I agree with this, especially in the transfer portal era. One of Fran's weaknesses was hanging on to players, who were very unlikely to make regular contributions, instead of filling those spots with players who had potential to develop.
Kingsbury gone
- Thread starter WestCoastHawkI
- Start date
Iowa has money to pay now.
Getting out bid is always a possibility no matter what.
There's a much higher likelihood of retaining a guy who is already on your team than getting the type player in freeangency. Especially if the coach has helped you get better. See Stirtz as an example. He could have chased money.
Ben has articulated this so I'm just repeating his idea.
its also nice to see a coach trying. lol
It’s a two way street then, don’t be pissed at any player who decides to transfer for opts for surgery in the middle of the season. If it’s every man for himself then have fun with that. Then we don’t have a team, we have individuals.
That could be but that’s been his life for four years, so he seems to have been ok with it. Although maybe it was time to leave since all his friends are gone.
We're there already. That said, when a coaching change is made some turnover is always expected. All situations are not the same.
I liked what little I saw of the kid. I mean he played hard and did his best. But if we're lamenting the loss of Mr. Kingsbury, we're in big trouble.
I hope he finds a nice program where he can play and have fun, but hitting the portal is the best thing for him and for Iowa.
I've said this before, and I know some disagree. For me its the same thing for the men and for Jan. The issue is that it makes no sense having guys, (or gals) on the roster that after a couple of years you don't think they'll EVER be in the rotation. Mulvey having to redshirt in year three. While I understand that players 10-13 or 15 aren't going to play on a game by game basis, they should be who your developing to eventually ACTUALLY play. I mean why in the Hell give someone a scholarship, have them on the team for several years, and then just have them hang with the team, if you don't think their ever going to play. Not developing the back end of the roster leads to Fran giving guys like Ash and Kingsbury scholarships as "atta boy rewards" but neither were B1G caliber players. Its the same issue with the women. Right now we have a roster made up mostly of last years freshman but theres no depth in the program. Its great that Jan and Lisa wanted to develop their players from within, but when you haven't been developing the back part of the roster, now she's stuck REALLY needing to bring in 2-3 players to have a functional roster. How will this team look next season if she doesn't land a couple of power conference level players?
Sometimes there's more than just who gets to play when it comes to a team sport. If you value a player only on their playing minutes, then you'll never see value in the bench.
In high school. The truth is this is now BIG business. Coaches make millions, players are making REAL money. So here's the question. Are the Iowa Hawkeyes, (lets say the women because they've been on the threshold of great things), going to continue to be " a player"? Do you really think top 5 programs have room on their roster for "feel good stories" or "hostesses"? Is it. or is it not the job of said highly paid coach and her staff to develop a roster, top to bottom, and to develop "the bench" to eventually bring something to the mix, on the court? I'm ALL for valuing players on and off the court, BUT they're there to play basketball for the University, and are now getting paid to boot. They aren't there to be buddies for the girls who actually play. It would be interesting what the last 4 or 5 girls on the team even do, considering the regular players actually practice against the male managers, and not the bench players. The guys even travel on the road with them to practice. Its been wonderful being the "Iowa feel good story" where everyone is valued the last two years. Do you know why that happened? Because we had the best player who ever played to pull their butts out of the fire whenever needed. She's not here now, and unless we find that next "it" girl if its Deal or whomever we'll need a much more complete roster to make up for that one great player. That includes developing more depth to avoid massive one year turnover.
Read the post below this one you posted.
That’s the correct answer.
The game has changed. Literally. It sucks ass. I’m losing interest by the minute in college sports.
But the game has changed. Scrubs that are friends are major dead weight to a roster as compared to whatever value they bring as friends to the starters.
The game has permanently changed. And forever ruined.
I've been skimming through this and unless I missed it, I still haven't seen the most obvious question answered or even asked... Did he simply graduate? I know it seems bizarre as it further becomes a professional sport, but it is still college. Like you said he was in school 4 years so he should academically be a senior...
It's really not an uncommon occurrence to get your degree and then take advantage of a free year to go to a smaller D1 school and actually be a starting player to finish your playing days before starting your working life.
Pretty much all the walk-ons of recent days at Iowa that went on scholarship were only for a year because one was open and they were going to graduate anyways and it was a reward.
Similar threads
