Tyler Harris to....

[1977Hawkeye]

You cant fault these recruits for not comitting to a coach who hasnt even coached a game at Iowa yet.

That doesn't seem to bother the 4-5 star recruits that Steve Lavin is pulling in at St. John's. Maybe Lavin is dirty, I don't know. All I know for sure is that we seem to be consistently losing every recruiting battle on any player who isn't from Iowa, and/or doesn't have much for offers.

It definitely would help if we were winning more games.. It's a vicious cycle though isn't it? Can't win games without the recruits, can't get the recruits without winning games.

Guess we'll have to see what Fran can get out of this year's squad. Hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised, and ditto for our potential recruits.

 

[BryceC]

That it is impossible for anybody to recruit highly touted players to Iowa is a misnomer. ISU recruited Diante Garrett and Craig Brackins (a top 150 and top 50 player) before McDermott had coached a game and ISU's facilities sucked at that point for basketball. Iowa is not in a great place right now but I disagree that NOBODY could recruit talent to Iowa under any circumstances until the program experiences success again. I like Fran and he has the potential for a ton of success but let's not go overboard.

 

[sportstalent]

That doesn't seem to bother the 4-5 star recruits that Steve Lavin is pulling in at St. John's. Maybe Lavin is dirty, I don't know. All I know for sure is that we seem to be consistently losing every recruiting battle on any player who isn't from Iowa, and/or doesn't have much for offers.

It definitely would help if we were winning more games.. It's a vicious cycle though isn't it? Can't win games without the recruits, can't get the recruits without winning games.

Guess we'll have to see what Fran can get out of this year's squad. Hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised, and ditto for our potential recruits.

Lets stop comparing Iowa and Coach Fran to other Universities and other coaches.
If we do there are a lot of advantages that St. John's and Lavin have and if it isn't obvious then all those that like to compare should stop being fans.
Lets see Lavin has been visible by being on ESPN and he coached at UCLA and went to Final Fours. St. John's has has players walk through like Chris Mullin and have a lot of tradition in the Big East, not recently, but remember it is also in New York and that has a lot of appeal as well.
There is no comparison. Although, we will see how Lavin wastes talent just as he did at UCLA and we will also see how many NCAA investigations they have in about three years...remember he did have issues at UCLA. When coaches have issues at one University, it is rare that they don't have those issues at the next one, but he did take time off, maybe took a look in the mirror, we he did we know that to fix his hair, but to reflect about how he and Harrick tore down a program that is one of the best in Basketball history and learned something.

To all fans: Iowa will be better than expected and the 2011 class will be more building blocks to an already solid foundation. We might get surprised by a recruit here or there. My guess is that Marble and Basabe will be great players for Iowa and the future will be fine. Fran will get players from all over, including the state of Iowa and Iowa will win again, sooner, rather than later.

 

[burky247]

We aren't going to get these types of players until or if we start winning games and going to NCAA tournament.

This. We also aren't going to get these types of players with 50 percent crowds. Rather than ******** and moaning about not getting top recruits this year, I wish fans would do their jobs and just get in the arena and give our current team a chance. There will be plenty of time to cry about things if in two years we are still in the basement. Until then, recognize that we are trying to get things turned around and patience is required.

 

[Auggie]

Lets stop comparing Iowa and Coach Fran to other Universities and other coaches.
If we do there are a lot of advantages that St. John's and Lavin have and if it isn't obvious then all those that like to compare should stop being fans.
Lets see Lavin has been visible by being on ESPN and he coached at UCLA and went to Final Fours. St. John's has has players walk through like Chris Mullin and have a lot of tradition in the Big East, not recently, but remember it is also in New York and that has a lot of appeal as well.
There is no comparison. Although, we will see how Lavin wastes talent just as he did at UCLA and we will also see how many NCAA investigations they have in about three years...remember he did have issues at UCLA. When coaches have issues at one University, it is rare that they don't have those issues at the next one, but he did take time off, maybe took a look in the mirror, we he did we know that to fix his hair, but to reflect about how he and Harrick tore down a program that is one of the best in Basketball history and learned something.

