Rivals Recruiting Rankings

[clicheusername3]

I am more interested to see where we rank in the conference come March than I am where our recruiting class ranks in June. Lots of teams with more prestigous recruiting classes watched Butler and VCU make it to the final 4 last year. We are entering year two of a complete rebuild and a get like Guerrero would have been huge for the program, but IMO, McCaffrey and staff did a respectable job without much recent success to sell.

Love this argument...Lots of teams more prestigious than Butler and VCU also play in real conferences where its almost as much of an achievement to make the top 3 through a grueling conference schedule as it is getting to the Final Four.

 

[sportstalent]

Love this argument...Lots of teams more prestigious than Butler and VCU also play in real conferences where its almost as much of an achievement to make the top 3 through a grueling conference schedule as it is getting to the Final Four.

Disagree, I don't think a team like Pitt would turn down a Final Four berth and feel better about themselves winning the Big East.

Final Four berths and NCAA Championship games are much more prestigeous than placing 3rd in a difficult conference.

The Power Six schools have the argument that it should be more prestigious to play a tough schedule and all that crap. However, the NCAA tournament is the stage that the VCU/Butler/Gonzaga/George Mason's of the world have to prove themselves.

I have a lot of respect for the mid-majors that make the Final Four or the Championship game, even the Elite Eight teams. They don't get the respect that they deserve and should get more berths.

 

[clicheusername3]

Disagree, I don't think a team like Pitt would turn down a Final Four berth and feel better about themselves winning the Big East.

Final Four berths and NCAA Championship games are much more prestigeous than placing 3rd in a difficult conference.

The Power Six schools have the argument that it should be more prestigious to play a tough schedule and all that crap. However, the NCAA tournament is the stage that the VCU/Butler/Gonzaga/George Mason's of the world have to prove themselves.

I have a lot of respect for the mid-majors that make the Final Four or the Championship game, even the Elite Eight teams. They don't get the respect that they deserve and should get more berths.

I'm not talking about prestige or what a school would take...I'm talking about the difficulty of each feat. The chances of going 12-4 or whatever in conference as opposed to winning 4 one offs in a row.

 

[sportstalent]

I'm not talking about prestige or what a school would take...I'm talking about the difficulty of each feat. The chances of going 12-4 or whatever in conference as opposed to winning 4 one offs in a row.

Question: What is more difficult, being an 8 or lower seed and going to Final Four, playing the highest seed possible in each round, or finishing 3rd or so in the Big East. I know your answer, but each is equally impressive to me.
My problem with the argument of "it's tougher to win the Big East than go to the Final Four." is that why isn't the Final Four ruled by that conference if there is so much depth and they get so many teams in the field? Shouldn't the Sweet 16 on down be dominated by the conference with the most bids, or by all Power Six conference teams if they are so superior?
There are so many arguments on the subject, but I am a HUGE advocate of the mid-major teams even if they were to knock a bubble team out and it is Iowa. There are mid-major teams that have inflated records because of their leagues, but every year there is at least one mid-major that would finish in the top 4 or 5 of a Power Six conference, maybe win it, and still have the same success in the NCAA tournament. I say that, but I have zero basis, just as there is zero basis to say it is more difficult to say it is more difficult to win 4 games in the Tournament...we just have opinions. Quite frankly, I would like to see Iowa try and play teams like Gonzaga, Missouri State, Butler, VCU, George Mason, Xavier, Dayton, Temple and others than SIU-Edwardsville.

 

[Hawkstrat]

Do you think that Fran would have turned ANY of those guys away had they wanted to wear the Black and Gold? I don't.

Stupid hypothetical, all but two are transferring from Big Ten schools, and out of those two, Clyburn is the only one I would want on Iowa's roster- but I wouldn't trade anyone on Iowa's current roster for him, and Anthony Booker just sucks, very unproductive.

 

[deanvogs]

Yep - You drew me (ISU fan) in...

Let me preface this by saying that I think Fran is doing a great job. You'd probably agree that Iowa basketball hasn't been very good recently. Fran is doing what he needs to do and will have you guys back in no time. I watched some Hawk bball last year and it appeared that you guys IMPROVED throughout the year. I remember thinking, "now that's a well coached team" after the Purdue game.

All that said, I still don't understand why you think what Hoiberg is doing is "FAIL" if our freshmen don't produce right away... You do realize that with the transfers playing our freshmen won't see the minutes that your guys will... so comparing "production" amongst freshmen is a moot point, right?

Fred RECRUITED those transfers you dismiss as irrelevant. Why does "production" from high school guys count but not from the transfers? It's not like Allen, White, Booker, Babb, Lucious, and Clyborn just decided to come to ISU on a whim. Hoiberg had to RECRUIT these guys to ISU... same as getting a freshman. We'll see how they play this fall.

Do you think that Fran would have turned ANY of those guys away had they wanted to wear the Black and Gold? I don't.

Fred did everything in his power to bring in talent and win ballgames as soon as possible because winning will give him a sales pitch to high school guys. He took four transfers his first year and two the next. My bet is that we won't see more than that going forward. Heck, I'm fine with banking a scholly every year till the spring so transfers can be brought in if they fit a need. No different than recruiting a Juco.

