even sure what we've got in him but when he's only recruited by mid-majors I have to be honest and question how good he is. If anyone says that they don't question that deep inside, then they aren't being honest with themselves. Still, my overrall attitude is cautious optimism but not blind, kool-aid drinking optimism.
 
Just looking at the B10 and scout rankings (and doing it rather quickly).

@ "IF" Iowa lands Woodbury, he will be the highest ranking center signed in the B10 to this point.

He has also been this staffs top target at that position all along (which says more to me than anything).

@ Currently The B10 has 1 4 star Center prospect commitment (MS's Matt Costello #19) and2 3 Star commitments (Indiana's Peter Jurkin) and Kyle Meyer if Iowa. The 3 star recruits are not ranked but I would venture to say that Kyle Meyer is right up there.

@ INdiana, MSU and Purdue each have a 4 star Power forwrard secured. Elijah Macon is ranked ahead of all of them except Hanner Perea of Indiana. I don't know if Iowa has a real shot at Macon or not but it's not over yet.

@ Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan each have a 4 star SF and Indiana and Northwestern have a 3 star SF.

@ Purdue, Indiana, MSU and NW each have a 3 star SG, Ingram is rated a 2 star

@ Indiana, Purdue, and Iowa each have a 4 star PG ranked respectively #3,13 1nd 15. Gessell was one of Iowa's top 2 target as far as I can tell at that position and that says quite a lot to me.

Indiana is clearly cleaning up, Purdue and MSU are also clearly ahead of Iowa at this point, but not by a lot.

Right now, at this very minute, Iowa is clearly #4 in the B10 (According to Scout Rankings). We can go up or down from here but thats where we are now with a lot of work yet to be done.

Teams will continue to land comitments and lose them but as you look at who Iowa is recruiting and has a realistic shot at Iowa has a shot to bring in the second best class in the B10 this year. A commitment of a guy like Macon along with Woodbury in this class (which is probably pie in the sky) and I think Iowa would go head to head with any class including Indiana.

My point is Iowa is recruiting well right now. Fran and staff are getting into some very good living rooms this season and gaining undeniable momentum.

We landed 1 of our top prospects and have a serious shot at 2.

I'm sorry if Gessel or any other recruit "doesn't do it for any specific poster" but if any of our commitments was a top priority at that position for our staff (with how many years of experience) I'll take it and call it undenyable success.
 
Given our past level of success, I think Coach McCaffery is doing about as well as can be expected with recruiting. As our program progresses, I expect the quality of the recruits we go after and sign will improve as well. We are only going into our 2nd year under this staff and I, for one, remain impressed.
 
SteveGarvey said:
Frankly, I think Newton might have a point. Reading most of these posts reminds me of the way Democrats rally around Obama and defend him no matter what happens or Republicans rallying around Bush in the same way. Just sounds like wishful thinking instead of making a serious consideration of facts.
Click to expand...

And reading this post makes me think of the way people always gravitate to extremes and hold coaches, presidents, etc. to impossibly high standards. I've made several of these points elsewhere but I'll repeat them in a handy list:

1. No one knows where this class is going to be ranked, because it's only half filled. What we do know is that it's August and we've signed three guys. Maybe they aren't your three favorite guys, but they are all at the very minimum legitimate college basketball players. The lowest "ranked" guy we have signed was offered something like three days after we lost Hubbard. In other words, he's intended to be the sixth man in a six-man class. Given the fact that Iowa had five scholarships last year, couldn't fill one until April, had to bank one, and had another player flake out, this is enormous progress.

2. We all understand that their are much stronger classes out there. I don't think anyone is arguing that Iowa is likely to bring in the best class in the conference or a top-ten class nationally. But I think we also realize that when you are one of the worst major-conference teams in the country, and have been for four years, even an average recruiting class is a huge step forward.

