Before this goes further off the rails, can we move on from how attractive potential portal additions are
Iowa Womens Bball Portal Targets
- Thread starter FrankBurns00
- Start date
Are you under the impression that her being aware that she is attractive somehow entitles you to comment on it? What sense does that make?
Quit being such a sensitive puss, wtf
I almost guarantee you she likes being thought of as nice looking and enjoys people even saying it
Last edited:
Lots of negative Nancie’s on this board. I’m going to say we’re the leader in the clubhouse with Olson. Sure NIL is important but Olson has seen what Bluder did with Clark. She basically gave her free reign. At no other school will she have as much freedom to play free and easy. We get her we’re immediately a top 25 team again. We complain about losing Morrow and Betts last year but we were never really in the game. Neither wanted to come here. In this case we have a lot to offer.
Maddie Scherr from Kentucky is supposedly visiting Iowa on Thursday!
5th year transfer guard.
5th year transfer guard.
Last edited:
I'm a straight man, and not oblivious to the attractiveness of women, and esp. athletes. But this is a thread dedicated to Iowa wbb, their overall success, and specifically re: recruiting hopes/options that might benefit the future of the program. I do hope we can avoid devolving into the "men of culture" fetishism that is prevalent in so many YT vids of female athletes. I'm not going to demonize you, I'm just going to suggest you find a different format for your particular interests.
We have to imagine the motivations/goals of these portal players, and why they might, or might not choose Iowa. The program has tremendous visibility, but transfer players might wonder whether the loss of CC and that senior class reduces Iowa to a "flash in the pan"; or do they think "this is my chance to make a big difference and get seen on a broader level" ? Or, might a 5th year transfer be more concerned with grad school options? Or, "do I really need to choose a school that will pay me the most"? Cuz I doubt any of us has ever been a 22-ish female hooper and college student juggling their life choices.
Last edited:
Okay dad, thanks for not demonizing me. You have no idea what my interests are by the way, so fock off
I realized something this week. Bluder and co have been so visible the past couple years that I would bet a lot of kids have an opinion already about them. Think of all the interviews Bluder did and all the coverage the team received during the Final Four this year alone (which I'm sure Scherr and Olsen watched). I would think that, if they're seriously considering Iowa, they are already warm to Bluder as well as her team's personnel, culture and style of play.
We're in a different place than last year, I think, because Bluder proved to a lot of naysayers that she could succeed again with new players. Syd and Hannah are not only great ambassadors but great representatives of what Bluder can do with talent. Not saying either visitor this week is a sure thing, but I think that Iowa proved a lot this year. Back to Back Final Fours and a B1G 3-Peat are highly impressive. Bluder rose to the challenge presented and exceeded expectations (again).
For Scherr especially, who saw Bluder go to the Elite 8 under a completely different starting 5 when she was a senior in HS, I would think the continued success would signal a lot of positive things about the program as well as Bluder's coaching. Bluder won't have to spend these visits introducing/selling her program the way other coaches whom they've had little exposure to might have to. It's the last go-around for both Scherr and Olsen, neither wants to take a gamble. They want consistency and they want to contribute.
Also -- different subject. Remember last year around this time (after the Final Four run but before Shateah entered the portal), when the Swarm CEO mentioned that there were definitely *ways* to pay for a 16th scholarship if no one left the program but an inbound transfer was interested? And he mentioned possible donors (plural) who were particularly interested in supporting WBB to keep momentum going?
I wonder if those possible donors are still around and if those *ways* still exist if, say, both Olsen and Scherr (or any other transfer who might be interested) chose Iowa....despite asking dozens of times, I've never gotten a straight answer on how an extra scholarship would work, but everyone seemed to believe it would be quite easy for Clark to come back for a 5th year even when we had 15 spots accounted for next year already. So does that logic still hold?
We're in a different place than last year, I think, because Bluder proved to a lot of naysayers that she could succeed again with new players. Syd and Hannah are not only great ambassadors but great representatives of what Bluder can do with talent. Not saying either visitor this week is a sure thing, but I think that Iowa proved a lot this year. Back to Back Final Fours and a B1G 3-Peat are highly impressive. Bluder rose to the challenge presented and exceeded expectations (again).
For Scherr especially, who saw Bluder go to the Elite 8 under a completely different starting 5 when she was a senior in HS, I would think the continued success would signal a lot of positive things about the program as well as Bluder's coaching. Bluder won't have to spend these visits introducing/selling her program the way other coaches whom they've had little exposure to might have to. It's the last go-around for both Scherr and Olsen, neither wants to take a gamble. They want consistency and they want to contribute.
Also -- different subject. Remember last year around this time (after the Final Four run but before Shateah entered the portal), when the Swarm CEO mentioned that there were definitely *ways* to pay for a 16th scholarship if no one left the program but an inbound transfer was interested? And he mentioned possible donors (plural) who were particularly interested in supporting WBB to keep momentum going?
I wonder if those possible donors are still around and if those *ways* still exist if, say, both Olsen and Scherr (or any other transfer who might be interested) chose Iowa....despite asking dozens of times, I've never gotten a straight answer on how an extra scholarship would work, but everyone seemed to believe it would be quite easy for Clark to come back for a 5th year even when we had 15 spots accounted for next year already. So does that logic still hold?
Last edited:
To your last point we can only carry 15 rostered players. There’s effectively no such thing as a walk on for WBB unless a school decides they don’t want to pay for a scholarship for one of their 15 players.
That was my belief all season with regard to Clark's fifth year. All 15 spots were allotted for next year when Guyton committed (but only until Sharon announced that she had graduated). So I brought this up so many times here, on Twitter, on Reddit, everytime her 5th year came up. I'd say "There are no roster spots available" but everyone just told me there'd have to be a way, Bluder could surely figure it out, it's been done before, etc. (of course I asked for an example but only got crickets).
I even reached out to a PGH Evaluator I follow on X and he said there would be a way, but it'd be complicated. I'm just curious why everyone was convinced of this then but now it's not really an option.
The publicity Clark is getting pre draft is such a positive for the program. With so many kids trying to build their "brand" the staff can certainly sell they have experience in helping someone do that.. Being on SNL & having some of your teammates get screen time, pictures out in NYC at Ryan Goslings after party, #1 pick in the WNBA draft...Iowa WBB is at its peak in terms of visibility
The find a way thing was always around convincing a lesser player to leave or getting Ava to medically retire.
As it turned out Sharon Goodman retired early but Clark chose to leave on time too. So we have one open spot currently.
Again I agree with you that the math is math, so I'm not really calling you out so much as the probably 10+ people on here (and more elsewhere) who replied with things like "It's been done before" and "there are ways around it" and "it's possible but complicated."
Also I just found that interview from last year: "The Iowa women’s basketball team currently has no scholarships available for next season, but Heinrichs said NIL money could be used to pay for a player that wants to transfer to Iowa...Heinrichs said NIL money could be used to help Betts pay for her tuition and room and board."
I didn't buy any of those theories at the time, I'm just curious why we haven't heard that same theory now or from any of those people yet. Maybe I just want those people to admit I was right haha. Or maybe they've moved on and are back on the MBB threads. But was Heinrichs just full of smoke?
Also *CRINGING SO HARD* at the mere mention of Betts lmao who clearly NEVER had an inkling of interest in Iowa.
Last edited:
It is a bit funny that you identified as the fetishist I described, and jumped in to defend yourself from that admission.
Last edited:
Any chance we recruit both these players? Just interested in opinions. I understand there's probably one scholarship to burn, but I liked both highlight videos.
ESPN has revised their Top 25 portal rankings. Michigan’s Phelia (7) and Maryland’s Nelson (13) are the only outbound B1G transfers mentioned (Haggeman to my surprise did not make the cut), and Chance Gray (22) is the only inbound B1G transfer ranked. Highlights below:
I’m still wondering if (and why) Iowa isn’t casting a wider net / hoping there are more irons in the fire than we know.
- 5. Lucy Olsen, 5-9, G, Jr., Villanova Wildcats: Only Caitlin Clark and JuJu Watkins averaged more points per game this season than Olsen. After the departure of Maddy Siegrist, Olsen thrived as the Wildcats' new go-to player, jumping from 12.4 to 23.2 points per game and earning Big East most improved player honors. She also led the conference in minutes played and started all 105 of Villanova's games over the past three seasons
- 20. Maddie Scherr, 5-10, G, Sr., Kentucky Wildcats: An injury cost Scherr the SEC tournament, and the coaching move prompted her to move on from Lexington. Her 12.5 points per game were a career high, but turnovers were on the rise as Scherr's shooting percentage dropped. Her versatility could make her a high-end third or fourth guard for a top-25 team. The Kentucky native began her career with two years at Oregon before her two with the Wildcats.
I’m still wondering if (and why) Iowa isn’t casting a wider net / hoping there are more irons in the fire than we know.
Last edited:
I am very attracted to whoever is giving Hannah the passes she needs to be a first team All American next year.
Meaningless basically but this account has shared their methodology to their rankings and I can respect it on a surface level at least.
Just my 2 cents here. As w/most Iowa programs, we really do seem to run it like a family. Now the day might come when we get 3-4 transfers, but that's just not Bluder's style, right or wrong. I believe someone in an earlier post said something about these last 2 years could be viewed as a flash in the pan moment by recruits. We've been good for a long time. Elite? no. The last 2 years? Yes. And we've had an elite 8 w/Megan. I"m just guessing as I can't google the answer but I'd guess we're top 10 in wins over the last 5 years. Maybe better. Now I know there's a lot that goes into transfers, and of course NIL will be up there. However, if Olsen can come in and average 25 pts a game at Iowa like CC and get a lot of publicity against highly ranked teams, her exposure for the draft would be big. I think it's the perfect fit.
I just think we’re more likely to land neither than both. Crazy to me to put all your eggs in two baskets when both are in such high demand. But only Bluder knows the calculus behind the decisions, so I just have to trust the process.
So appreciating a cute or beautiful lady is idiotic? Unless you are referring to the 'filly' comment, and then you are just ignoring the expression.
Is Scherr in high demand? She's been in the portal nearly a month and Iowa is her first known visit. I haven't seen her linked to anyone else recently. It's possible her remaining at Kentucky is still in play, but even so Iowa seems to be on a very short list.
Many schools have reportedly reached out to Olsen, but the only known visits she had scheduled were Iowa and Maryland, and the Maryland visit is reportedly not happening now.
One interpretation of Iowa only targeting Olsen and Scherr is they feel very confident that they'll land one of the two.
No. in my opinion, you wait till Olson visits first. Players are known to give silent commits you know.😉
I agree with another posters comment and that is we need points. I want Olsen.
Olsen is definitely quick, very good dribbler, and shooter as all those shots are in one game.
You can see as she is driving about the lane she is also looking to pass and looking off defenders
All 3 programs need a PG. Frese is certainly going to sell her track record with getting kids ready for the W. LSU is gonna offer her 6 figures.
Does LSU really have that kind of money in the NIL for womens bball? I have no idea, just asking.
They reportedly offered six figures to Aneesah Morrow. A leaked screenshot of an offer to Joyce Edwards had a lot than that in $$, perks, and (lack of) academic requirements. I think they're by far the exception to the rule though.
Last edited:
I'm glad we aren't casting a wider net. There aren't too many PGs out there with one year of eligibility remaining who would truly move the needle for us. If we don't land our top target(s) I'd rather prioritize developing the freshmen and approach the PG duties by committee as opposed bringing in someone who's nominally a ball handler but doesn't really raise our ceiling for next season.
I also feel that having an established core works in our favor. We can tell a potential transfer (Olsen), "We want YOU because YOU alone are the missing piece." Very different than offering every decent player in the portal because you're (desperately) trying to piece together an entire roster.
I also feel that having an established core works in our favor. We can tell a potential transfer (Olsen), "We want YOU because YOU alone are the missing piece." Very different than offering every decent player in the portal because you're (desperately) trying to piece together an entire roster.
If you can’t tell the difference between saying someone is “cute” or “pretty” and saying they are a “fine looking filly”, you definitely shouldn’t comment on their looks. Although I’d argue we should all just refrain from commenting on athletes’ looks, whether it’s intended as a compliment or not.
Yes that’s exactly what I’m talking about lol. Braydon said she reportedly canceled her MD visit, I was saying I read it was just pushed back and not canceled.
I was only meaning to say that the original Monday visit was cancelled due to a scheduling conflict. Not that it wouldn't be rescheduled. I still haven't seen that it was rescheduled, though.
Interesting take. And you may be right. But I've been thinking the opposite, hoping we have identified a 3rd candidate who can help next year at the point, if we strike out on Olsen and Scherr, as is very possible. A couple of things go into my thinking.
First, I am a bit of skeptic about Taylor Stremlow helping as a freshman. The descriptions of her game that I have seen tend to sound like the end of a sentence that begins with, "while she may be slow . . ." Slow at the point in an increasingly athletic BIG is not a way to overachieve next season. Hope my skepticism turns out to be unfounded.
Second, the more Iowa steps back next season the harder it will be for Iowa to convince '26 recruits, portal targets next year and potentially late-deciding '25 recruits that Iowa is here to stay. Bluder, Jensen & staff are not natural great recruiters. Instead, they need every bit of ammunition they can get, including an over-achieving tourney-bound team next season.
Certainly agree about the urgency of performing in '24-'25 season, but also believe that unless you find a player that is going to truly move the team forward, you then risk bringing in a player that only limits the growth of the recruits and younger players already on the team. At a point going down the portal list that balance has to be weighed carefully.
For now, you can only schedule so many players to come in on a given week, so really it's probably best to bring in your top priority offers and let them know YOU are the player/s Iowa wants. That's a powerful thing. It's good to be wanted. (Nevermind that it looks like the perfect situation for the players on deck.)
