Why is it hard to win at Iowa?

[guffus]

I can honestly say that there is a very strong chance that I would not have gone to the University of Iowa were it not for being a fan of the athletics as a child.

It certainly was a factor in my decision, but my choices were pretty limited, Iowa or Iowa State. I needed to choose an in state school that had an engineering program. I was also interesting in pharmacy as a back up option if engineering did not work out and only Iowa had a pharmacy program. So I chose Iowa and eventually got that engineering degree.

At least thats what I tell myself. But I still wonder sometimes if I chose Iowa subconsciously because of the football team.

 

[pekurhawk]

I hope that art dude who placed the KKK art thing on campus isnt the guy making JR our starter

 

[1977Hawkeye]

See my other post.

Begin your research with the name Hunter Rawlings, who took over as President in 1988...at the height of IOWA's athletic success (multiple National titles in wrestling, an elite 8 and sweet 16 in hoops and 2 Rosebowls in four years). With a Master's from Princeton and the IVY league attitude to match... Rawlings immediately set a course to put athletics in its proper place. And there were plenty of ultra-lib faculty (it's not a stereo-type if it's true) that loved every minute of it and applauded his efforts.

Many of them could not STAND the idea of IOWA as a sports power and Hayden's comments like "little dumplings" and his pink locker room were just more than they could stomach. (the pink locker room still pops up every few years) Rawlings proposed tougher academic standards (above the Big Ten standards) in a thinly cloaked effort to put jocks in their place. He failed and Hayden outlasted him, as he ultimately got the IVY league job he wanted, as President of Cornell in 1995.

Make no mistake, there is still a core group on campus that despise the fact that athletics is such a prominent part of the University's identity. (competitive sports is after all, the antithesis of the euphorian equality which should be our core mission) And they'll continue to undermine it when given the opportunity.

Ok, thanks. Yeah, I was reading a bit about Rawlings earlier, and I remember hearing about this as one example:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...794_1_rawlings-freshman-eligibility-ikenberry

Neither Hayden Fry nor Tom Davis would comment.. Obviously they didn't care to. Can you imagine the impact to recruiting if Iowa could not play freshmen? Good luck recruiting players when they know they could play four years elsewhere, but only 3 at Iowa. Thank goodness that never happened. But, I'm beginning to that the UofI's admin has had an influence on the athletic program over the years, and not in a positive way.

Look, I'm all for getting an education and the concept of a student-athlete, but as far as I'm concerned, as long as the players are making enough grades to stay eligible, then stay the heck out of the way and let the coaches and players do their thing.

 

[uihawk82]

I think the idea that boosters and admin people can tell our $4 million head coach who to play and how much time is ludicrous. Fry and Mr. Davis had to put up with higher standards than Big 10 rules but they did it for the most part. So admin people do have a little say about who is qualified, but that is about it.

 

[HomerChampless]

'Tis a provocative thread, isn't it? The more I think about the administration attempting to manhandle the athletic department, the more I tend to be dissuaded with the thesis.

Are there no supporters of Iowa's athletic department? Of course there are. These athletic supporters support and attempt to influence the athletic department and aren't as interested in any political agenda that school officials may most likely hold and will, most likely, attempt to 'run over' any administration officials that attempt so.

 

[DDThompson]

See my other post.

Begin your research with the name Hunter Rawlings, who took over as President in 1988...at the height of IOWA's athletic success (multiple National titles in wrestling, an elite 8 and sweet 16 in hoops and 2 Rosebowls in four years). With a Master's from Princeton and the IVY league attitude to match... Rawlings immediately set a course to put athletics in its proper place. And there were plenty of ultra-lib faculty (it's not a stereo-type if it's true) that loved every minute of it and applauded his efforts.

Many of them could not STAND the idea of IOWA as a sports power and Hayden's comments like "little dumplings" and his pink locker room were just more than they could stomach. (the pink locker room still pops up every few years) Rawlings proposed tougher academic standards (above the Big Ten standards) in a thinly cloaked effort to put jocks in their place. He failed and Hayden outlasted him, as he ultimately got the IVY league job he wanted, as President of Cornell in 1995.

Make no mistake, there is still a core group on campus that despise the fact that athletics is such a prominent part of the University's identity. (competitive sports is after all, the antithesis of the euphorian equality which should be our core mission) And they'll continue to undermine it when given the opportunity.

This is exactly hammer on nail in brief. Props.

Sure. Boosters will influence programs. Presidents and tenured (non-competition by the way) staff set up the rules for athletic programs. Thats a bigger influence. If those rules are too stringent too bad. If boosters go around them then there's hell to pay.

 

[hawkforlife9]

What? We win. We've been to bowls like 14 out of the last 16 years. post = FAIL

 

[mrolympia]

why is it hard to win at Iowa?

the head coach runs a boring, outdated offense and has all the charisma of a slug.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

YEP

I was hoping for "BOOM"...but Thanks.

In response to trj, it's not a matter of a few individuals...it's a movement, if you will. (though I'm sure many of those same people are there...the only gig with more untouchable longevity is congressman) Perhaps better put... a philosophy, and one which has stronger legs than ever for a variety of reasons that I'll leave alone... lest I veer into politics.

 

[99topdawg]

See my other post.

Begin your research with the name Hunter Rawlings, who took over as President in 1988...at the height of IOWA's athletic success (multiple National titles in wrestling, an elite 8 and sweet 16 in hoops and 2 Rosebowls in four years). With a Master's from Princeton and the IVY league attitude to match... Rawlings immediately set a course to put athletics in its proper place. And there were plenty of ultra-lib faculty (it's not a stereo-type if it's true) that loved every minute of it and applauded his efforts.

Many of them could not STAND the idea of IOWA as a sports power and Hayden's comments like "little dumplings" and his pink locker room were just more than they could stomach. (the pink locker room still pops up every few years) Rawlings proposed tougher academic standards (above the Big Ten standards) in a thinly cloaked effort to put jocks in their place. He failed and Hayden outlasted him, as he ultimately got the IVY league job he wanted, as President of Cornell in 1995.

Make no mistake, there is still a core group on campus that despise the fact that athletics is such a prominent part of the University's identity. (competitive sports is after all, the antithesis of the euphorian equality which should be our core mission) And they'll continue to undermine it when given the opportunity.

So what I'm taking from this is that it's the liberals' fault we're mediocre? Dammit Obama!

I happen to think it's a variety of things, such as demographics, etc. but politics has nothing to do with it. He may have wanted to raise academic standards, but that had nothing to do with him being liberal. There was a lot of basket weaving going on back in the day. Not a bad thing to put a stop to from a college president's standpoint. Go to any college campus and you'll find plenty of liberals, but their sports are not all mediocre. Hell, there may not be a more liberal college president in the NCAA than Ohio State. How have they been doing in their sports?

 

[Rosebowler]

It's a myth.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

So what I'm taking from this is that it's the liberals' fault we're mediocre? Dammit Obama!

I happen to think it's a variety of things, such as demographics, etc. but politics has nothing to do with it. He may have wanted to raise academic standards, but that had nothing to do with him being liberal. There was a lot of basket weaving going on back in the day. Not a bad thing to put a stop to from a college president's standpoint. Go to any college campus and you'll find plenty of liberals, but their sports are not all mediocre. Hell, there may not be a more liberal college president in the NCAA than Ohio State. How have they been doing in their sports?

If that's what you take from it... you're reading what you want to read. Leave the word "liberal" out and you could any of a number of descriptors. Fact it, there's an "anti-sports" segment on the campus that truly resents the athletic department's prominence. And it's been there for a while. I've been told that from University faculty an non-teaching employees.

It's not unique to Iowa City, but that's where I have direct knowledge of it.

 

[1hawkeye1]

This forum continues to drift in a very strange direction. Very strange indeed...........

 

[DDThompson]

Good link and closing thought.

Ok, thanks. Yeah, I was reading a bit about Rawlings earlier, and I remember hearing about this as one example:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...794_1_rawlings-freshman-eligibility-ikenberry

Neither Hayden Fry nor Tom Davis would comment.. Obviously they didn't care to. Can you imagine the impact to recruiting if Iowa could not play freshmen? Good luck recruiting players when they know they could play four years elsewhere, but only 3 at Iowa. Thank goodness that never happened. But, I'm beginning to that the UofI's admin has had an influence on the athletic program over the years, and not in a positive way.

Look, I'm all for getting an education and the concept of a student-athlete, but as far as I'm concerned, as long as the players are making enough grades to stay eligible, then stay the heck out of the way and let the coaches and players do their thing.

There are a couple of quotes in that article that were grenades thrown into the Iowa athletic department. Like these:

"The issue of freshman eligibility has been discussed nationally for several years without much sign of progress. I am now convinced that a bold move by a respected institution like Iowa is necessary to bring about change on a national level. Failing success, we plan to implement a university policy to delay eligibility until the sophomore years." -Rawlings.

Like Hawkdrummer said, it was a nice resume builder for the Hunter to move back to Ivyland.

Worse yet, Rawlings plan would have barred freshmen from practices.

That is not institutional support to intentionally put your sports programs at a disadvantage. Athletes not practicing for a year? Most of the time that means coaches don't have their players for two years; not just one.
It's incredulous to me that Rawlings then said this, "I'm confident the university program will never have to be in a noncompetitive situation."

And one more thing, for a couple of years the Big Ten endorsed the freshman ban for

wait for it,

wait....

for only football and men's basketball.

Hmmmmm.

 

[DDThompson]

If that's what you take from it... you're reading what you want to read. Leave the word "liberal" out and you could any of a number of descriptors. Fact it, there's an "anti-sports" segment on the campus that truly resents the athletic department's prominence. And it's been there for a while. I've been told that from University faculty an non-teaching employees.

It's not unique to Iowa City, but that's where I have direct knowledge of it.

That's a very good rebut.
I comprehended what you wrote originally. I didn't have to tuck and squeeze what I wanted into it.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

That's a very good rebut.
I comprehended what you wrote originally. I didn't have to tuck and squeeze what I wanted into it.

I know it seemed a bit tangental...but the poster that I was responding to speculated about the affect of Admin on things. I thought it was worth responding to his speculation (because what bigger "admin" could there be, than the President of the University)... with a revisit of the Rawlings story as it's well-documented fact as opposed to speculation or opinion. And it's representative of a more "academic" view of the role of sports on campus.

Recruiting challenges, competitive landscape, weather,(are I leave out coaching style) are certainly the major factors in winning at IOWA. Who knows how much "influence" from behind the scenes also affects the process. KFz clearly places a priority on recruiting and playing a certain type of kid. That's not necessarily a bad thing...at least not always (yeah, CJ, I'm talking to you). One can only speculate how much "encouragement" he has to run things that way.

(sorry about the typos, I'll blame it on the iPhone. I'm pretty sure i got at least a C in rhetoric)

 

[MoseSchrute]

So what I'm taking from this is that it's the liberals' fault we're mediocre? Dammit Obama!

I happen to think it's a variety of things, such as demographics, etc. but politics has nothing to do with it. He may have wanted to raise academic standards, but that had nothing to do with him being liberal. There was a lot of basket weaving going on back in the day. Not a bad thing to put a stop to from a college president's standpoint. Go to any college campus and you'll find plenty of liberals, but their sports are not all mediocre. Hell, there may not be a more liberal college president in the NCAA than Ohio State. How have they been doing in their sports?

But the "academics" required of fOSU football players are a joke. Cardale Jones was quoted as basically saying, "we are here to play football, not to go to class."

 

[DDThompson]

I know it seemed a bit tangental...but the poster that I was responding to speculated about the affect of Admin on things. I thought it was worth responding to his speculation (because what bigger "admin" could there be, than the President of the University)... with a revisit of the Rawlings story as it's well-documented fact as opposed to speculation or opinion. And it's representative of a more "academic" view of the role of sports on campus.

It may seem tangental to some. It isn't.

How many programs are disciplined by the NCAA for lack of "institutional control"?

Rawlings wouldn't have gone forward with his plan unless he had support to do so. He didn't have the support of the Elliott, Fry, or Davis. He never talked to them about his plan. Never talked to the coaches and AD about the plan that would effect there teams.

So where did he get his support? I'm certain he got his support from people who have no threat of losing their jobs or fear of competition at the University of Iowa.


He was prepared to force Iowa to endure his plan even if all other institutions turned his plan down.

See, Hunter was also a trailblazer.




I know you know this stuff. Just summarizing for some who didn't open up any articles.

 

[cecilB]

See my other post.

Begin your research with the name Hunter Rawlings, who took over as President in 1988...at the height of IOWA's athletic success (multiple National titles in wrestling, an elite 8 and sweet 16 in hoops and 2 Rosebowls in four years). With a Master's from Princeton and the IVY league attitude to match... Rawlings immediately set a course to put athletics in its proper place. And there were plenty of ultra-lib faculty (it's not a stereo-type if it's true) that loved every minute of it and applauded his efforts.

Many of them could not STAND the idea of IOWA as a sports power and Hayden's comments like "little dumplings" and his pink locker room were just more than they could stomach. (the pink locker room still pops up every few years) Rawlings proposed tougher academic standards (above the Big Ten standards) in a thinly cloaked effort to put jocks in their place. He failed and Hayden outlasted him, as he ultimately got the IVY league job he wanted, as President of Cornell in 1995.

Make no mistake, there is still a core group on campus that despise the fact that athletics is such a prominent part of the University's identity. (competitive sports is after all, the antithesis of the euphorian equality which should be our core mission) And they'll continue to undermine it when given the opportunity.

Baloney. What had Coach PO'd was Rawlings comments suggesting the NCAA should make freshman ineligible(a thought many coaches that view their role as mentor, would agree with). I don't remember the specific quote , but he said something like Iowa could take the lead. It was a brief incident, occurred the weekend of our coaches clinic, a booster group that grilled for the attendees had HRIII hung in effigy near the grill (pJ mccarney, mac's dad). It was pretty distasteful (era of IRAN flare ups), but funny.

All short lived.

Hartliebs KSU reference is all about admissions. Iowa allows for fewer partial qualifiers and maintains higher Admission standards than the NCAA or B1G mandates. Some fans are frustrated by this, not near as many alumni are.

And, no boosters don't call the office and review with coaches who should play. Some knuckle headed parents make hovering phone calls though... Would think that would end before college, it hasn't, and it's more frequent in today's parents

 

[ChosenChildren]

We are winning. 26 out of the past 36 seasons have ended in a bowl game; and we have won 60% of our games during that period.

Want to win more? NCAA football now is an out of control arm's race. Whatever Ohio State and Kansas State are doing, you have to do more of it to compete:

1. Make sure you have no (and I mean no) academic standards. Admit anyone, so long as they are a great athlete.
2. When they get to school, give them their grades. Just keep them eligible. Whatever it takes.
3. Pay the players and/or the parents (Ohio State has advanced this to an art form; read the book written by Maurice Clarett about his time at Ohio State).

Iowa is unwilling to cheat at the level Ohio State and Kansas State are cheating. That is the bottom line.

The Big Ten looks the other way because they want the dollars to keep rolling in.