3. We all understand that to be a top-10 program you have to sign the big recruits, McDonald's All-Americans, etc. But after that elite group it is pretty silly to pretend that player #93 is somehow definitively inferior to player #46 or to take every single recruiting rating as gospel. The recruiting ranking services have certainly gotten better, but they have as many misses and hits (go back and look at the top 100 for previous years and see what percentage of names you recognize). Once you get past guys like Jarod Sullinger and Brandon Knight that can take over a team on their own, you can get a ton of mileage out of putting guys in the right situation and developing them. As a sidenote, until I see Tom Crean do this at Indiana, I could care less how highly ranked his classes are.

4. Important addition to #3: Of course, putting guys in the right situation isn't worth a thing if they don't meet a certain baseline of skill and athleticism. There are something like 80-100 major programs in Division I; if each team is signing 3-4 guys per year that a pool of about 350 recruits. If you are constantly bringing in guys who are at or near the bottom of that pile in terms of athleticism and skill (paging Brennan Cougill), you are in for some difficulty. I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that Meyer, Gesell and Ingram aren't sufficiently athletic and skilled for Big 10 play. Are they polished players who are going to show up and take over the league, like Sullinger? No, of course not. But if we only offered those guys we would be in real danger of not fielding a full roster in 2013.

5. I think many of us believe that there's a chance (a very small one, I know) that the guy who gets paid $1 million/year to coach a Big Ten team knows more about basketball than the guys who write for Rivals. There's also a chance that that same coach, who has successfully executed several previous turnarounds, has a realistic sense of the players he can actually get as opposed to the players who will jerk him around for six months before signing with Kansas or Michigan State.
 
Olivecourt - Well said. The current critics are like those who leave at halftime because we're not ahead.
 
olivecourt said:
And reading this post makes me think of the way people always gravitate to extremes and hold coaches, presidents, etc. to impossibly high standards. I've made several of these points elsewhere but I'll repeat them in a handy list:

1. No one knows where this class is going to be ranked, because it's only half filled. What we do know is that it's August and we've signed three guys. Maybe they aren't your three favorite guys, but they are all at the very minimum legitimate college basketball players. The lowest "ranked" guy we have signed was offered something like three days after we lost Hubbard. In other words, he's intended to be the sixth man in a six-man class. Given the fact that Iowa had five scholarships last year, couldn't fill one until April, had to bank one, and had another player flake out, this is enormous progress.

2. We all understand that their are much stronger classes out there. I don't think anyone is arguing that Iowa is likely to bring in the best class in the conference or a top-ten class nationally. But I think we also realize that when you are one of the worst major-conference teams in the country, and have been for four years, even an average recruiting class is a huge step forward.

3. We all understand that to be a top-10 program you have to sign the big recruits, McDonald's All-Americans, etc. But after that elite group it is pretty silly to pretend that player #93 is somehow definitively inferior to player #46 or to take every single recruiting rating as gospel. The recruiting ranking services have certainly gotten better, but they have as many misses and hits (go back and look at the top 100 for previous years and see what percentage of names you recognize). Once you get past guys like Jarod Sullinger and Brandon Knight that can take over a team on their own, you can get a ton of mileage out of putting guys in the right situation and developing them. As a sidenote, until I see Tom Crean do this at Indiana, I could care less how highly ranked his classes are.

4. Important addition to #3: Of course, putting guys in the right situation isn't worth a thing if they don't meet a certain baseline of skill and athleticism. There are something like 80-100 major programs in Division I; if each team is signing 3-4 guys per year that a pool of about 350 recruits. If you are constantly bringing in guys who are at or near the bottom of that pile in terms of athleticism and skill (paging Brennan Cougill), you are in for some difficulty. I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that Meyer, Gesell and Ingram aren't sufficiently athletic and skilled for Big 10 play. Are they polished players who are going to show up and take over the league, like Sullinger? No, of course not. But if we only offered those guys we would be in real danger of not fielding a full roster in 2013.

5. I think many of us believe that there's a chance (a very small one, I know) that the guy who gets paid $1 million/year to coach a Big Ten team knows more about basketball than the guys who write for Rivals. There's also a chance that that same coach, who has successfully executed several previous turnarounds, has a realistic sense of the players he can actually get as opposed to the players who will jerk him around for six months before signing with Kansas or Michigan State.
Click to expand...