To all fans: Iowa will be better than expected and the 2011 class will be more building blocks to an already solid foundation. We might get surprised by a recruit here or there. My guess is that Marble and Basabe will be great players for Iowa and the future will be fine. Fran will get players from all over, including the state of Iowa and Iowa will win again, sooner, rather than later.

Really? Marble and Basabe will be great? How do you know? There is a solid foundation on the team now? Who? The Kool-Aid is flowing pretty well at your place. I have to think that when Iowa does indeed return to the NCAA tourney that players of the caliber on the team now will be bench and role player types then. This program has to start recruiting far better players than it is to have anything to look forward to.

 

[PatrickAdamovicz]

Auggie, you ask how does one know if Marble or Basabe will be great. Like you said, no one knows, but really that's the truth with almost every recruit. No one really knows. Heck, Marble could be a better player than Tyler Harris, but because a recruiting service ranks him higher than Marble you buy into that? I'm not saying that is what your saying, but it seems so many are equating players like Harris as can't miss products. He is a top 150 kid, but so is Ogelsby, as was Gatens. I'm confident it want Fran is doing and I agree with others in that this team will be better than what some of our own expect.

 

[Auggie]

Auggie, you ask how does one know if Marble or Basabe will be great. Like you said, no one knows, but really that's the truth with almost every recruit. No one really knows. Heck, Marble could be a better player than Tyler Harris, but because a recruiting service ranks him higher than Marble you buy into that? I'm not saying that is what your saying, but it seems so many are equating players like Harris as can't miss products. He is a top 150 kid, but so is Ogelsby, as was Gatens. I'm confident it want Fran is doing and I agree with others in that this team will be better than what some of our own expect.

1. I agree, Harris is anything but a can't miss prospect, look at his offer list. Its just odd reading posts proclaiming the Hawks to be better than common basketball sense dictates. How does one predict a surprising performance? Seems to contradict the meaning of surprise.

 

[sportstalent]

Really? Marble and Basabe will be great? How do you know? There is a solid foundation on the team now? Who? The Kool-Aid is flowing pretty well at your place. I have to think that when Iowa does indeed return to the NCAA tourney that players of the caliber on the team now will be bench and role player types then. This program has to start recruiting far better players than it is to have anything to look forward to.

Yes really...foundation: Four starters back and the addition of 4 players which in turn lead to depth. If Iowa had a semblance of a bench, they win a few more games last season. Payne, May and Gatens will all improve. These freshman will accomplish as much as the Horner and Brunner class. It is not going to happen overnight, if McCabe resembles the player he has modeled his game after then Iowa has a great one barring injury. Iowa gets back to the tourney in year 3.

 

[Auggie]

Yes really...foundation: Four starters back and the addition of 4 players which in turn lead to depth. If Iowa had a semblance of a bench, they win a few more games last season. Payne, May and Gatens will all improve. These freshman will accomplish as much as the Horner and Brunner class. It is not going to happen overnight, if McCabe resembles the player he has modeled his game after then Iowa has a great one barring injury. Iowa gets back to the tourney in year 3.

If these are the players forming your 'foundation' then your program is built on mediocrity. Just because they return and gain experience does not mean they are better than the competition in the Big Ten. That is the goal. The goal is succeeding against Big Ten caliber basketball teams. Not merely being better than you were the season before. This program doesn't have the players to do that and isn't recruiting the level of talent needed to get there. Year 3? Look at the press concerning the Big Ten as a whole. Read some other boards that talk about Big Ten basketball. Don't you think that if what your saying was somewhat plausible that your opinion would be shared by others? Not just blind Kool-Aid drinkers.

 

[Gohawks123]

There's a misconception on this board that recruiting rankings don't mean anything. It's true that sometimes you can find a diamond in the rough and sometimes a top 100 recruit is a bust, but by and large you can tell how talented a guy is based off these rankings.

Go look at the NBA draft and compare those drafted to their rankings out of high school.

