We don't even have to look that far to see the benefit of getting one of these 3* guys...Anthony Clemmons was ranked #315 nationally. Barely a 3* on 247 and a 2* on ESPN. I bet Fran would have killed to have him on the team. Even as a freshman Clemmons was a valuable contributor.
Wow. Fran must be feeling some heat for missing out on DJ
- Thread starter lightning1
- Start date
We don't even have to look that far to see the benefit of getting one of these 3* guys...Anthony Clemmons was ranked #315 nationally. Barely a 3* on 247 and a 2* on ESPN. I bet Fran would have killed to have him on the team. Even as a freshman Clemmons was a valuable contributor.
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
You'd think these recruits were Jon Lickliter-level ones the way some people have reacted. These guys aren't scrubs, they can play. Seems Fran must like them legitimately. He made it known that they didn't necessarily need a pg though DJ was worth going after, and later let it get out that they'd have been fine just waiting to land a '20 pg.
Fran must have run a calculation on offering these guys based on their talent, the talent in the '20 class for pgs, and the likelihood he'd get one of the '19 guys as compared to a '20 guy.
Fran must have run a calculation on offering these guys based on their talent, the talent in the '20 class for pgs, and the likelihood he'd get one of the '19 guys as compared to a '20 guy.
Last edited:
Robowe
Well-Known Member
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
That’s a great point. We are in on a few 2020 PGs but the main one is Jalen Suggs, who is a blue chipper, and most likely a pipe dream.
Maybe Fran and Co have made a calculated decision to bring in a PG in this 19’ class and let him learn a year behind JBo before taking over as a sophomore in 2020. This as opposed to maybe signing a similar 3* type in 2020 (if that’s what it comes to) and expecting him to start in 2020 as a true freshman, on a team that should be pretty decent.
I think the calculation is likely in terms of finding a 1 that can also play the 2 and be a defensive stopper. Basically, Clemmon's part II. That way, if we get a 5* guy in the next class, we aren't displacing anyone and have the option of going small in a way that we haven't been able to do since Gesell and Clemmons left.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
I made her final 3. Which makes me the 2nd loser.Did you make Selma's final 6?
lightning1
Well-Known Member
How do you know they aren't scrubs? How many P5 offers do these guys have? That's only important because Iowa competes in a P5 conference.
These guys are only as good as how they perform against the players that the other BIG teams bring in.
Fran ran the "oh shit, I missed on another top PG" calculation and scrambled to find some warm bodies. It still remains to be seen whether he gets any of them to sign.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
So are you going to be happy or give Fran more shit if they don’t land any of them?
Me personally I’m okay with the offers. I’d like to sign 3 in this class so Pat, a PG, and hopefully another impact guy. The impact guy is what concerns me the most right now. As for the PG I think it’s pretty low risk, they get to get their feet wet behind JBo for a year. Iowa can still recruit the PGs they are in on for 2020. Not every scholarship guy needs to play so the fact that Fran is taking a risk on the “type” of PG many on this board have longed for isn’t a bad thing. If it works out great, if not we can still get our guy in 2020. Thoughts?
Wasn't Harvey Weinstein number 1?
earlkoppelman
Well-Known Member
Yes and no.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
We need an "impact guy" at PG. That's it and that's all. I'm going to give Fran shit until he gets a BIG title or makes a Final Four. I'm way past "the journey" attitude. It's been a 40 year "journey". I want results. End of story.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
My concern is twofold.
EDIT: When I first got into Big Ten basketball the bell cows of the league were Knight, Keady, Heathcote, and Henson, with Mr. Davis and the Frieder/Fisher combo right on their heels. After a period of transition we got the Izzo, Ryan, Matta dominated era. Now with Ryan and Motta gone and Izzo and Beilein not getting any younger the conference is in another state of flux. Whoever figures out how to coach and recruit is going to rise to the top of the conference.
- Any program and recruiting momentum that Fran built after 2014-16 is gone. He made progress for five years in a row or whatever it was and announcers and preseason magazines would point that out at every opportunity. Not so much any more.
- Almost everyone points out that the McCaffrey boys are going to help us bring in more and better players because of AAU conncetions, etc. Is it possible, however, that for every players who wants to play with the son(s) of the coach there are five who don't for that very reason? Just food for thought.
EDIT: When I first got into Big Ten basketball the bell cows of the league were Knight, Keady, Heathcote, and Henson, with Mr. Davis and the Frieder/Fisher combo right on their heels. After a period of transition we got the Izzo, Ryan, Matta dominated era. Now with Ryan and Motta gone and Izzo and Beilein not getting any younger the conference is in another state of flux. Whoever figures out how to coach and recruit is going to rise to the top of the conference.
Last edited:
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
That’s such an illogical statement. So if tomorrow Fran were to sign Keion Brooks and Trayce Jackson-Davis would you keep bitching because Fran hasn’t won a B1G Title or gone to the final four? We are in the off-season right now and we are talking about improving our team. We can’t go back on the past, we sucked this year and we didn’t land D.J. Carton, nothing we can do about that now.
I agree we need to improve our PG play, but would you also agree that we can’t improve our PG play if we don’t sign a PG? So if Fran takes a flier on a “waterbug” type PG I don’t think it’s a bad thing, maybe they’ll become the next Nate Mason:
https://247sports.com/Player/Nate-Mason-20274//high-school-60948
Again if it doesn’t work out we still are pursuing Jalen Suggs (pipe dream) and Tyler Beard in the 2020 class.
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
I don't think they're scrubs because the two I mentioned previously are rated by 247 as top 240 guys, because I read Mathew Bain's piece on them, because their videos convinced me enough that they're at least not scrubs, and because my starting point for what I considered a "scrub" was Jon Lickliter and even you have to agree that they're better than he was.
How do you know Fran ran the "oh shit, I missed another top PG" calculation and is scrambling to find warm bodies? You're able to read his mind?
Ree4
Well-Known Member
Cmon man lighning doesn't even know what logic is, it isn't fair to hold him to that standard. That's like telling a dwarf he should be taller.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
I have no issue with @lightning1 for the most part, but it just seems this is a double edged sword for not only him, but other posters on this site.
Half the people say we can’t land 5 stars and never will, but then we offer lower level guys and they say those guys suck.
Half the people say we need a quick athletic PG but then we offer guys in that mold and we say those are fallbacks.
Seems like it’s just a no win situation. I get it, Iowa was awful last year and a lot of the blame goes to Fran. He’s basically worn out all of his goodwill with me. I’ve already said we should fire him but certainly if we don’t make the dance this year I think his time should be done. In the meantime though I hope Fran and his staff can sign the best players possible to improve our program going forward.
Last edited:
SpecialKHawk
Well-Known Member
The same irony / hypocrisy you are pointing out about recruiting which is a good point also applies to wanting a new coach. In the last 30 years over 4 coaches there have been a few bright spots but not much to celebrate about consistently. That speaks to a systemic university issue not a coaching issue. All you are asking for is to bring in a new coach to reset your good will meter for a few seasons only to end up in the same spot later. It’s a rinse and repeat scenario unless you get lucky. What are the true odds of that?
Address this instead:
1. Internal University Support for Athletics must increase and be a priority. Strong Athletics strengthen Academic and University outcomes not the other way around.
2. Build newer smaller basketball only arena to pump new energy into the program and show commitment
3. Be willing to color in the margins some and be resoundingly supportive not negative as a fan base when any controversy ensues
At Iowa if we don’t work harder and smarter along with taking calculated risks you can change out coaches forever and it’s not going to net to much long term.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
Those are all fair points. I haven’t thrown in the towel on Fran just yet, and a few years ago I probably thought he was the guy to take us to the next level. Either way last year was completely unacceptable and one of the worst in school history. If we miss the dance 3 years in a row that’s plenty long of a leash. It doesn’t matter what I think anyway because he isn’t getting fired regardless of how next season plays.
But to your broader point, yes the university & athletic department would need to be far more committed to basketball before we ever saw any real changes.
rschneider
Well-Known Member
So you've been miserable your whole life or close to it concerning Iowa basketball?
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
At this point I would be willing trade coaching tenure stability for more conference championships and deeper tournament advances, even if meant hiring coaches who would use Iowa as a stepping stone and thus have to be replaced every five to seven years. What we're doing now isn't working, unless Fran can really turn it around quickly.
Like I said about ten posts ago, the opportunity is there. The league is there for the taking. The coaches who dominated since the start of the millennium are retiring or will do so soon. Seize the opportunity while you can. But we are stuck with an unathletic, unbalanced team. Wouldn't it be nice to have an exciting, dynamic, feared team, even if the coach of that team was working for a blue blood three years later?
Like I said about ten posts ago, the opportunity is there. The league is there for the taking. The coaches who dominated since the start of the millennium are retiring or will do so soon. Seize the opportunity while you can. But we are stuck with an unathletic, unbalanced team. Wouldn't it be nice to have an exciting, dynamic, feared team, even if the coach of that team was working for a blue blood three years later?
