ADVERTISEMENT

Connor McCaffrey

Unless things have changed recently I would say he does not have a + arm or speed at this time. You are right though he could probably focus on baseball and do great. I would rather he focus on basketball if he is getting a scholarship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DenverTurtle
My daughter played sports in high school, so I am not biased against women's sports. However, if I recall correctly, at the time of Title IX, there were something like 4-5 times as many high school male athletes than female. BUT the almighty rulers said colleges had to have the same numbers for men and women. And look at attendance at women's pro basketball. Probably 10% of men's BB. Just because it isn't 'FAIR', we must have equal opportunity for women in sports. I played fastpitch softball in my younger days. Shouldn't boys have that opportunity and be able to play on the girls SB teams??? Where is the equality??


You have no clue about what you are posting.. There was a time when wrestling coaches tried to claim that their sport suffered because of money going to women's programs under Title IX. The data on financial support for athletes has been published over & over again, and conclusively shown that neither wrestling or baseball OR ANY other men's programs ANYWHERE were adversely affected by Title IX.

In the decade following the adoption of Title IX there was not ONE Division 1 member where the spending on men's programs decreased while the budgeting for women's athletics increased.

When I was a graduate student tutoring in the Iowa Athletic Dept in the glory years 1955-57 the only baseball players who got any significant financial aid were guys who were on football or basketball schollies. The kind of financial assistance that baseball, wrestlers, swimmers, etc got was phoney "counselors" jobs in the dorms or other "employment" by the university. The AD & U officials looked the other way at Coach Evy's under-the-table money, though everyone around the Fieldhouse knew about it (along with other scandals involving AD Paul Brechler).

The facts: almost all Division 1 schools pass on large sums of student fees to athletics----and the majority of students paying the fees are women. and until only recently this included Iowa (which has consistently operated its athletic programs with a profit & hasn't needed the fees---or the revenue from charging students for game tickets---always free until Fry and winning came in 1980); a constantly increasing number of athletes at Iowa---now about half----get financial aid from endowed scholarships (endowed by the millions donated by wealthy COUPLES---you know, the pairs that Republicans insist must be half women---who keep U of Iowa athletics in the top 10% of revenue in the entire Division 1. You might want to reflect a moment on the fact that Lucille Carver (of Carver-Hawkeye Arena) alone has and continues through the Carver Foundation to provide enough funding to underwrite the Hawekeye baseball program every year.

Title IX is not the reason why "minor" sports (in the bizarre manner that the NCAA finds the world's most popular sports like soccer/real football, baseball, track & field, tennis, hockey to be "minor" ones) can only be partially supported by scholarships. That is the decision of the NCAA (based on subservience to the major TV networks, ESPN, Comcast, Fox)----and any school not named Notre Dame, UNC, Ohio State. Michigan. UConn, Syracuse, Southern Cal, or Kentucky will get penalized for millions of dollars lost in consequence of overspending the limits placed on minor sports by the NCAA before Title IX was even proposed in the US Congress.

The only impact of Title IX is that almost two decades ago the NCAA decreed a 15% reduction in the numbers of FULL schollies in all men's programs (this was necessary to make it possible for expenditures on women's sports to make progress toward parity: NCAA Division 1 member schools were unwilling to allow schools to give less than a FULL schollie to ALL 100 football or 15 basketball players, but agreed to a 15% reduction in scholarship money to all men's programs. So blame belongs on football & basketball (i.e., the source of the hundreds of millions of dollars the NCAA gets---and partially divides---among member schools).

And if Title X still bugs you, I've got news for you: Hillary is about to become your worst nightmare.
 
I was a d1 baseball coach when I was younger. Screw your BS.

I saw first hand what happens to men's programs like baseball. I watched as we fund raised several hundred thousand dollars for a new lighting system and turf and watched participation and roster limitations (not even talkingtalking about scholarships ) cut.

I then watch as softball had more scholarships than baseball and still had to hold open tryouts to fill those spots. Whereas we had close to 100 boys try out just to get an Opportunity to practice through fall and winter hoping to make the practice roster for the season. Many tried out 4 straight years. All that went away. Boys paying their own way were denied opportunitiea because if title ix.

I watched as softball demanded to have (for no effort on their own) all of the things we had built on our own. Not just the basics, the luxury items. The things we worked for in addition to the budget.

Using football roster #s in the formula is a joke.

I have a daughter that played basketball in college. So I am certainly glad she had opportunities but she understands that we cannot legislate equality in all situations. It's ridiculous.

So don't try to lecture me on your agenda BS.

Unfortunately equality DOES have to be done through legislation because people and systems wont do the right thing unless they are required to do so through legislation. Just look back at how poorly womens sports were treated before the legislation.
My experience is through disability, not gender, but the fact that legislation required to get people to do the right thing sucks big time. How would would feel if your daughter had not had the opportunity to play college basketball because college didn't want to spend the money??
 
  • Like
Reactions: COMarc
Unfortunately equality DOES have to be done through legislation because people and systems wont do the right thing unless they are required to do so through legislation. Just look back at how poorly womens sports were treated before the legislation.
My experience is through disability, not gender, but the fact that legislation required to get people to do the right thing sucks big time. How would would feel if your daughter had not had the opportunity to play college basketball because college didn't want to spend the money??
The fair thing would be to have men's and women's athletic departments. Each responsible for their own funding. Women's sports aren't appealing to most people so why should they get the same treatment?
 
Unfortunately equality DOES have to be done through legislation because people and systems wont do the right thing unless they are required to do so through legislation. Just look back at how poorly womens sports were treated before the legislation.
My experience is through disability, not gender, but the fact that legislation required to get people to do the right thing sucks big time. How would would feel if your daughter had not had the opportunity to play college basketball because college didn't want to spend the money??
Wrong. You can't and shouldn't try to legislate equality.

Opportunity? Sure.

It's amazing how people don't get that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gutt15
Unfortunately equality DOES have to be done through legislation because people and systems wont do the right thing unless they are required to do so through legislation. Just look back at how poorly womens sports were treated before the legislation.
My experience is through disability, not gender, but the fact that legislation required to get people to do the right thing sucks big time. How would would feel if your daughter had not had the opportunity to play college basketball because college didn't want to spend the money??
Probably about the same as I would if my Son wanted to be a College Baseball player at say................ Iowa State.
 
The fair thing would be to have men's and women's athletic departments. Each responsible for their own funding. Women's sports aren't appealing to most people so why should they get the same treatment?

Because Universities are allegedly academic institutions first, athletics are supposed to be secondary (like the misleading term student-athlete). These institutions of higher learning are supposed to be all about equality so if they're going to put their money where their mouth is Title IX is absolutely necessary.

Professional sports is entirely different. These are businesses and all about making money which means fan demand is most important. If the WNBA had the attendance, TV ratings, jersey sales, etc that the NBA has then the players would make similar money.
 
I remember when the university decided they had to add a women's sport and chose rowing. There were signs posted all over town imploring women to try out for the team (and thus, a scholarship), no experience necessary.

I remember when title IX first passed over 20 years ago and I thought it was stupid to eliminate male sports with participants for female sports that did not yet have any participants.
I also recall the proponent of title IX claimed that male participation in sports was so much higher because there was so much more access. They claimed that if women had as many athletics available that they would participate just as much. A little over 2 decades later those proponents turned out to be exactly right, female athletes just needed more opportunity for participation for them to participate more.
 
TOS just solved the mystery. Won't link since its competition.

He threw some interesting options out there like red shirting or prep school. He does want a scholarship at some point though. Fair IMO.
 
Connor just said he is playing baseball at Iowa. The OPs question was legit

Probably a good move for all involved. After what I saw of him in the state tournament, he definitely did not look like a B10 caliber pg. Being in a Saul-Tubby Smith like situation wouldn't be good for him or Fran.
 
Spoke with Connor today. His plan is to play both baseball and basketball at Iowa. He's also open to walking on for basketball. Family has not talked about it at any depth at this point, but if needed he would be happy to do it. At some point, he expects he would be on scholarship.

