ADVERTISEMENT

Iowa Volleyball

has been insinuated a lot, but not overtly stated by the dept.

More reasons staff needs to be changed.
At the State Vball tourney last week.
Here are the big players

Foecke- Nebraska
Reuter- Missouri
Conway- Iowa St
Schaben- Iowa St
Morgan- Wisconsin
Weber- UNI
Koop- UNI
Bellenger- Creighton
Winters-Creighton
Smith- Eastern Michigan
Brown- Kentucky
Porter- Georgia
Willey- Liberty
Werninten- UNLV

there are some others I am missing as well, but that list is pretty good, and there is one school noticeably absent.
 
For all of you football recruiting gurus reading this -
Foecke, Schaben, Morgan, White (Jame's daughter), Porter, and Webber. Think 4* and 5* recruits. And most of these are juniors!
Iowa is loaded with GREAT talent - and Dingman has her thumb stuck in her a**.
It makes me sick.
BTW - I was there most of thel week - I think she was a complete "no show". At least I never saw her.
 
I think it's been like that before Dingmann's, and even Frederick's time. Many years ago (maybe even pre-libero) UNI came into CHA and swept, led by sisters from Iowa City (West HS I think, don't remember names), who were quoted afterward as saying they weren't even recruited by Iowa. Though today it may be the reverse case, that is, the kids won't talk to Iowa.
 
The twin sisters were Kara and Kate Galer. They went to IC West High and were good multi-sport athletes. The University of Iowa has always slept through local talent. I go to the VBall games. The culture is simple--undisciplined, lack of effort, little Big Ten Talent. Where the fault lays who knows? I'd say management which would mean the AD and the coach.
 
Originally posted by 122950:
Tom Keating

Go get him!
For starters, he will get get the attention of the Iowa HS coaches - and the audience of some better Iowa talent.
Isn't it about time that we buried Christine Grant and her ilk?
Since Grant hired Stringer, and I think, a few other successful coaches (field hockey) IMO this statement needs explaining. So please.
 
Originally posted by IamHawkeye:

Originally posted by 122950:
Tom Keating

Go get him!
For starters, he will get get the attention of the Iowa HS coaches - and the audience of some better Iowa talent.
Isn't it about time that we buried Christine Grant and her ilk?
Since Grant hired Stringer, and I think, a few other successful coaches (field hockey) IMO this statement needs explaining. So please.
Don't want to put words in 122950's mouth but I believe he is referencing the AIAW philosophy that Christine Grant promoted where participation opportunities for women in sports was the end goal as opposed to promoting a competitive winning program. The majority of women's sports at Iowa have been mediocre at best for a very very long time. Volleyball being the least competitive of them all. There is still a very strong faction of former Christine Grant, Women's Athletic Department personnel that have remained in the merged department over the past 13 years that have still influenced the coaching hires and overall direction of many of the women's programs. Most of these women's prograsm have not been competitively successfull. Volleyball being a prime example.
 
Originally posted by 73chief:
Originally posted by IamHawkeye:

Originally posted by 122950:
Tom Keating

Go get him!
For starters, he will get get the attention of the Iowa HS coaches - and the audience of some better Iowa talent.
Isn't it about time that we buried Christine Grant and her ilk?
Since Grant hired Stringer, and I think, a few other successful coaches (field hockey) IMO this statement needs explaining. So please.
Don't want to put words in 122950's mouth but I believe he is referencing the AIAW philosophy that Christine Grant promoted where participation opportunities for women in sports was the end goal as opposed to promoting a competitive winning program. The majority of women's sports at Iowa have been mediocre at best for a very very long time. Volleyball being the least competitive of them all. There is still a very strong faction of former Christine Grant, Women's Athletic Department personnel that have remained in the merged department over the past 13 years that have still influenced the coaching hires and overall direction of many of the women's programs. Most of these women's prograsm have not been competitively successfull. Volleyball being a prime example.
I would say that under Grant Iowa won a lot more than after the merging. Of course, the addition of PSU added a school with strong women's programs and now Nebraska (soon MD and Rutgers). And some of the things won under her direction were partly because some of the other B10 schools hadn't got the word yet. Still, if Grant and the AIAW were opposed to competitive programs she must have changed. I'm not crazy enough to take the time to figure out who she hired and what happened under their coaching. But--it implies a profound disrespect to write "Grant and her ilk" for someone who fought for women's sports at Iowa and elsewhere.