Go look at the best teams in the nation and take a look at their recruits rankings the 4 years prior.

Sure there are exceptions, but more often than not the most successful teams have a core of 4-5 star top 100 recruits.

 

[Auggie]

There's a misconception on this board that recruiting rankings don't mean anything. It's true that sometimes you can find a diamond in the rough and sometimes a top 100 recruit is a bust, but by and large you can tell how talented a guy is based off these rankings.

Go look at the NBA draft and compare those drafted to their rankings out of high school.

Go look at the best teams in the nation and take a look at their recruits rankings the 4 years prior.

Sure there are exceptions, but more often than not the most successful teams have a core of 4-5 star top 100 recruits.

Amen brother.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

These freshman will accomplish as much as the Horner and Brunner class.

I'd love for that to be true, but I'd say that's a bold prediction considering the Horner/Brunner class won 25 games in their senior season. Let's also not forget that Horner & Brunner (and Haluska) were all rated as 4-star recruits:

Scout.com: Adam Haluska Profile
Scout.com: Jeff Horner Profile
Scout.com: Greg Brunner Profile

We had a nice collection of talent on that 25-win team, and I'm not sold that we have that same level of talent right now. That said, I DO think that Fran will get alot more out of this roster than Lickliter would have, and the newcomers sound promising. How much more success Fran will have is too tough to say without having seen a single game.

 

[sportstalent]

There's a misconception on this board that recruiting rankings don't mean anything. It's true that sometimes you can find a diamond in the rough and sometimes a top 100 recruit is a bust, but by and large you can tell how talented a guy is based off these rankings.

Go look at the NBA draft and compare those drafted to their rankings out of high school.

Go look at the best teams in the nation and take a look at their recruits rankings the 4 years prior.

Sure there are exceptions, but more often than not the most successful teams have a core of 4-5 star top 100 recruits.

The misconception lies in people that believe that. If this was the case why didn't Kentucky win the Nat'l Championship last season? Why then did UNC, UConn, UCLA miss the tournament? Why did Butler make the title game? Why did a team like George Mason make the Final Four a few years ago? Why is it that Duke's best player was the lowest rated kid in that recruiting class? How does a player the caliber of Dwayne Wade be a three star recruit? How is nobody Stephen Curry as good as he is? Yes having talent is important and rankings are great, but I also remember how upset people were losing Brust and he is a three star not Top 150 player. How can people be so upset about that, but preach how Iowa needs 4-stars? Illinois is another example of tons of 4-star talent, but didn't make the tournament. Again, Fran is laying the foundation here and if you are blinded by past failures I feel for you. There is a plan in place and it isn't going to happen overnight, but it will not take as long as the gloom and doom want to make it out. Getting a slew of 3-star kids that work hard is the way to go until either a 4-star kid comes and he is followed or those measly 3-star kids rise up and one becomes a star and the team is a team. Bottom line players have to have a common goal and talent. Fran is bringing in talented guys, you will see.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

The misconception lies in people that believe that. If this was the case why didn't Kentucky win the Nat'l Championship last season? Why then did UNC, UConn, UCLA miss the tournament? Why did Butler make the title game? Why did a team like George Mason make the Final Four a few years ago? Why is it that Duke's best player was the lowest rated kid in that recruiting class? How does a player the caliber of Dwayne Wade be a three star recruit? How is nobody Stephen Curry as good as he is? Yes having talent is important and rankings are great, but I also remember how upset people were losing Brust and he is a three star not Top 150 player. How can people be so upset about that, but preach how Iowa needs 4-stars? Illinois is another example of tons of 4-star talent, but didn't make the tournament. Again, Fran is laying the foundation here and if you are blinded by past failures I feel for you. There is a plan in place and it isn't going to happen overnight, but it will not take as long as the gloom and doom want to make it out. Getting a slew of 3-star kids that work hard is the way to go until either a 4-star kid comes and he is followed or those measly 3-star kids rise up and one becomes a star and the team is a team. Bottom line players have to have a common goal and talent. Fran is bringing in talented guys, you will see.