As I've said before, there are plenty of options for him. He mentioned prep school for a year as one option. Could also play baseball as a freshman and redshirt in hoops to create a bit more space between himself and Williams/Bohannon. Also would allow him to play more with his brother down the road.

His priority would be hoops and could play fall baseball, then go over to hoops for the season and then return to baseball once basketball season ends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeye_fan321
Thanks Tom! Nice to know the walk-on option is still there. Several posters had ruled it out, apparently in error...
 
In my opinion in watching each game during the state tournament, Connor is not a B1G baseball caliber player RIGHT NOW. Doesn't have quick enough hands. Hands are tough to improve, you either have them or you don't. He has the body. I would guess he plays fall baseball, plays basketball his freshman year, and never plays baseball again. Again, just my opinion based on what I have seen. SMALL SAMPLE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Legend12
You have no clue about what you are posting.. There was a time when wrestling coaches tried to claim that their sport suffered because of money going to women's programs under Title IX. The data on financial support for athletes has been published over & over again, and conclusively shown that neither wrestling or baseball OR ANY other men's programs ANYWHERE were adversely affected by Title IX.

In the decade following the adoption of Title IX there was not ONE Division 1 member where the spending on men's programs decreased while the budgeting for women's athletics increased.

When I was a graduate student tutoring in the Iowa Athletic Dept in the glory years 1955-57 the only baseball players who got any significant financial aid were guys who were on football or basketball schollies. The kind of financial assistance that baseball, wrestlers, swimmers, etc got was phoney "counselors" jobs in the dorms or other "employment" by the university. The AD & U officials looked the other way at Coach Evy's under-the-table money, though everyone around the Fieldhouse knew about it (along with other scandals involving AD Paul Brechler).

The facts: almost all Division 1 schools pass on large sums of student fees to athletics----and the majority of students paying the fees are women. and until only recently this included Iowa (which has consistently operated its athletic programs with a profit & hasn't needed the fees---or the revenue from charging students for game tickets---always free until Fry and winning came in 1980); a constantly increasing number of athletes at Iowa---now about half----get financial aid from endowed scholarships (endowed by the millions donated by wealthy COUPLES---you know, the pairs that Republicans insist must be half women---who keep U of Iowa athletics in the top 10% of revenue in the entire Division 1. You might want to reflect a moment on the fact that Lucille Carver (of Carver-Hawkeye Arena) alone has and continues through the Carver Foundation to provide enough funding to underwrite the Hawekeye baseball program every year.

Title IX is not the reason why "minor" sports (in the bizarre manner that the NCAA finds the world's most popular sports like soccer/real football, baseball, track & field, tennis, hockey to be "minor" ones) can only be partially supported by scholarships. That is the decision of the NCAA (based on subservience to the major TV networks, ESPN, Comcast, Fox)----and any school not named Notre Dame, UNC, Ohio State. Michigan. UConn, Syracuse, Southern Cal, or Kentucky will get penalized for millions of dollars lost in consequence of overspending the limits placed on minor sports by the NCAA before Title IX was even proposed in the US Congress.

The only impact of Title IX is that almost two decades ago the NCAA decreed a 15% reduction in the numbers of FULL schollies in all men's programs (this was necessary to make it possible for expenditures on women's sports to make progress toward parity: NCAA Division 1 member schools were unwilling to allow schools to give less than a FULL schollie to ALL 100 football or 15 basketball players, but agreed to a 15% reduction in scholarship money to all men's programs. So blame belongs on football & basketball (i.e., the source of the hundreds of millions of dollars the NCAA gets---and partially divides---among member schools).

And if Title X still bugs you, I've got news for you: Hillary is about to become your worst nightmare.

Ummm....no. Just.....no.

On just about every count.
 
Why don't you take a few plays off?

You really think Connor is anything close to a B10 caliber starting guard? As a walk-on, 7th/8th/9th type of guy, I like that role a lot for him, a lot less pressure on him.
 
You really think Connor is anything close to a B10 caliber starting guard? As a walk-on, 7th/8th/9th type of guy, I like that role a lot for him, a lot less pressure on him.
He did start as a freshman at West, with their size of school and amount of athletes that does say something..
 
  • Like
Reactions: DenverTurtle
Yes, I do. He's more than proved himself on the AAU circuit.

I've never watched him play there, but from what I've seen in the state tournament the last few years, if he's our starter, I think we're in trouble.
 
I've never watched him play there, but from what I've seen in the state tournament the last few years, if he's our starter, I think we're in trouble.
You realize HS ball is not a good indicator at all of college performance right? AAU is much better because you actually play other good competition and is a more free flowing game.

The title game last year against Valley was God awful. Credit to Valley for taking four minutes off the clock at a time, but that is a terrible indicator of talent.

Cook was only averaged like 10 ppg in HS and was a top 75 recruit. Moss was only like a n 8 ppg HS player. Just totally different games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThomesG.Hey
Well, I stand corrected on CM playing baseball. I thought there'd be no way. I still will be surprised if he actually follows through with this and I will be extremely surprised if he ever plays an inning of baseball at Iowa.

Good for him to do what he wants either way.

He and his dad also squashed the idea that they wouldn't use his scholarship to bring him a top-flight player
 
I've never watched him play there, but from what I've seen in the state tournament the last few years, if he's our starter, I think we're in trouble.
West High's coach runs a slowdown style that is terrible to watch. Connor is a Top 100 recruit because he is playing great against much better competition during the AAU season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThomesG.Hey
Well, I stand corrected on CM playing baseball. I thought there'd be no way. I still will be surprised if he actually follows through with this and I will be extremely surprised if he ever plays an inning of baseball at Iowa.

Good for him to do what he wants either way.

He and his dad also squashed the idea that they wouldn't use his scholarship to bring him a top-flight player
Did you even read Tom's post above?
 
It was also mentioned that Connor might try for an academic scholarship as an option.

Kyle Galloway, from SC West, was a basketball scholarship-worthy player back in the 90's, but went to school on an academic scholarship. This saved a basketball scholarship for Dr Tom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DenverTurtle
Probably a good move for all involved. After what I saw of him in the state tournament, he definitely did not look like a B10 caliber pg. Being in a Saul-Tubby Smith like situation wouldn't be good for him or Fran.
Was Saul that bad? Refresh my memory. Save me from Googling his name to see whether he started on a final four team or not.
 
Yes. Specifically what do you believe I am incorrect about?
Spoke with Connor today. His plan is to play both baseball and basketball at Iowa. He's also open to walking on for basketball. Family has not talked about it at any depth at this point, but if needed he would be happy to do it. At some point, he expects he would be on scholarship...

He and his dad also squashed the idea that they wouldn't use his scholarship to bring him a top-flight player
 
Yes. Connor and his dad are willing to have him walk on sol that a top player can be brought in on what would have been Connors scholarship. Just like I said
 
Doesn't seem like a good idea to try and play both. At least if he wants to excel at one of them it doesn't sound like a good idea. If I were him I would focus on baseball. He isn't an NBA player.
 
Doesn't seem like a good idea to try and play both. At least if he wants to excel at one of them it doesn't sound like a good idea. If I were him I would focus on baseball. He isn't an NBA player.
What's not being an NBA player got to do with it?
 
What's not being an NBA player got to do with it?

If he wants to be a professional in a sport. If he doesn't then what he is doing is fine. But he stated himself he sacrifices development in both sports by playing both. And he is not a Bo Jackson type freak athlete.
 
If he wants to be a professional in a sport. If he doesn't then what he is doing is fine. But he stated himself he sacrifices development in both sports by playing both. And he is not a Bo Jackson type freak athlete.

There's no guarantee he would become a pro player (in either sport) if he dedicated himself solely to one or the other. He has a unique opportunity to play two sports, good for him.

I would venture to guess he drops baseball after a year or two to focus on basketball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanL53
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT