Rob How many current players were committed to other teams?

deanvogs said:
Nope, I'm done with Vin, errrr I mean 56. Iowa does have a policy of "no visits" and it works well to keep 99% of kids from taking them. There are certainly examples of exceptions though with Iowa. Higdon went to Michigan, Eno took a Visit to Mizzu, Calloway to Texas, Nebraska and Arkansas. Fant unoffically visited Nebraska, but didn't officially visit Minnesota, pretty sure Ott visited Nebraska as a Iowa Verbal, but don't know if that was an official or just a visit. I'm sure there have been others as well. As Rob said early on, he would be surprised if an offer was pulled because of a visit, and I agree with Rob on that.
Click to expand...

5656 is Vint? I would never have put that together in a million years.
 
deanvogs said:
I think it is hypocritical to only NOW get all butt hurt over the Iowa policy. It has been this way for years, they have always gone after other verbal commits. Only now are posters having a hissy fit about "hypocritical policies". Nobody cared before when Iowa flipped players before.

Oh, what outlet reported that Calloway's offer is pulled? If it is pulled was it pulled IMMEDIATELY after Calloway when to the Texas vs ND game the opening weekend of college football? Was his offer pulled after he visited Arkansas or after Nebraska?

Rob said it early in this whole thing. It was be very unlike Iowa to pull an offer SOLELY for a visit. Yes they have that policy, but Iowa has "looked the other way" on occasions in the past. On the other hand Iowa does (smartly and correctly) use pressure and leverage to keep verbals from taking other visits. This is smart because other schools are recruiting our Verbals very, very aggressively, and the one card we do hold in our hand is they say they want to come to Iowa. Well you use that to keep them off other campus, it is only smart recruiting. And don't we want our coaches to be aggressive and do what they can to bring in the players they think are good players?
Click to expand...


So we have a good policy in place in which staff will on occasion "look the other way". If not going to be enforced all the time seems like a stupid policy to me. Just my opinion.

We're also using this policy to apply pressure and leverage to keep verbals from taking other visits. This is the problem I have. The policy is used as a form of power the staff holds over the players. We hear the staff talk all the time about recruiting high quality kids with "great character", but its only viewed as such in a business sense. IF they really felt that way about the kids they're bringing in then there'd be a trust factor. You don't use power to keep an individual that you trust in check; mutual respect can/should go along way. The problem is the policy is hypocritical on multiple levels.
 
kicker22 said:
So we have a good policy in place in which staff will on occasion "look the other way". If not going to be enforced all the time seems like a stupid policy to me. Just my opinion.

We're also using this policy to apply pressure and leverage to keep verbals from taking other visits. This is the problem I have. The policy is used as a form of power the staff holds over the players. We hear the staff talk all the time about recruiting high quality kids with "great character", but its only viewed as such in a business sense. IF they really felt that way about the kids they're bringing in then there'd be a trust factor. You don't use power to keep an individual that you trust in check; mutual respect can/should go along way. The problem is the policy is hypocritical on multiple levels.
Click to expand...

The players are free to decide what they want to do. This is a two way street, if players want to visit other schools, they are free to do so, no matter what Iowa says or wants. As others have said Eno and Calloway hold plenty of leverage. Hankins who has a Michigan offer and was going to visit Michigan has just as much "leverage" as Iowa does.

To pretend that these kids don't have other options/leverage themselves is kind of silly. They are free to do what they want. The point is they like Iowa, they want to come to Iowa, but then they also want to check out other schools? Of course Iowa should do everything they can to keep that from happening, and keep them committed. You also find out just how much they want to come to Iowa if they are actually interested enough in another school to potentially risk their spot at Iowa. It is a good way to then gauge where recruits are at and see if they need to start recruiting again for that spot.
 
trj said:
5656 is Vint? I would never have put that together in a million years.
Click to expand...

No he's not. I actually don't even know who Vin is. Dean just doesn't like me because I call him out when he says ridiculous things. I think most of the time he's a good poster though but he usually defends KF no matter what
 
deanvogs said:
The players are free to decide what they want to do. This is a two way street, if players want to visit other schools, they are free to do so, no matter what Iowa says or wants. As others have said Eno and Calloway hold plenty of leverage. Hankins who has a Michigan offer and was going to visit Michigan has just as much "leverage" as Iowa does.