Well said,Olive. If Iowa gets Woodbury that would be a concensus top 50 player and a concensus top 90 player in Gesell. That alone would make it the best recruting class at Iowa in 9 years. That is with Fran on the job less than 16 months,and inheriting a bad team,that has been down for half a decade. Considering the circumstances, if he lands Woodbury and adds another solid recruit or two, it would be a remarkable recruiting job done by Fran. This ain't Memphis gang, or KU or Ky,or even Butler,now,it is Iowa,which has finished in the bottom 3 in the league for 4 straight years.

Not sure why some are dismissing Gesell,a top90 player in the country,but they are not bb intelligent if they do. Sure,he is white,but no one cares when they rank kids, and he is rated higher than thousands of city kids for a reason...he is good.
 
SteveGarvey said:
Frankly, I think Newton might have a point. Reading most of these posts reminds me of the way Democrats rally around Obama and defend him no matter what happens or Republicans rallying around Bush in the same way. Just sounds like wishful thinking instead of making a serious consideration of facts.

Even if they sign Woodbury, this shouldn't be a top 25 class. Maybe top 50 but not top 25. Other schools are bringing in talent as well and, in a lot of cases, are bringing in more talent than Iowa. We hear about how Ingram is an "up and comer who's starting to get interest from other bigger-time schools". But don't we hear that about every player who only seems to be recruited by mid-majors?

I'm open minded to give this class a chance and Fran might just have the same ability that KF has in being able to spot diamonds in the rough. I'm open and hopeful to that possibility. I've never even see a second of video on Ingram so am not even sure what we've got in him but when he's only recruited by mid-majors I have to be honest and question how good he is. If anyone says that they don't question that deep inside, then they aren't being honest with themselves. Still, my overrall attitude is cautious optimism but not blind, kool-aid drinking optimism.
Click to expand...

I don't think it should be a top 25 class either. But Fran obviously likes Meyer enough because he committed very, very early on. And his stock is rising. I don't see these guys becoming role players during their time here and this is why:
1. Gesell will be the starting Point next year, whether you believe the hype on him or not. He was Fran's number 1 target to run the show. He will come in as a Freshman and be expected to run this entire team, the offense will go through him. So, Fran is obviously satisfied with his talents, therefore I will also be okay with him bringing in MG.

2. These are Fran's top targets, not fallback recruits. Its mid-August and we have 3 guys that Fran has went out and made priorities to get. It honestly doesn't matter if we sign Woodbury or not, sure he's a highly rated player, and sure he has good offers, but he is not a do or die player. Yes, he does have a UNC offer, but its also their what 6th or 7th offer out to centers? So in theory he is the 7th player in line that UNC would like to have.

3. Ingram doesn't just provide us with much needed athleticism, defensive abilities, and a great work ethic, but he also sprung interest in a friend. He can play out to be a recruiter for us, and he also fills Hubbard's spot, for the next 4 years. He's not a convicted felon, yet he will be brought in to do the same thing Hubbard was.

Sure, you can say this class is just a few 3 star players, or role players, or mid majors. But these 3 guys signed so far, are Fran's number 1 and 2 options. These are the players he wants to come to the program, not backup plans. If he didn't believe in their skills, they wouldn't have offers this early in the process. I'm behind Fran with this class so far 100%. I'll agree the offer lists aren't great, but look at guys with great lists who do nothing in college. I'd say at least give the guys a chance before we say that this class won't amount to much. After all, do you honestly expect a team who is at the bottom of the big basketball conferences to be signing 4 and 5 star players with offers from Duke, UNC, Arizona, OSU, etc?
 
newtonavenue said:
I agree that it's necessary to add role players, which is why if the staff signs a star (Gessell doesn't do it for me), then this class is a success. If they don't, it's another year of BC-types making all conference honorable mention on a bottom feeder team.
Click to expand...
So the rankings are gospel except when you somehow choose that they don't matter. Gotcha.
 
storminspank said:
Fran is targeting recruits and getting them. This is exactly what this program needs.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone arguing against that point at all. The thing that drives me crazy on here is when people say they don't want the 4/5 *'s and instead want under the radar types. BUT if Iowa did land some big fish they would be the first ones to tout how highly rated they are on the sites.

