Should McCaffery bank last scholarship?

If the right player is available, I say use it. Every program is vulnerable to academic casualties, off-the-court issues, injuries and transfers. I am not sure there are enough minutes left to attract a quality player, but one never knows.
 
Agree with the consensus here. If a player like Mitchell wants to commit or Paige wants to flip you fill it and put all your eggs in the Peter Jok basket for 2013 (if he is healthy).

If you have 2 open for 2013 hopefully it is Jok and Agau.
 
Section136 said:
Agree with the consensus here. If a player like Mitchell wants to commit or Paige wants to flip you fill it and put all your eggs in the Peter Jok basket for 2013 (if he is healthy).

If you have 2 open for 2013 hopefully it is Jok and Agau.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If Mitchell is a better forward prospect than Agau, you grab him if you can,and then go for Jok next year.

Iowa needs talent,asap. And yes, some will sit,and they may end up transferring,but that is part of the deal when in transition from one coaching staff to another.
 
I have a feeling that he won't bank it unless he can't get any of the guys he is targeting. If can get someone he really likes then it makes no sense to bank it. Getting a good Juco player for the last spot would make a lot of sense. There are always players that transfer as well, it happens at every school.
 
Absolutely not. There could be a talented player waiting to explode as a Hawkeye, and we could miss out on that by banking a scholarship. There could be injuries, ineligibility or what have you that cause a team to need that scholarship. The scholarship was meant to be used, not wasted.

Banking a scholarship this early in recruiting is a sign of failure. Failure that you did NOT get the talent you need to be successful. Fran is not a failure. Period.

In all probability, we will have more than one scholarship next year thru attrition - not thru "banking a scholarship". If not, that means Fran did an excellent job in finding the right talent to fit the bill here at Iowa. Quality talent that stays is kickass. Quality talent that leaves is a waste of equity built into a players development, resources of time & money, and team continuity.

In all said, banking a scholarship makes no sense in basketball, or any sport. You either have the ability to get the talent you want and need NOW, or you don't and you are praying that something better Might be in your future... Might being the key word.
 
Last edited:
dmShortSaledude said:
Absolutely not. There could be a talented player waiting to explode as a Hawkeye, and we could miss out on that by banking a scholarship. There could be injuries, ineligibility or what have you that cause a team to need that scholarship. The scholarship was meant to be used, not wasted.

Banking a scholarship this early in recruiting is a sign of failure. Failure that you did NOT get the talent you need to be successful. Fran is not a failure. Period.

In all probability, we will have more than one scholarship next year thru attrition - not thru "banking a scholarship". If not, that means Fran did an excellent job in finding the right talent to fit the bill here at Iowa. Quality talent that stays is kickass. Quality talent that leaves is a waste of equity built into a players development, resources of time & money, and team continuity.

In all said, banking a scholarship makes no sense in basketball, or any sport. You either have the ability to get the talent you want and need NOW, or you don't and you are praying that something better Might be in your future... Might being the key word.
Click to expand...

By that logic, there could be two guys waiting to explode as Hawkeyes in the 2013 class, and by not banking the scholarship, we miss out on at least one of them. Which is more likely-- that the sixth-best recruit in a class turns out great, or that the second-best one does?

Saying that banking a scholarship is always a failure really ignores the specific circumstances of the situation, which are that we've already signed five guys. That is a huge class. No, you don't pull your offers that are already on the table (unless they are to point guards). But you also don't go hunting around for more guys to offer just so that you can have six bodies. This is not the year to offer Wes Washpun late in the game to fill out your class, or to search around for a guy like Hubbard who has fallen through the cracks. They already have five guys who can play.