To pretend that these kids don't have other options/leverage themselves is kind of silly. They are free to do what they want. The point is they like Iowa, they want to come to Iowa, but then they also want to check out other schools? Of course Iowa should do everything they can to keep that from happening, and keep them committed. You also find out just how much they want to come to Iowa if they are actually interested enough in another school to potentially risk their spot at Iowa. It is a good way to then gauge where recruits are at and see if they need to start recruiting again for that spot.
Click to expand...


I agree about the players having leverage too, but I just think if they are using the "no visit" policy as a display of power its a mistake. Why not remove the policy all together and focus on continuing to recruit the player after they've committed in hopes of keeping a commitment. I think this would be much more effective way of establishing and improving a relationship based on mutual respect for the more elite targets.
 
Hawk5656 said:
No he's not. I actually don't even know who Vin is. Dean just doesn't like me because I call him out when he says ridiculous things. I think most of the time he's a good poster though but he usually defends KF no matter what
Click to expand...

I like you just fine 56, you just annoy me at times.

I don't defend KF no matter what, I defend him when the criticism is over the top silly. The whole recruiting thing is just bonkers. I mean people get so wrapped up in the decisions of a 17 year old it is crazy to me. Everyone loses players, Michigan and Harbaugh lost 3 4* kids in one week, with one of the reasons being they sent a kid a thank you note for coming on a visit when he didn't or some crap like that. Meyer lost a 4* kid because he didn't even recognize him on a visit.

I follow recruiting more as much as anyone on this board outside Rob I'd bet. Yet I don't get my hopes and prayers all worked up over some 17 year old kid who has yet to take a snap of college football. I guess it is just funny to me that people who obviously pay very little attention to this stuff are all bent out of shape acting like KF sucks and only KF loses recruits. People just bitch to bitch because we are 5-3, that is the bottom line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eda
kicker22 said:
I agree about the players having leverage too, but I just think if they are using the "no visit" policy as a display of power its a mistake. Why not remove the policy all together and focus on continuing to recruit the player after they've committed in hopes of keeping a commitment. I think this would be much more effective way of establishing and improving a relationship based on mutual respect for the more elite targets.
Click to expand...

The kids are getting blitzed by other coaches recruiting them, it is non stop up until signing day. Why in the world would we make those opposing coaches jobs EASIER by letting them go on visits???? That makes ZERO sense. We aren't Michigan/Ohio St./Bama that has 4* backup plans for the 4*/5* verbals.

Iowa learns exactly where a kid is at if they decide to take a visit with the policy they have. Sometimes that means they keep the offer in place (Higdon), Eno after Mizzu visit etc. Sometimes that means they pull the offer (Eno sometime after ASU visit). Keep in mind you are talking about kids who we have supposedly won the recruiting battle for already. Iowa is clear that they need to have their minds made up, and if they aren't don't verbal to them.

Please explain to me what Iowa gains but not trying to keep the kids verbally committed from visiting other schools? Do we sign Stanley if he buckles to Wisconsin pressure and visits? Do we sign Lattimore if he decides to keep all his friends happy and visits MSU? Do we sign Fant if he goes up to Minnesota for an official visit?

If you could explain the upshot to willing letting verbal commits to visit other school, I'm opening to listening to it. This touchy feely, well it will just harbor more respect is doesn't compute with me. You think Michigan/OSU/Bama are recruiting all touchy feely I want you to feel good, or are they freaking boss ass predators? If you wanna swim with the sharks, pull up your big boy pants, and get it on, don't be all meek and mild. An Iowa scholarship is worth a whole hell of a lot, act like it is and if they wanna look around explain to them if they **** around Iowa will just move on without them. That is called using the leverage that they do have, not being all meek and mild letting another predator have an even better shot at landings Iowa's commits.
 
deanvogs said:
The kids are getting blitzed by other coaches recruiting them, it is non stop up until signing day. Why in the world would we make those opposing coaches jobs EASIER by letting them go on visits???? That makes ZERO sense. We aren't Michigan/Ohio St./Bama that has 4* backup plans for the 4*/5* verbals.

Iowa learns exactly where a kid is at if they decide to take a visit with the policy they have. Sometimes that means they keep the offer in place (Higdon), Eno after Mizzu visit etc. Sometimes that means they pull the offer (Eno sometime after ASU visit). Keep in mind you are talking about kids who we have supposedly won the recruiting battle for already. Iowa is clear that they need to have their minds made up, and if they aren't don't verbal to them.

Please explain to me what Iowa gains but not trying to keep the kids verbally committed from visiting other schools? Do we sign Stanley if he buckles to Wisconsin pressure and visits? Do we sign Lattimore if he decides to keep all his friends happy and visits MSU? Do we sign Fant if he goes up to Minnesota for an official visit?

If you could explain the upshot to willing letting verbal commits to visit other school, I'm opening to listening to it. This touchy feely, well it will just harbor more respect is doesn't compute with me. You think Michigan/OSU/Bama are recruiting all touchy feely I want you to feel good, or are they freaking boss ass predators? If you wanna swim with the sharks, pull up your big boy pants, and get it on, don't be all meek and mild. An Iowa scholarship is worth a whole hell of a lot, act like it is and if they wanna look around explain to them if they **** around Iowa will just move on without them. That is called using the leverage that they do have, not being all meek and mild letting another predator have an even better shot at landings Iowa's commits.
Click to expand...

The problem is were not Michigan/OSU/Bama. Sure we could play hardball with an elite if we had other elites to fall back on if/when we pulled the plug on them. The problem is we don't have the leverage at all because we don't have 4*s swooping in to pick up the offer that we just pulled.

I get it that an Iowa scholarship is worth a hell of a lot, but you don't see a problem losing a 4* verbal and replacing him with a 2-3 star kid who may have a few Power 5 offers. I'm not saying we won't ever lose recruits to other schools, but if Iowa is the institution that the coaches have these players believing it is then maybe we retain more than you think.

As you touched on were not Michigan/OSU/or Bama. Something the coaches said, or the recruit experienced, caught the attention of these recruits and pulled them in, in the first place. As I've stated a dozen times in the past I simply don't see us gaining anything due to pulling an offer for a visit to another program. If we truly want to believe we are a top notch institution / program than we have to start acting like it. IMO maintaining such a policy shows off a programs insecurity and inferiority.
 
Last edited:
kicker22 said:
The problem is were not Michigan/OSU/Bama. Sure we could play hardball with an elite if we had other elites to fall back on if/when we pulled the plug on them. The problem is we don't have the leverage at all because we don't have 4*s swooping in to pick up the offer that we just pulled.

I get it that an Iowa scholarship is worth a hell of a lot, but you don't see a problem losing a 4* verbal and replacing him with a 2-3 star kid who may have a few Power 5 offers. I'm not saying we won't ever lose recruits to other schools, but if Iowa is the institution that the coaches have these players believing it is then maybe we retain more than you think.

As you touched on were not Michigan/OSU/or Bama. Something the coaches said, or the recruit experienced, caught the attention of these recruits and pulled them in, in the first place. As I've stated a dozen times in the past I simply don't see us gaining anything due to pulling an offer for a visit to another program. If we truly want to believe we are a top notch institution / program than we have to start acting like it. IMO maintaining such a policy shows off a programs insecurity and inferiority.
Click to expand...

What you perceive as insecurity and inferiority Other posters are claiming that KF ego cost us Eno? Which is it, is it "Ego" or inferiority, cause it can't be both?

Bottom line is Michigan/OSU/Bama have as many or more decommitments than Iowa, and they are blue bloods and have a policy that you think we should have. I think it would be a bloodbath of decommits if Iowa had a policy like Michigan/OSU/Bama because we ARENT them, and if they lose recruits doing that, it would be 100x worse for Iowa.
 
deanvogs said:
I think it is hypocritical to only NOW get all butt hurt over the Iowa policy. It has been this way for years, they have always gone after other verbal commits. Only now are posters having a hissy fit about "hypocritical policies". Nobody cared before when Iowa flipped players before.
Click to expand...

Maybe because I wan't fully aware of the hypocrisy until now.
 
GotTimDodge said:
Maybe because I wan't fully aware of the hypocrisy until now.
Click to expand...

Or it could be you are just a hypocrite yourself. It didn't bother you when we were flipping recruits and now only bothers you because we lost one.....that in many circles is considered hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
deanvogs said:
What you perceive as insecurity and inferiority Other posters are claiming that KF ego cost us Eno? Which is it, is it "Ego" or inferiority, cause it can't be both?

Bottom line is Michigan/OSU/Bama have as many or more decommitments than Iowa, and they are blue bloods and have a policy that you think we should have. I think it would be a bloodbath of decommits if Iowa had a policy like Michigan/OSU/Bama because we ARENT them, and if they lose recruits doing that, it would be 100x worse for Iowa.
Click to expand...

I do perceive it as an attitude of insecurity and inferiority, but at the same time I also see it as KF being stubborn and ego driven. I think its a policy put in place for fear that he may not be able to compete with the other programs around the nation and therefore is afraid of losing these players in the event they visit other schools. I also think he's stubborn by holding on to such a ridiculous policy put in place to create leverage; giving him additional power over his recruits.

Explain then, why it couldn't be both a factor of his ego refusing to give up that power by keeping the policy in place (which was a primary factor in Eno's commitment being pulled) as well as an insecurity that KF feared other programs may have more to offer which could sway Eno's decision. I see no reason why the two theories couldn't go hand in hand.

Edit: I should add that I don't mind the recruits we're bring in and think our staff, for the most part does a very good job of developing talent. That said though I would love to see these "diamond in rough guys" and feel good stories be the guys that are 3rd and fourth stringers that are getting chances for meaningful minutes due to injuries or making the most of limited opportunities. While it makes for a great story, I think its a slap in the face to our recruiting that walk-ons (regardless of how hard they work) are winning positions from the guys that are being awarded scholarships and that we're spending a great deal of time recruiting.

And while I see your point on the bluebloods and the policy they have in place, but again the fact is we may have some decommit, but at the same time we currently have a zero percent chance of landing Eno, because of this situation. I'm saying if we want to consider ourselves elites, as a program and university, we have to act like it. Based on the system we have now, what difference would it make if we swing and miss on 4* recruits and end up replacing them with mid-major commits. Its no different than what we are doing now, but at least that way we'd be able to say we swung and missed rather than saying we never stepped up to bat against the big boys.
 
Last edited:
kicker22 said:
I do perceive it as an attitude of insecurity and inferiority, but at the same time I also see it as KF being stubborn and ego driven. I think its a policy put in place for fear that he may not be able to compete with the other programs around the nation and therefore is afraid of losing these players in the event they visit other schools. I also think he's stubborn by holding on to such a ridiculous policy put in place to create leverage; giving him additional power over his recruits.

Explain then, why it couldn't be both a factor of his ego refusing to give up that power by keeping the policy in place (which was a primary factor in Eno's commitment being pulled) as well as an insecurity that KF feared other programs may have more to offer which could sway Eno's decision. I see no reason why the two theories couldn't go hand in hand.

Edit: I should add that I don't mind the recruits we're bring in and think our staff, for the most part does a very good job of developing talent. That said though I would love to see these "diamond in rough guys" and feel good stories be the guys that are 3rd and fourth stringers that are getting chances for meaningful minutes due to injuries or making the most of limited opportunities. While it makes for a great story, I think its a slap in the face to our recruiting that walk-ons (regardless of how hard they work) are winning positions from the guys that are being awarded scholarships and that we're spending a great deal of time recruiting.

And while I see your point on the bluebloods and the policy they have in place, but again the fact is we may have some decommit, but at the same time we currently have a zero percent chance of landing Eno, because of this situation. I'm saying if we want to consider ourselves elites, as a program and university, we have to act like it. Based on the system we have now, what difference would it make if we swing and miss on 4* recruits and end up replacing them with mid-major commits. Its no different than what we are doing now, but at least that way we'd be able to say we swung and missed rather than saying we never stepped up to bat against the big boys.
Click to expand...
______________________________________________________

I'm pretty sure our coach doesn't set the bar at the same level as the coach in Lincoln............

"Riley says to win national titles, NU has to be able to recruit with teams like Ohio State."

.....as reported by a staff writer at the Omaha World Herald. Taken from today's M. Riley press conference.
 
ohhawk said:
______________________________________________________

I'm pretty sure our coach doesn't set the bar at the same level as the coach in Lincoln............

"Riley says to win national titles, NU has to be able to recruit with teams like Ohio State."

.....as reported by a staff writer at the Omaha World Herald. Taken from today's M. Riley press conference.
Click to expand...

LOL about Riley. KF has come close to a NC......Riley not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top