I will never understood why a fan wouldn't want the highest rated kids possible. (assuming character is not an issue)

Fran has begun to show that he can close and that is a great thing for Iowa.
 
If Iowa can figure out a way to have a winning season and get back into the dance Fran's credibility will sky rocket and will silence his critics, It just feels that he is making progress and signing Woodbury would be great for the program.
 
olivecourt said:
And reading this post makes me think of the way people always gravitate to extremes and hold coaches, presidents, etc. to impossibly high standards. I've made several of these points elsewhere but I'll repeat them in a handy list:

1. No one knows where this class is going to be ranked, because it's only half filled. What we do know is that it's August and we've signed three guys. Maybe they aren't your three favorite guys, but they are all at the very minimum legitimate college basketball players. The lowest "ranked" guy we have signed was offered something like three days after we lost Hubbard. In other words, he's intended to be the sixth man in a six-man class. Given the fact that Iowa had five scholarships last year, couldn't fill one until April, had to bank one, and had another player flake out, this is enormous progress.

2. We all understand that their are much stronger classes out there. I don't think anyone is arguing that Iowa is likely to bring in the best class in the conference or a top-ten class nationally. But I think we also realize that when you are one of the worst major-conference teams in the country, and have been for four years, even an average recruiting class is a huge step forward.

3. We all understand that to be a top-10 program you have to sign the big recruits, McDonald's All-Americans, etc. But after that elite group it is pretty silly to pretend that player #93 is somehow definitively inferior to player #46 or to take every single recruiting rating as gospel. The recruiting ranking services have certainly gotten better, but they have as many misses and hits (go back and look at the top 100 for previous years and see what percentage of names you recognize). Once you get past guys like Jarod Sullinger and Brandon Knight that can take over a team on their own, you can get a ton of mileage out of putting guys in the right situation and developing them. As a sidenote, until I see Tom Crean do this at Indiana, I could care less how highly ranked his classes are.

4. Important addition to #3: Of course, putting guys in the right situation isn't worth a thing if they don't meet a certain baseline of skill and athleticism. There are something like 80-100 major programs in Division I; if each team is signing 3-4 guys per year that a pool of about 350 recruits. If you are constantly bringing in guys who are at or near the bottom of that pile in terms of athleticism and skill (paging Brennan Cougill), you are in for some difficulty. I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that Meyer, Gesell and Ingram aren't sufficiently athletic and skilled for Big 10 play. Are they polished players who are going to show up and take over the league, like Sullinger? No, of course not. But if we only offered those guys we would be in real danger of not fielding a full roster in 2013.

5. I think many of us believe that there's a chance (a very small one, I know) that the guy who gets paid $1 million/year to coach a Big Ten team knows more about basketball than the guys who write for Rivals. There's also a chance that that same coach, who has successfully executed several previous turnarounds, has a realistic sense of the players he can actually get as opposed to the players who will jerk him around for six months before signing with Kansas or Michigan State.
Click to expand...


A fair post. I agree with your bold faced point. I'm just reacting to so many people who act like, without a doubt, this is a top25 ranked class and, I'm sorry, but I don't think that's realistic. I did say maybe top 50 and that's a good start-I'd surely take that.

I'm not at all saying Fran isn't necessarily doing a good job recruiting just that the jury is still out on that. I sure hope he does. It helps to have a good dose of skepticism some times. It doesn't make you any less of a Hawk fan to think so. I have my own brain and can use it.

If Fran is getting the guys he wants then that's good. I have a hard time believing he's gotten everybody that was on the top of his list but he definitely wanted these guys and I'm sure they were high on his list in any event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top