If given the option, would you trade rosters with ISU? Honest question, because it seems to be your argument that you wouldn't.

**Edit** I don't think Fred is going to bring anybody else in for this year. Just a gut feeling, but IF he did it would be a 4 or 5.

I wouldn't trade rosters with ISU at all. Do I want a one year Jake Anderson, Allen, or Lucious? Not at all. Give me White, Oglesby, Basabe, or Olesini any day. Would I want a Babb, Clyborn, or White? Sure, a two year player, I would want a few of those to balance my roster, like a Cartwright and Hubbard.

Fred will have Sledge, Gibson, and Naing. Three HS players is all. Signing Jake Anderson, Allen, and Lucious, all came at the expense of bringing in a HS kid. All three get to play one year.....At least some of the others I understand, and they get at least two years Babb, Clyborn, and White I can see.

The point is all these kids take up a schollie that now can't be given to a HS kid. You are only prolonging the rebuilding. We will see how it all shakes out. Could it be that they win this year, then recruiting is then easier, and that leads to a stable program? Sure, that could happen. At some point though, Fred as to turn away from the 7-3 transfer to HS kids equation to become a stable, steady program.

Also if you think recruiting a transfer or kid kicked off the team is the same as recruiting a HS kid, then you just don't know what you are talking about. Most transfers or kids kicked off teams spend 2 months tops shopping for a program. With a HS kid, 2 months isn't even a good start. You usually don't have a shot at a kid if you aren't in on him as a JR., or even earlier sometimes. Of course Fred got Allen, Babb, Lucious, White, Anderson, Clyborn, even Gibson to sign....but it took far, far, far less time, and commitment from the ISU staff than a HS signing takes.

 

[JoeHawki]

I think the key is, to recruit the best kids you can. Get signed the best that are willing to play for Iowa. As someone said they have to start somewhere. So get the most out of the guys who have. With those guys win the games you are supposed to win, win half of your 50/50 games, and steal a couple of wins, against team you have no business beating. If they do that for a couple of years, fans will get excited. And the better recruits will start to take notice. Sign a couple of them and win a few more games, then more good recruits will sign, and before you know it, you have a team making the ncaas every year.

 

[tm3308]

Yep - You drew me (ISU fan) in...

Let me preface this by saying that I think Fran is doing a great job. You'd probably agree that Iowa basketball hasn't been very good recently. Fran is doing what he needs to do and will have you guys back in no time. I watched some Hawk bball last year and it appeared that you guys IMPROVED throughout the year. I remember thinking, "now that's a well coached team" after the Purdue game.

All that said, I still don't understand why you think what Hoiberg is doing is "FAIL" if our freshmen don't produce right away... You do realize that with the transfers playing our freshmen won't see the minutes that your guys will... so comparing "production" amongst freshmen is a moot point, right?

Fred RECRUITED those transfers you dismiss as irrelevant. Why does "production" from high school guys count but not from the transfers? It's not like Allen, White, Booker, Babb, Lucious, and Clyborn just decided to come to ISU on a whim. Hoiberg had to RECRUIT these guys to ISU... same as getting a freshman. We'll see how they play this fall.

Do you think that Fran would have turned ANY of those guys away had they wanted to wear the Black and Gold? I don't.

Fred did everything in his power to bring in talent and win ballgames as soon as possible because winning will give him a sales pitch to high school guys. He took four transfers his first year and two the next. My bet is that we won't see more than that going forward. Heck, I'm fine with banking a scholly every year till the spring so transfers can be brought in if they fit a need. No different than recruiting a Juco.

If given the option, would you trade rosters with ISU? Honest question, because it seems to be your argument that you wouldn't.

**Edit** I don't think Fred is going to bring anybody else in for this year. Just a gut feeling, but IF he did it would be a 4 or 5.

I agree with this for the most part. But, some of the guys that Hoiberg brought in were pursued by some of the cream of the crop in college basketball when they were in high school. That wasn't really the case this time around. It's much harder to recruit a 4/5-star recruit out of high school who has Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc. knocking on the door, than it is to recruit a talented transfer. The bluebloods don't need to take on transfers, in most cases. Particularly when there may be potential character concerns (White/Lucious).

I'm not saying Hoiberg didn't recruit those guys to ISU. But there is no denying that recruiting very talented transfer is quite a bit easier than recruiting a very talented high school senior.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Basabe and Cartwright came aboard with little fanfare last year as well. They turned out to be a rather pleasant surprise in the end. I think I will remain optimistic that Coach McCaffery knows what he is doing and can spot basketball talent.

That's what I'm hanging my hat on as far as the difference between Lickliter and McCaffery's recruiting. On the surface, you would look at the star ratings and think that we will end up with the same results that we had under Lickliter. But you look at Basabe and Cartwright, and it appears that McCaffery has an eye for overlooked talent, so I will go with the assumption that Fran also likes the players he's got coming in next year.

I'm under no delusion that we just signed the Fab 5, but I think we'll end up with better talent very soon than we had under Lickliter. At a minimum, more athleticism if not much else. I think better times are ahead.

If we start winning more, then we will have a better shot at the recruits that get more attention. For right now, that's a tough road to hoe.

 

[sportstalent]

That's what I'm hanging my hat on as far as the difference between Lickliter and McCaffery's recruiting. On the surface, you would look at the star ratings and think that we will end up with the same results that we had under Lickliter. But you look at Basabe and Cartwright, and it appears that McCaffery has an eye for overlooked talent, so I will go with the assumption that Fran also likes the players he's got coming in next year.

I'm under no delusion that we just signed the Fab 5, but I think we'll end up with better talent very soon than we had under Lickliter. At a minimum, more athleticism if not much else. I think better times are ahead.

If we start winning more, then we will have a better shot at the recruits that get more attention. For right now, that's a tough road to hoe.

Agree, but I will take it a step further; star rankings don't matter to me in a lot of cases, look at the results to date. It is more than apparent that Fran is brining in much better talent/players/athleticism than the previous regime. What I do like about the kids Iowa is brining in, they have something to prove, no real fanfare as someone posted earlier, so they are hungry to show people what they can do. This type of mentality will get Iowa back sooner rather than have more talented kids that feel they have nothing to prove, its about the work these kids are putting in that will make all of us proud of Iowa again. By no means am I saying Iowa isn't bringing in kids that can't play in the Big Ten, but the ranking behind their names may not scare anyone and that is okay. Look at how many teams Iowa put a scare into and beat with the "talentless" roster that they had. Mentality and work ethic are two attributes that are lost in some of today's kids, but those are the two attributes all Iowa's recruits seem to have at this point. There are a lot of talented kids that fit this mold, it seems this staff targets them.
Think about this: When we all watch the NCAA tournament, how many of those really, really good mid-major kids do you wish Iowa had? Those are the players Iowa is coveting and you put a buch of them together and you will have a really good team. Yeah, there are going to be some misses, but I will lay odds that the misses will still be fun to watch because of how hard they play and can carve out a niche on the team and still contribute.
There is an identity that has been lacking in Iowa baskeball for over a decade, Fran is bringing it back.
Do I wish Iowa could bring in a Top 15 to 25 class every year, I would be an idiot to say no. However, putting a group of kids on the floor that is hungry to prove themselves is not the worst thing in the world and if they turn out like Melsahn and Bryce, well, the rest will be history.

 

[H8IAST8]

YIKES! Indiana with 3 Top50 recruits for 2012.

 

[jo12208]

Going to the Final Four is way more impressive than finishing in the top three of a power conference. There shouldn't be any question about that.

Turning your roster over every couple of years is bad and less stable? I guess maybe someone needs to tell NC, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. I guess they need to recruit kids that will stay for four years.

It is a new day and age in recruiting. Every year there are several highly rated kids that transfer from a program and will help teams. I am still surprised at the number of highly rated kids that sign with a power program just to sit on the bench.

 

[YellowSnow]

I agree with this for the most part. But, some of the guys that Hoiberg brought in were pursued by some of the cream of the crop in college basketball when they were in high school. That wasn't really the case this time around. It's much harder to recruit a 4/5-star recruit out of high school who has Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc. knocking on the door, than it is to recruit a talented transfer. The bluebloods don't need to take on transfers, in most cases. Particularly when there may be potential character concerns (White/Lucious).

I'm not saying Hoiberg didn't recruit those guys to ISU. But there is no denying that recruiting very talented transfer is quite a bit easier than recruiting a very talented high school senior.

Yes, you are correct. There is certainly less competition for transfers as compared to when they were originally recruited out of high school. To further your point, ISU was in on Clyborn and White earlier but didn't land them the first time. That, no doubt, helped the second time around, but lends to your point that the competition is so much more fierce for high school guys.

In my opinion, it stands to reason that it isn't "fail" (as another poster said) to recruit transfer players, especially highly regarded ones who are helping to fill roster holes and balance classes. The reduced competition itself being motivation enough to do so. I don't think people give Hoiberg enough credit on this whole thing. We (ISU) could have a cobbled together collection of spring high school recruits and juco's right now... McDermott style...

 

[sportstalent]

Turning your roster over every couple of years is bad and less stable? I guess maybe someone needs to tell NC, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. I guess they need to recruit kids that will stay for four years.[\QUOTE]

It is a bad thing if you are not an elite program, I think Iowa has proven that for more than a few years, at least 10. Yes, there is short term success and it might go about 3 years, but then there is a dropoff. It depends if the coach is still around to how significant that dropoff becomes.
Coaches that have a reputation for taking transfers or brining in a lot of JUCO kids and transfers followed up by a coach that focuses more on freshman is not an ideal situation.
Take a look at Cincinnati and how long it has taken them to go from Huggins to today by changing that whole philosophy. The incoming coach has to recognize the situation that they are walking into and gradually change, not just draw the line in the sand and force a change in one offseason.

 

[1hawkeye1]

I'm guessing you would give a flying **** if they were 5 stars

I would begin counting my chickens, yes. But alas, they are not.