The Mythical Recruiting Disadvantage

[tubahawk]

With the recent talk of Pierschbacher changing to Alabama it brings up the concern Iowa isn't an attractive place to football recruits. I agree Iowa has pros and cons, as do all schools. However I still can not accept the premise that Iowa is at a some major disadvantage when it comes to recruiting players.

I'm curious if anyone thinks this article helps dispel that perception?

Top 20 party schools in the United States- The Family Room - MSN Living

 

[tubahawk]

I should add I don't know that I am particularly proud the U of I holds that distinction, but for many youngsters they would see it as a plus.

 

[deanvogs]

meh.....same old arguments. Does Iowa have any bigger disadvantage than 75% of the schools out there? No probably not. Yet if one can't acknowledge the inherent advantage of a blue blood school, or the advantage of being in a highly populated state that pumps out huge numbers of football players, there is no use trying to change their minds.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

I think the disadantage Iowa has is losing to bad teams. Take care of the team that you should beat and then you wont have recruiting lows.

 

[kmurp]

The party school thing might help attract more white business majors from the Chicago suburbs. Would that help at defensive end?

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Well, Iowa has a relatively low in-state population to recruit from. That there is at least somewhat of a built-in disadvantage, not having as many talented recruits growing up dreaming of being Hawkeyes, as teams in states like Ohio, Florida, Texas, California, etc. etc.. But that still doesn't change the fact that George Raveling was able to come into Iowa City and recruit maybe the best talent we've ever seen in the basketball program, a lot of it from Michigan and Illinois.

I don't buy the stuff about Iowa not having warm weather, beaches, etc. being a reason why we can't compete. Kansas doesn't have those things either, yet it still manages to reel in blue chip recruits. Why? Tradition. And it wasn't born with said tradition - it went out and earned it. Ditto for Nebraska football.

Kirk Ferentz had a Top 10 recruiting class in 2005 (yeah I know that class was largely considered a bust, but still). I don't think it's a coincidence that recruiting class followed 3 straight Top 10 finishes. Again, tradition. Or at least, a reputation for being a good program. For what it's worth, I feel that KF and his staff for the most part really missed the boat on capitalizing on the momentum this program once had.

Is it easy to recruit to Iowa? No. Can it be done? Absolutely. It just takes the right coach IMO.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

I think the disadantage Iowa has is losing to bad teams. Take care of the team that you should beat and then you wont have recruiting lows.

That sure would help. Take the 2010 & 2011 seasons.. Don't lose to NW, Minnesota, ISU, etc. and you are 9-3 instead of 7-5, and a ranked program. That would make a big difference IMO.

 

[kmurp]

That sure would help. Take the 2010 & 2011 seasons.. Don't lose to NW, Minnesota, ISU, etc. and you are 9-3 instead of 7-5, and a ranked program. That would make a big difference IMO.

What about the OP question regarding party schools?

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Does Iowa have a recruiting disadvantage to the perennially 40th ranked and lower teams, absolutely not.

Does Iowa have a recruiting disadvantage to the perennially 16th-39th ranked and lower teams, I would say no except for when there are preceeding poor performance years

Does Iowa have a recruiting disadvantage to the perennially top 15 ranked teams, YEP... and always will, any argument to the contrary is being completely blind to 100+ years of history, geography, population, weather, $ backing, etc.

multiple poor seasons will negatively effect recruiting, subsequent good/great seasons will positively effect recruiting... in either case Iowa's perceived recruiting success will most likely ALWAYS be predicated on Developing talent....not recruiting ready made talent.

Take out the outliers (great and awful)....and the historical recruiting rank will be what it will be, upper mid level...and even when it isn't....it is.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see more talent in black and gold, and think we can get it...occaisionally. I'm as positive as any on this board...but I also recognize the reality of our present, past, and likely future when it comes to recruiting prowess....

neow...let's hope to stay healthy, develop some young, inexperienced talent, get past the damage that recent ATTRITION and poor results have caused....and turn this ship 'round.....

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

That sure would help. Take the 2010 & 2011 seasons.. Don't lose to NW, Minnesota, ISU, etc. and you are 9-3 instead of 7-5, and a ranked program. That would make a big difference IMO.

I honestly am not trying to be a d-bag here, but while I agree a 9-3 season may have helped with recruiting, it would have been just a very little bit. I'm not saying success doesn't improve recruiting power, of course it does, but 2-3 more wins in one single year? Does it really help that much.

Again, I think I may just have a different view on this than most. No disrespect intended.

 

[Hawkfromnorwalk]

I honestly am not trying to be a d-bag here, but while I agree a 9-3 season may have helped with recruiting, it would have been just a very little bit. I'm not saying success doesn't improve recruiting power, of course it does, but 2-3 more wins in one single year? Does it really help that much.

Again, I think I may just have a different view on this than most. No disrespect intended.

I respectfully disagree. Getting to nine wins puts you in or at least just outside the top 25 usually. Recruits notice that stuff.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

I honestly am not trying to be a d-bag here, but while I agree a 9-3 season may have helped with recruiting, it would have been just a very little bit. I'm not saying success doesn't improve recruiting power, of course it does, but 2-3 more wins in one single year? Does it really help that much.

Again, I think I may just have a different view on this than most. No disrespect intended.

I also think it matters more when you figure in who those 2-3 swing games were. Bad losses vs good wins.

You could have a bunch of recruits see a night game vs. MI or a home loss to CMU. Youre not always going to beat MI but you should never lose to CMU. To me those are both ends of the scale. You may have some recruits that only see the final number of wins at the end of the year. Either way Iowa has to take care of the cupcakes if they dont want to become that cupcake.

 

[IowaFan81]

Winning more consistently = better recruiting

Winning more consistently = more players in NFL = better recruiting

Winning more consistently = more $$$ in AD = better facilities = better recruiting

Notice the common piece? Winning more consistently. Sure location plays into a kid's decision but that can be overcome by the above things.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

The Party School thing doesn't help in a specific way. But as the saying goes "they're no such thing as bad publicity". Having our name out there is good. # of exposures matters.

As for the recruiting disadvantage... there are some measurable factors which might make it more difficult to recruit to IOWA, but it also becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Excuses are for losers.

The world is a smaller place than ever with the mass media that exists. Iowa in no longer some mythical place that looks like a corn field. You can market yourself effectively if you know what you're doing. (look at the talent at UIHC) A quality program draws quality players. After the 2002, 2003, 2004 10-win seasons we had plenty of 4* and 5* guys looking at Iowa, and a number of them came. Why so many flopped, is another thread (lest I be accused of dumping on KFz again).

Sure, recruiting at IOWA will always be tougher than Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Texas etc. But we have a lot more to sell than the majority of the Big Ten, "big" 12, and many other programs. We have a recognizable brand, we've won on the National stage and we have plenty of guys in the NFL. If we're not leveraging that into better talent...somebody isn't doing their job.

 

[David79]

There is a recruiting disadvantage in football whether people want to admit it or not. Small population state with two state schools. That's not to say that some of that can be overcome. But there is a built in disadvantage.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

That sure would help. Take the 2010 & 2011 seasons.. Don't lose to NW, Minnesota, ISU, etc. and you are 9-3 instead of 7-5, and a ranked program. That would make a big difference IMO.

BINGO.

Hayden Fry would not let his team lose to teams like this. (I'm not saying it NEVER happened, I remember Tulsa). But for the most part, Hayden took care of business in these games. He knew what it took to get his teams focused for the opponent ahead...who ever it was. KFz's "punch the clock and go to work" mentality doesn't always work. There are plenty of examples.

 

[ohhawk]

People make the difference.

Think about all the programs out there, past as well as current, and what allowed most of those programs to climb back into things after being down for many years. It was due to the person that was hired to turn things around and the personnel that coach chose to assist him in that endeavor. They had the ability to do many things including selling some talented prospects on jumping aboard a program that likely was a hard sell at the time.

You can cite our own history with some of our athletic programs as good examples. Yes, there are disadvantages at Iowa but they can certainly be overcome to a significant degree with the right personnel and leadership.
___________________________________________

As far as the #1 Party School tag..........you don't think some coaches will bring this up with a prospect and his parents in certain situations? I certainly don't see it as a good thing that's for sure.

 

[NCHawker]

the party school "honor" is a rotating "trophy" presented each year by various publications - it's hardly something to take seriously.

 

[Husky28]

When you really look at the full scope of schools, I like to think there are a group of 15-20 schools (estimated only, not a researched figure) that have an advantage to recruiting (i.e. Texas and SEC schools), then there are the rest... that many would say are at a disadvantage, when in reality it's more about those schools having some sort of advantage while the rest are normal - not really disadvantaged as many like to point out. To be at a disadvantage, you'd have to be in a percentile that puts you in a situation that's outside of normal for the majority of schools. I really don't feel that Iowa falls in that category... Good examples of that would be schools located in areas of the extreme NE or a place like Alaska and such...

Like what one poster said "excuses are for losers" and really believe that KF and staff follow that philosophy... it's a matter of figuring out the intrinsic factors that pull the odds in your favor... or another way of saying it would be "What can I do to overcome those schools with the advantages?" By the staff changes and such, I'm hoping KF is positioning Iowa to overcome those advantages and become one of those "advantaged" schools. I guess we'll see in the next few years...

 

[pumpdog20]

Need to do a better job of getting kids better coaches in Des Moines metro (and I think everyone knows what I mean). The metro schools are horrible, and they don't produce talent. Yes, Iowa is small, but you don't do a good job of producing out of your largest base.

Nebraska stayed dominant because they would get their lineman from farms (both Nebraska and Iowa) and their RBs from Omaha. Iowa needs to do something similar.