BTW, I watched the earliest telecasts of the AIAW basketball championships. Did you? Those schools are no longer a factor now in the major championships of the NCAA. They emphasized women's basketball when the large schools were slumbering.

.
 
Originally posted by IamHawkeye:

Originally posted by 73chief:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:


Originally posted by 122950:
Tom Keating

Go get him!
For starters, he will get get the attention of the Iowa HS coaches - and the audience of some better Iowa talent.
Isn't it about time that we buried Christine Grant and her ilk?
Since Grant hired Stringer, and I think, a few other successful coaches (field hockey) IMO this statement needs explaining. So please.
Don't want to put words in 122950's mouth but I believe he is referencing the AIAW philosophy that Christine Grant promoted where participation opportunities for women in sports was the end goal as opposed to promoting a competitive winning program. The majority of women's sports at Iowa have been mediocre at best for a very very long time. Volleyball being the least competitive of them all. There is still a very strong faction of former Christine Grant, Women's Athletic Department personnel that have remained in the merged department over the past 13 years that have still influenced the coaching hires and overall direction of many of the women's programs. Most of these women's prograsm have not been competitively successfull. Volleyball being a prime example.
I would say that under Grant Iowa won a lot more than after the merging. Of course, the addition of PSU added a school with strong women's programs and now Nebraska (soon MD and Rutgers). And some of the things won under her direction were partly because some of the other B10 schools hadn't got the word yet. Still, if Grant and the AIAW were opposed to competitive programs she must have changed. I'm not crazy enough to take the time to figure out who she hired and what happened under their coaching. But--it implies a profound disrespect to write "Grant and her ilk" for someone who fought for women's sports at Iowa and elsewhere.

BTW, I watched the earliest telecasts of the AIAW basketball championships. Did you? Those schools are no longer a factor now in the major championships of the NCAA. They emphasized women's basketball when the large schools were slumbering.

.
And I agree with you, using the term "ilk" towards Dr. Grant is not at all appropriate and I was not defending it. I was simply trying to give what I felt was a historical basis for the comment. If you take out Basketball, Field Hockey and Softball our women's athletics programs for the last 30 years have been conference bottom feeders. Volleyball has been completely uncompetitive for it's 34+ year varsity history. Its the only sport at Iowa that has an all-time losing series record against every other program in the B1G. Women's Gymnastics has only finished in the top half of the B1G 5 times in 35 years. Women's Swimming a Diving is the second worst historical program in the B1G conference based on B1G meet record. Women's Tennis has had 2 different periods of success in the late 90s, and mid 2000s that those respective coaches used to jump into better jobs else where. Women's track & field and cross country have been perennial last place finishers in the B1G finishers for the last 30+ years. Crew and Soccer were both added late under Grants watch but have both been towards the bottom of the conference during the vast vast majority of their 17 and 15 year histories.

Remember, the AIAW did not allow recruiting or scholarships. It was simply a participation structure that was an offset of a physical education program. This is why the AIAW leadership fought so hard in the courts to stop the NCAA from sponsoring women's sports in the early 1980s. They new the business structure of the NCAA would not fit the educational/participation/health awareness model of the AIAW. Schools such as Tennessee, Penn State, USC, Texas, UCLA, that were power programs in the AIAW adapted to the new NCAA model and thrived competitively. Programs like Iowa did in certain areas but not in others. And by the late 1980s you saw many of Iowa's women's programs become very mediocre.

Some of this AIAW culture still exists in the Iowa Athletic Department.
 
Originally posted by IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life:


Originally posted by cidhawkeye:

Let's make sure we compose a committee of people who have no clue about athletics and give them no direction or anyone to manage the process.
Isn't that how Iowa does it in all sports besides basketball and football (wrestling too).
Actually, it's pretty much a perfect description of the last football search, too.
 
It would appear we are again heading down the same path last time we hired!!!!
They have "reached out" to a lot of candidates, and none have really seemed warm to the job.
Unless anyone knows anything else??
But, what else should we expect from the same people.
 
Originally posted by Boomer51:
It would appear we are again heading down the same path last time we hired!!!!
They have "reached out" to a lot of candidates, and none have really seemed warm to the job.
Unless anyone knows anything else??
But, what else should we expect from the same people.
I know someone from the Iowa Administration has reached out to Bond Shymansky. Don't know if he was receptive or not. I've hear one rumor that he was just given a nice contract extension with a total compensation package at around $200,000/year. If true I don't see how we would be able to compete with that. On the other hand, there has been some upheaval in the administration at Marquette with their AD resigning a few weeks before Christmas. So maybe the time to make a run at Bond is right this time.
 
Is there anything new on this coach search or will it be a March hire like Dingman? Anybody know who is getting targeted?
 
the volleyball banquet is set for February 1st so one would think they would name a coach by then.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
 
Originally posted by grugreen:

Is there anything new on this coach search or will it be a March hire like Dingman? Anybody know who is getting targeted?
My understanding is that some preliminary interviews have started. The top three candidates that Iowa targetted all expressed no interest in applying for the job. Bond Shymansky was one of those. It sounds like a candidate from the MAC, Pac-12 and Big-12 are the leading candidates. I was not told whether these were assistant coaches or current head coaches. I have a hard time thinking that any current head coach at any of the Pac-12 programs would have any interest in the Iowa job unless the salary is really high.

This post was edited on 1/22 2:23 PM by 73chief
 
Originally posted by 73chief:
Originally posted by grugreen:

Is there anything new on this coach search or will it be a March hire like Dingman? Anybody know who is getting targeted?
My understanding is that some preliminary interviews have started. The top three candidates that Iowa targetted all expressed no interest in applying for the job. Bond Shymansky was one of those. It sounds like a candidate from the MAC, Pac-12 and Big-12 are the leading candidates. I was not told whether these were assistant coaches or current head coaches. I have a hard time thinking that any current head coach at any of the Pac-12 programs would have any interest in the Iowa job unless the salary is really high.

This post was edited on 1/22 2:23 PM by 73chief
LOL, you sure about that one, stud?
 
Originally posted by Hawks100:


Originally posted by 73chief:

Originally posted by grugreen:

Is there anything new on this coach search or will it be a March hire like Dingman? Anybody know who is getting targeted?
My understanding is that some preliminary interviews have started. The top three candidates that Iowa targetted all expressed no interest in applying for the job. Bond Shymansky was one of those. It sounds like a candidate from the MAC, Pac-12 and Big-12 are the leading candidates. I was not told whether these were assistant coaches or current head coaches. I have a hard time thinking that any current head coach at any of the Pac-12 programs would have any interest in the Iowa job unless the salary is really high.


This post was edited on 1/22 2:23 PM by 73chief
LOL, you sure about that one, stud?
I simply passed on the information I was given. I was told that Bond did not express interest when he was originally reached out to. So one of two things happened, that information was incorrect, or things went full circle and they re-approached him later int he process and made an offer he could not refuse.

I will be very interested to see what the contract terms are.
 
Originally posted by 73chief:
Originally posted by Hawks100:


Originally posted by 73chief:

Originally posted by grugreen:

Is there anything new on this coach search or will it be a March hire like Dingman? Anybody know who is getting targeted?
My understanding is that some preliminary interviews have started. The top three candidates that Iowa targetted all expressed no interest in applying for the job. Bond Shymansky was one of those. It sounds like a candidate from the MAC, Pac-12 and Big-12 are the leading candidates. I was not told whether these were assistant coaches or current head coaches. I have a hard time thinking that any current head coach at any of the Pac-12 programs would have any interest in the Iowa job unless the salary is really high.