I also highly disagree that "in all probability" we will have more than one scholarship to give next year. You realize that we only have seven people on scholarship after this year, right? Do you think it's highly probable that one of them transfers? And May doesn't count because he's graduating anyway, so you're saying you think it's likely that Melsahn, Marble, McCabe, Oglesby, White, or Olaseni transfers or gets kicked off the team. Never say never, I guess, but I'm not comfortable planning on not having one of those guys on the team.
 
olivecourt said:
By that logic, there could be two guys waiting to explode as Hawkeyes in the 2013 class, and by not banking the scholarship, we miss out on at least one of them. Which is more likely-- that the sixth-best recruit in a class turns out great, or that the second-best one does?
Click to expand...
You could say that every year... Fran will keep the extra scholarship if he believes it is a sure thing, AND he has no one else to pickup. I wholeheartedly believe that he will have the last scholarship filled with another talented player.

olivecourt said:
Saying that banking a scholarship is always a failure really ignores the specific circumstances of the situation, which are that we've already signed five guys. That is a huge class. No, you don't pull your offers that are already on the table (unless they are to point guards). But you also don't go hunting around for more guys to offer just so that you can have six bodies. This is not the year to offer Wes Washpun late in the game to fill out your class, or to search around for a guy like Hubbard who has fallen through the cracks. They already have five guys who can play.

I also highly disagree that "in all probability" we will have more than one scholarship to give next year. You realize that we only have seven people on scholarship after this year, right? Do you think it's highly probable that one of them transfers? And May doesn't count because he's graduating anyway, so you're saying you think it's likely that Melsahn, Marble, McCabe, Oglesby, White, or Olaseni transfers or gets kicked off the team. Never say never, I guess, but I'm not comfortable planning on not having one of those guys on the team.
Click to expand...

Simply going by history and facts here. There are twelve guys so far for 2012, I would love for ALL to be here next fall, but the hard truth is that there has to be a greater than 75% chance that someone will not be here. The 75% is a guess/quick count from the last 10 years +/-. Someone tell me the last time we returned every player & recruit from the previous year??? It would have to have been in the 90s...
I do not believe that Fran will kick anyone off the team, unless they deserve so, otherwise he would have already done so IHMO.
 
Last edited:
olivecourt said:
By that logic, there could be two guys waiting to explode as Hawkeyes in the 2013 class, and by not banking the scholarship, we miss out on at least one of them. Which is more likely-- that the sixth-best recruit in a class turns out great, or that the second-best one does?
Click to expand...

Nobody is talking about using this last scholly on someone that would be the 6th best player in the class, but rather someone who may be on par with Woodbury & Gesell.

Besides, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.. If you get a commitment from a top-notch player THIS year, then I say take it. You don't say say "no thanks" and hope you can get two big recruits next year.

And other than balancing our classes a little more, what difference does it really make if this scholarship lands a good recruit this year, or next? We need all the talent we can get, considering where we've been the past 5 years.

But I agree with the others - if you can't get someone who is high on your list, then don't waste it. Bank it.
 
Last edited:
fremonthawk said:
I must be wrong on this but I thought the NCAA only allowed a max of 5 scholarships per year...
Click to expand...
Look at last years St. Johns class. They obviously allow more. they signed like 9 guys. i think class limits like this are dictated by conferences in most cases.
 
1977Hawkeye said:
Nobody is talking about using this last scholly on someone that would be the 6th best player in the class, but rather someone who may be on par with Woodbury & Gesell.

Besides, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.. If you get a commitment from a top-notch player THIS year, then I say take it. You don't say say "no thanks" and hope you can get two big recruits next year.

And other than balancing our classes a little more, what difference does it really make if this scholarship lands a good recruit this year, or next? We need all the talent we can get, considering where we've been the past 5 years.

But I agree with the others - if you can't get someone who is high on your list, then don't waste it. Bank it.
Click to expand...

Right-- wouldn't a player that good be someone that we've already offered? That's all I'm saying. I'm not opposed to adding a sixth player; I just don't see why Fran needs to be beating the bushes looking for more guys to offer. You don't pull the offers that are already on the table, but you don't start looking for more guys.

And I'm responding to a poster that wrote that not filling the sixth scholarship is a failure no matter what. So in other words, he is saying that you use it even if the guy is only the sixth best player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top