UK was one of the youngest teams in the country last year, yet was a #1 seed and made the elite 8. I'd say that speaks volumes about their level of talent, and if you think that is underachieving, then I don't know what to tell you. A more experienced UK team would probably have done even better. It wasn't exactly a bad W. Virginia team that they lost too, either. UNC missed the tournament last year because they lost their entire starting 5 from the previous year's team that won it all. You can't possibly have expected them to not miss a beat after losing that much talent. I can't say for sure on Uconn and UCLA, but I also remember them making Final 4's in recent years, so I would suspect they lost alot to the NBA and graduation as well.

Not to mention that there are other good teams playing in the NCAA tournament. Even Duke went about a decade between championships (1992 to 2001). And there were some pretty good Duke teams in that era, to say the least. "Only" making a Final 4 or an Elite 8 isn't exactly a failure. National title just aren't that easy to come by, even for the best programs.

As you've pointed out, there are always exceptions to every rule. Some lower rated recruits turn out to be pretty good. I'm hoping that's the case with our team. But the Butler and George Mason stories don't come along too often. Most every year, it's usually 1-3 seeds that make up the final four, with an occaisional lower seed thrown in.

I guess I just prefer to take a "wait and see" approach with our program instead of setting my expectations that high for our current roster.

 

[sportstalent]

I'd love for that to be true, but I'd say that's a bold prediction considering the Horner/Brunner class won 25 games in their senior season. Let's also not forget that Horner & Brunner (and Haluska) were all rated as 4-star recruits:

Scout.com: Adam Haluska Profile
Scout.com: Jeff Horner Profile
Scout.com: Greg Brunner Profile

We had a nice collection of talent on that 25-win team, and I'm not sold that we have that same level of talent right now. That said, I DO think that Fran will get alot more out of this roster than Lickliter would have, and the newcomers sound promising. How much more success Fran will have is too tough to say without having seen a single game.

We'll see big guy...
FYI: Haluska wasn't part og that class...transferred in.
I agree with your analysis of that team, but you also stated 'right now' and I also agree with that.
Iowa basketball with Coach Fran has nowhere to go but up, I think we all can agree.
Now the B10 loses a ton of quality upperclassmen this year and will be wide open. With another solid 2011 class to add to our quality upperclassmen, postseason is not out of the question. Big Dance kinda longshot, but I would be good with NIT and finishing 6th in B10. Maybe 6th would be good enough to go to. NCAA, I don't know. Realistically, with the upperclassmen Iowa could make a huge leap in year two.
We haven't seen a game yet, but there is still a buzz about them, if not us fans would not have such different opinions.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

We'll see big guy...
FYI: Haluska wasn't part og that class...transferred in.
I agree with your analysis of that team, but you also stated 'right now' and I also agree with that.
Iowa basketball with Coach Fran has nowhere to go but up, I think we all can agree.
Now the B10 loses a ton of quality upperclassmen this year and will be wide open. With another solid 2011 class to add to our quality upperclassmen, postseason is not out of the question. Big Dance kinda longshot, but I would be good with NIT and finishing 6th in B10. Maybe 6th would be good enough to go to. NCAA, I don't know. Realistically, with the upperclassmen Iowa could make a huge leap in year two.
We haven't seen a game yet, but there is still a buzz about them, if not us fans would not have such different opinions.

As I mentioned, the one thing I feel confident in is that we WILL be better under McCaffery than under Lickliter.. I know, that's definitely not saying alot. But I'm thinking that eventually we might get back to Mr. Davis level of play in a few years, which I would take. After the past several years, I just want to be competetive again.

I would say to get back to me in about a month or two, and my opinion about our current talent level might be totally different than it is right now. As you say, we haven't seen a single game yet and we are all just kind of guessing and basing things on what we've seen the past few years, which of course, isn't pretty.

My opinion is that the right coach will change the culture more quickly than most of us expect.. After all, I remember Bobby Knight taking over a horrible Texas Tech program and getting them to the NCAA Tournament in his first year. I'm not predicting THAT, but my point is that a good coach can get a group of players playing much better basketball almost right away. Guess we will see.

 

[sportstalent]

UK was one of the youngest teams in the country last year, yet was a #1 seed and made the elite 8. I'd say that speaks volumes about their level of talent, and if you think that is underachieving, then I don't know what to tell you. A more experienced UK team would probably have done even better. It wasn't exactly a bad W. Virginia team that they lost too, either. UNC missed the tournament last year because they lost their entire starting 5 from the previous year's team that won it all. You can't possibly have expected them to not miss a beat after losing that much talent. I can't say for sure on Uconn and UCLA, but I also remember them making Final 4's in recent years, so I would suspect they lost alot to the NBA and graduation as well.

Not to mention that there are other good teams playing in the NCAA tournament. Even Duke went about a decade between championships (1992 to 2001). And there were some pretty good Duke teams in that era, to say the least. "Only" making a Final 4 or an Elite 8 isn't exactly a failure. National title just aren't that easy to come by, even for the best programs.

As you've pointed out, there are always exceptions to every rule. Some lower rated recruits turn out to be pretty good. I'm hoping that's the case with our team. But the Butler and George Mason stories don't come along too often. Most every year, it's usually 1-3 seeds that make up the final four, with an occaisional lower seed thrown in.

I guess I just prefer to take a "wait and see" approach with our program instead of setting my expectations that high for our current roster.

Don't make excuses for the Elite programs losing players or having inexperience. People pop off about 4 and 5-star talent, every year those teams have it, so how do they lose? Explain Kansas losing to UNI with that roster of 4/5-stars and they had tons of experience by players that won a title?
As far as 1-2-3 seeds normally making FF...Butler and MSU were neither.

 

[sportstalent]

As I mentioned, the one thing I feel confident in is that we WILL be better under McCaffery than under Lickliter.. I know, that's definitely not saying alot. But I'm thinking that eventually we might get back to Mr. Davis level of play in a few years, which I would take. After the past several years, I just want to be competetive again.

I would say to get back to me in about a month or two, and my opinion about our current talent level might be totally different than it is right now. As you say, we haven't seen a single game yet and we are all just kind of guessing and basing things on what we've seen the past few years, which of course, isn't pretty.

My opinion is that the right coach will change the culture more quickly than most of us expect.. After all, I remember Bobby Knight taking over a horrible Texas Tech program and getting them to the NCAA Tournament in his first year. I'm not predicting THAT, but my point is that a good coach can get a group of players playing much better basketball almost right away. Guess we will see.

Agreed its been fun. I am hoping yours and many other opinions change.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Don't make excuses for the Elite programs losing players or having inexperience. People pop off about 4 and 5-star talent, every year those teams have it, so how do they lose? Explain Kansas losing to UNI with that roster of 4/5-stars and they had tons of experience by players that won a title?
As far as 1-2-3 seeds normally making FF...Butler and MSU were neither.

I'm aware of the fact that more talent doesn't equal victory 100% of the time - the NCAA tournament is riddled with examples. Upsets happen in sports. All the same, I'd still be willing to put money on KU beating UNI at least 7 or 8 out of 10.

Regarding excuse-making for the big programs having inexperience or losing players.. People on these boards have done it constantly the past few years with Iowa basketball. So if it applies to Iowa, it applies to other programs as well. We can't have it both ways.

 

[SheagleHawk]

I'd love for that to be true, but I'd say that's a bold prediction considering the Horner/Brunner class won 25 games in their senior season. Let's also not forget that Horner & Brunner (and Haluska) were all rated as 4-star recruits:

Scout.com: Adam Haluska Profile
Scout.com: Jeff Horner Profile
Scout.com: Greg Brunner Profile

We had a nice collection of talent on that 25-win team, and I'm not sold that we have that same level of talent right now. That said, I DO think that Fran will get alot more out of this roster than Lickliter would have, and the newcomers sound promising. How much more success Fran will have is too tough to say without having seen a single game.

Their star ratings are very debatable. All three were 3-star recruits on rivals.