This post was edited on 1/22 2:23 PM by 73chief
LOL, you sure about that one, stud?
I simply passed on the information I was given. I was told that Bond did not express interest when he was originally reached out to. So one of two things happened, that information was incorrect, or things went full circle and they re-approached him later int he process and made an offer he could not refuse.

I will be very interested to see what the contract terms are.
Just messin' with ya, brah.

I've enjoyed the information that you've passed along in this thread.
 
Originally posted by 73chief
Originally posted by IamHawkeye:

Originally posted by 73chief:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:


Originally posted by 122950:
Tom Keating

Go get him!
For starters, he will get get the attention of the Iowa HS coaches - and the audience of some better Iowa talent.
Isn't it about time that we buried Christine Grant and her ilk?
Since Grant hired Stringer, and I think, a few other successful coaches (field hockey) IMO this statement needs explaining. So please.
Don't want to put words in 122950's mouth but I believe he is referencing the AIAW philosophy that Christine Grant promoted where participation opportunities for women in sports was the end goal as opposed to promoting a competitive winning program. The majority of women's sports at Iowa have been mediocre at best for a very very long time. Volleyball being the least competitive of them all. There is still a very strong faction of former Christine Grant, Women's Athletic Department personnel that have remained in the merged department over the past 13 years that have still influenced the coaching hires and overall direction of many of the women's programs. Most of these women's prograsm have not been competitively successfull. Volleyball being a prime example.
I would say that under Grant Iowa won a lot more than after the merging. Of course, the addition of PSU added a school with strong women's programs and now Nebraska (soon MD and Rutgers). And some of the things won under her direction were partly because some of the other B10 schools hadn't got the word yet. Still, if Grant and the AIAW were opposed to competitive programs she must have changed. I'm not crazy enough to take the time to figure out who she hired and what happened under their coaching. But--it implies a profound disrespect to write "Grant and her ilk" for someone who fought for women's sports at Iowa and elsewhere.

BTW, I watched the earliest telecasts of the AIAW basketball championships. Did you? Those schools are no longer a factor now in the major championships of the NCAA. They emphasized women's basketball when the large schools were slumbering.

.
And I agree with you, using the term "ilk" towards Dr. Grant is not at all appropriate and I was not defending it. I was simply trying to give what I felt was a historical basis for the comment. If you take out Basketball, Field Hockey and Softball our women's athletics programs for the last 30 years have been conference bottom feeders. Volleyball has been completely uncompetitive for it's 34+ year varsity history. Its the only sport at Iowa that has an all-time losing series record against every other program in the B1G. Women's Gymnastics has only finished in the top half of the B1G 5 times in 35 years. Women's Swimming a Diving is the second worst historical program in the B1G conference based on B1G meet record. Women's Tennis has had 2 different periods of success in the late 90s, and mid 2000s that those respective coaches used to jump into better jobs else where. Women's track & field and cross country have been perennial last place finishers in the B1G finishers for the last 30+ years. Crew and Soccer were both added late under Grants watch but have both been towards the bottom of the conference during the vast vast majority of their 17 and 15 year histories.

Remember, the AIAW did not allow recruiting or scholarships. It was simply a participation structure that was an offset of a physical education program. This is why the AIAW leadership fought so hard in the courts to stop the NCAA from sponsoring women's sports in the early 1980s. They new the business structure of the NCAA would not fit the educational/participation/health awareness model of the AIAW. Schools such as Tennessee, Penn State, USC, Texas, UCLA, that were power programs in the AIAW adapted to the new NCAA model and thrived competitively. Programs like Iowa did in certain areas but not in others. And by the late 1980s you saw many of Iowa's women's programs become very mediocre.

Some of this AIAW culture still exists in the Iowa Athletic Department.




My father did the play by play of AIAW national championship game. /csb
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT