He clearly states that being a TE is what helped him to commit so why is he listed as a DE on the front page??
Fant
- Thread starter GunnerHawk
- Start date
From a purely football perspective, ASU and ND could certainly be a concern. Sun Devils are on the upswing and of course in addition to expecting to be pretty good this year, ND has the heritage advantage over most other programs.
However, if the kid is truly serious about making medicine his future career, either immediately after undergrad completion, or sometime after a stint in professional football, then Iowa is a markedly better option than either of the aforementioned, both of which only offer pre-med and do not have their own on-campus teaching hospital.
The rumor around Hoch is he's up to 235 pounds and still is athletic and could put on at least 10 more easy.
If he is already 235 I would bet he can carry 255 easily by late in his caree just from turning from a boy to a man. Nearly always better for a FB player to not HAVE to work just to gain weight. Generally easier to keep the athleticism.
Oh so he is not going to be a Husker as you previously said? And then later you told us "word on the street" was Cal or UCLA...
It will be interesting to see Iowa's group of TEs in a few years ... Wisnieski, Outsey, Vejvoda, Hockenson, and Fant. Some good potential there!
"Before Fant’s decision, Iowa’s class ranked 24th nationally according to Rivals."
But according to all our bitter Hawk fans who are so in tuned to who and what kind of players Iowa is recruiting, that's just not possible!
The only thing you're trying to do with a comment like that is bait the people you can't stand into posting, so I don't really understand the point. I am very happy about the Fant commitment, but anyone with a little bit of sense can see that Iowa's team ranking will drop as other schools catch up in total commitments. Iowa's average star rating of 2.65 will likely put them in the 50's when it's all said and done unless they reel in some more guys like Fant to close out the class. I realize the new formula is based of the "rivals rating" and not the average star rating, but the highest a team with a 2.65 or lower has finished in the top 50 since they changed the formula in 2013 is #50.
BirdistheWord
HB Legend
The teams ahead of us in the B1G have 13, 9, 7 and 10 Four Star recruits respectively. Additionally, tOSU has two Five Star recruits on top of that (they are the '13").
Now I am usually one of the first to argue that historically (I challenge anyone to look at the facts) we do not have high ranking classes. Almost NEVER in the top 25.
But....we usually are able to bring in some Four Star recruits. KF is one of the best at turning 2 star guys into real players, but we cannot live on that alone. The 2010 class is a good case study. Solid 4 Star guys (obviously some left), some rising 3 Star Players and Of Course some 2 Star Gems.
2 Star Gems: Hitchens, Martin-Manley
3 Star Risers: C Davis, Kirksey, Morris, Scherff
4 Star Solid: Coker, Derby, Donnal, CJF (realize Coker and Derby left, but both were really good football players)
Now I am usually one of the first to argue that historically (I challenge anyone to look at the facts) we do not have high ranking classes. Almost NEVER in the top 25.
But....we usually are able to bring in some Four Star recruits. KF is one of the best at turning 2 star guys into real players, but we cannot live on that alone. The 2010 class is a good case study. Solid 4 Star guys (obviously some left), some rising 3 Star Players and Of Course some 2 Star Gems.
2 Star Gems: Hitchens, Martin-Manley
3 Star Risers: C Davis, Kirksey, Morris, Scherff
4 Star Solid: Coker, Derby, Donnal, CJF (realize Coker and Derby left, but both were really good football players)
And this is why it is absolutely pointless to complain about recruiting......or care to the extent that a lot of fans do, even though they will inevitably argue otherwise after the fact.
Thank you.
Not really a rigorous post on that site. The folks who play with those analytics are still hoping that their metrics are relevant.
It's self-evident and obvious that the teams that get the most no-brainer talent will, statistically speaking, be the most successful. However, the quality of that sort of analysis isn't even as good as "curve fitting." And, sadly, while many people (including many scientists) seem to think that curve-fitting is akin to scientific theory ... it is, in fact, NOT!
Blind empiricism makes a lot of "predictions" that are just plain wrong. If blind empiricism has led many (even a past president of Harvard) to believe that women aren't as good at math as men or that white running banks are inherently inferior to their black counterparts. Sadly, many people don't critically think about these empirical observations and realize that ideas of social inertia provide a much stronger framework for understanding such data.
Recruiting sites bank on the entertainment value that it provides for football fanatics. They NEED people to "believe" in their validity. Never mind that none of their analytics accounts for how well a guy will fit in a particular system or anything of that nature.
Furthermore, the dirty little secret that recruiting sites don't share is that the quality of offers that a guy receives often impacts how well rated a particular recruit might be. Please admit that you understand how much it can bias the data when you start rating a guy higher simply because a more successful program recruits the individual. They're effectively "BUILDING IN" the correlation they want to sell to the public - to legitimize the entertainment they're providing you. I really enjoy tracking recruiting myself - however, I don't really care how these sites rate guys.
From what I understand, that is not over the top. Elite athlete would probably be a bit much, but he is supposedly a great athlete, or at least as TE/DE's are concerned.
