MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
Do good programs have a 50% winning record vs. ISU, losses to FCS teams at home, and many losses to double-digit dogs?
Recruiting Theory v. Reality
- Thread starter ChosenChildren
- Start date
I've been a Hawkeye fan all my life. I don't remember a time when I heard anybody in the Iowa athletic programs say, "damn, it's easy to recruit at Iowa!" We have no problem getting all the 4* & 5* athletes we need to compete for NCs every year. Iowa has had some great coaches and some great players in all sports. That as resulted in some great teams. Even after those great years recruiting remained difficult. In theory it should have been easier but in reality it wasn't.
Fact: It will never be easy to recruit at Iowa.
Fact: It will never be easy to recruit at Iowa.
Knight78
Well-Known Member
Oh, you mean the one who plays for pass-happy Texas Tech who was healthy all season and had one less catch than Matt Vandeberg this past season? Is THAT the one you're talking about?
The second WR/RB that's transferring was lost in the shuffle. Did you want him to get reps ahead of Daniels or Wadley this year?
The third one (who eventually transferred to Grandview College) had off the field issues and left because of them, not because of what Kirk did or didn't do. No coach can be with his players to stop them from questionable behavior 24/7. I'm sorry that you didn't know that. If you are a parent, you would understand that you can't keep watch on your kid 24/7. If you are a parent and you don't understand this, I am sorry for you.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Ummm no just a question.
Btw, I don't think Iowa is a bad program. I think it is highly dysfunctional though.
I don't think KF looks for good stories necessarily. I just think he looks for players he realistically thinks Iowa can get. Here's the analogy I was going to present to Playmaker (no, it's not perfect):
In HS, when a guy wants to go to Homecoming or Prom, he decides who is going to ask. If the guy is popular/athletic/football team, etc., he can ask anyone and they might go. He doesn't worry about anyone saying no (again, hyperbole).
If you are not quite that level (not Mr. Popular, athlete, etc.), you don't waste your time asking the Homecoming Queen candidate or the cheerleader, you ask someone who you think might say yes.
For Iowa recruiting, I think they set their sights on certain types of player (as you mentioned) but also don't try to shoot too high and waste their time dealing with/visiting recruits that will never come here. Now, you can say you never get the recruits you never try for. However, with a set timeframe, you can't try for everyone and hope they knock down your door to come.
Now, with the Texas recruits that didn't come here, they actually had the popular, good-looking girl say yes to the dance invite. However, they told her not to date anyone else and she didn't listen. It's a bit maddening, but when you have low self-esteem (or don't think you have a blue blood team), you don't like when they look around a bit.
That's a long way of saying I don't think that the Iowa staff (KF in particular) is lazy or wants 'good stories'. They feel they are realistically looking for players who will say yes. The same reason normal guys in HS don't ask every girl that's above him in status, etc. until one says yes.
Final point - Oliver Martin is the good looking girl that you knew growing up and she lives just down the block from you. You didn't really notice her right away, but when she became popular, you decided to ask her. Well, once one of the popular guys asked her, now she is going to decide whether to go with the popular choice or the familiar choice down the block.
The core issue is Kirk's belief in what can and can't be done at Iowa on the recruiting front. Normally it's not a good thing to remain static in your thinking when leading an enterprise or before you know it your competition begins to define your market for you. I get the feeling there are a number of programs in the BIG that hope Iowa continues as is in their approach to recruiting.
Who said it was easy? Outside of a few schools, recruiting isn't easy anywhere. It's more difficult here because we have a stick in the mud for a head coach who should have retired or moved on a long time ago when the game passed him by. He's convinced everyone that we're just lowly Iowa, and its worked. Even the talented recruits believe that. What you see in our low rated recruiting classes reflect that attitude. Look at the guys we are trying to get to commit at the end here. Fall backs of the fall backs that we failed to get.
Robowe
Well-Known Member
Can't argue with this.
That's a great way of putting it. We can only hope Brian will be helping shake things up going forward. I wonder if the no visit policy will be revisited going forward too.. To bring what ended up being such a negative thing upon themselves just really really hurts. Control what you can right? Well that's a pretty controllable thing...
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Actually, Ferentz has a 102-54 record against all of those "other" teams, for a winning percentage of 64%. That is your answer.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
What is crazy is even with ALL THE WARTS, Iowa is still the 19th most winning P5 team over the last 15 years. Could it be higher, and do I wish we wouldn't lose to ISU and other teams we should beat? Sure, and honestly KF loses way too often to teams he shouldn't.
To put it in perspective though, lets say Iowa should have beating ISU the 6 times they lost to them over the last 15 years (yes, KF is 9-6 vs them over the last 15 years). Honestly it isn't fair to say that Iowa should beat ISU 15 out of 15 times, but lets roll with it. Lets add 6 wins, and lets say that Iowa shouldn't have lost 9 other times as well (some upsets are just going to happen, to think otherwise is just being idiotic). So lets say Iowa had 15 more wins over 15 years. That would put Iowa at a 72% winning% and the 9th best winning % over the last 15 years. Instead while losing 1 game a year they shouldn't they are at the 19th best P5 winning%
Just need some good salesman to show Kirk what can be done. The right hire/s could go a long ways in improving our fortunes fairly quickly. As I look at what happened during the entire second half of our recruiting season I would suggest the entire process should be open to review......so many missed opportunities. It's ripe for some new input.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
That is partially correct. The variable that you leave out is the fact that there are many more good football players now than "back in the day."
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
A few of the variables, in no particular order, when it comes to "successful recruiting."
1. Distance from a recruit's home to the school recruiting him.
2. Parental influence (see #1).
3. Analysis by the coaching staff as to needs at various positions.
4. The recruit's ability to be enrolled from an academic standpoint.
5. The recruit's direction toward a particular major.
6. Personal connection to the school, i.e., relatives, friends, legacy.
7. Number of times a recruit can visit your campus...recall that only 1 official, expenses paid visit is allowed.
(see #1)
8. How much time and effort a coaching staff actually commits to a recruit.
9. Personality match between the major recruiter and the recruit.
10. Stability of the coaching staff (look at the number of de-commits when a coaching change occurs)
11. Familiarity over a historical time period in the recruit's life with the school recruiting him, i.e., how familiar is a typical California recruit with Iowa City and the University of Iowa?
12. The recruiting team's record, probably short term...these are kids.
13. The character checks done by the coaching staff on the recruit.
14. The maturity of the recruit when a difficult decision faces him. (see #2)
15. A bunch of other stuff, called additional intervening variables, that we cannot even guess about.
Point is? Assign numerical values to each of the above and whatever else you can think of and then you will see why I just cannot figure out a neat formula for success/failure in the recruiting world. Can you? I am just not a big believer in "our coaching staff is lousy at recruiting."
1. Distance from a recruit's home to the school recruiting him.
2. Parental influence (see #1).
3. Analysis by the coaching staff as to needs at various positions.
4. The recruit's ability to be enrolled from an academic standpoint.
5. The recruit's direction toward a particular major.
6. Personal connection to the school, i.e., relatives, friends, legacy.
7. Number of times a recruit can visit your campus...recall that only 1 official, expenses paid visit is allowed.
(see #1)
8. How much time and effort a coaching staff actually commits to a recruit.
9. Personality match between the major recruiter and the recruit.
10. Stability of the coaching staff (look at the number of de-commits when a coaching change occurs)
11. Familiarity over a historical time period in the recruit's life with the school recruiting him, i.e., how familiar is a typical California recruit with Iowa City and the University of Iowa?
12. The recruiting team's record, probably short term...these are kids.
13. The character checks done by the coaching staff on the recruit.
14. The maturity of the recruit when a difficult decision faces him. (see #2)
15. A bunch of other stuff, called additional intervening variables, that we cannot even guess about.
Point is? Assign numerical values to each of the above and whatever else you can think of and then you will see why I just cannot figure out a neat formula for success/failure in the recruiting world. Can you? I am just not a big believer in "our coaching staff is lousy at recruiting."
MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
Exactly this.
BigD
Well-Known Member
I wish we could recruit better, but ISU is more like .300 football.
That possibility could be changing with their current coach and if it does will they be willing to pay what it takes to keep a good coach?
MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
What "actually"? That didn't answer the question. Wisconsin has passed us by because they don't lose those type of games I mentioned.
Last edited:
IMO, there are a few people on this board that think it is, and a new coach will magically solve that problem, a la Minnesota. It's really worked for them the last 15 years and the last 5 coaches.
I agree with what you said about KF and his coaching philosophy. I have been saying that for a long time now. I would love to see a young coach with some new ideas about how you open up the offense and get a DC that can think past a zone defense. Bend but don't break doesn't work against the really good football teams. The teams you have to beat to get past the secondary bowl games.
Another opinion, KF made one fatal coaching mistake. When he got Iowa back in the game and was getting those 5* recruits looking at Iowa, he didn't expand the program. He stayed with the old school stuff and we are stuck in that rut right now.
It's called taking advantage of your opportunities. Wisky is a great example of a program that does, Iowa is a great example of a program that doesn't. As long as KF is head coach there is no reason to believe or suspect that this will change. Iowa football as it stands right now is stale and boring. Can you imagine the recruiting class this year if it weren't for legacy recruits? Think about that for a few minutes.
earlkoppelman
Well-Known Member
Too hard and unnessary.several like 2 4 stars per class might have made a difference.but we are hereTODAY.NEED RECEIVERS.CAP CAN PAINT A GREAT STORY NO? He can sell salt to the ocean.IOWA SURFER OPINION ONLY.
